Scanning B&W

[NickR]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Peter, I use vuescan with my Minolta film scanner. The more information you gather during the scan the better but with the penalty of a bigger file. That's why for B&W silver base use, I scan in 16 bit grayscale and if I see something I really like I'll go back and do a 48 bit rgb. Note though, that as you scan at higher res.'s the resultant scans might not look as well as those done at a lower resolution. I find that right-out-of-the-box scans set on auto with high res will tend to look flat. As you push your scanner to higher res, you have to start using the advanced settings in your scanning software. As you learn the controls, you'll soon surpass the look of the lower res scans.

[jaapv]

And you never ever do any Post Processing on your DSLR digital files so now you are on easy street. Am I correct?

 

Stay there! Leave us alone please.

 

Sorry. no can do, I shoot too much film for that as well...No DSLR either I fear....Just an M3, some Kodachrome,a Minolta 5400 and a couple of M8's:o So no, you are not correct;)

But I find I only resort to scanning in few instances. It takes ages, and far more post-processing than creating the digital file directly. Projecting slides or making chemical prints ,now, that is another story.

[peter55]

Understood and I appologize as I mistook you for the kind of poster who drops in and makes some kind of quick comment and then is never heard from again.

 

Hopefully I will get my darkroom set up.

[peter55]

Peter, I use vuescan with my Minolta film scanner. The more information you gather during the scan the better but with the penalty of a bigger file. That's why for B&W silver base use, I scan in 16 bit grayscale and if I see something I really like I'll go back and do a 48 bit rgb. Note though, that as you scan at higher res.'s the resultant scans might not look as well as those done at a lower resolution. I find that right-out-of-the-box scans set on auto with high res will tend to look flat. As you push your scanner to higher res, you have to start using the advanced settings in your scanning software. As you learn the controls, you'll soon surpass the look of the lower res scans.

 

Please explain higher res scans. I understand my scannere does indeed have an optical resolution of 7200 dpi. But I always thought 300 dpi is allyou need. I do scan at 600 dpi at 8" x 10" output and even 2400 dpi at13 " x 19" output. I always thought the 7200 dpi was way overkill.

 

I also use the advanced controls but not all of them and not all the time. I feel I can do PP in photoshop if ever I need to make additional adjustments.

 

Please help me to understand your post.

 

That is if I am the Peter to whom you are speaking with.

[jaapv]

Understood and I appologize as I mistook you for the kind of poster who drops in and makes some kind of quick comment and then is never heard from again.

 

Hopefully I will get my darkroom set up.

 

No apology needed, as a matter of fact this exchange crystallized something I have been brooding on for a while. The thing about processing files digitally, be they from a sensor or one step removed by scanning film is that it gives the photographer,in particular the colour photographer back the control taken from him by commercial processing. Making B&W prints, of even prints from slides is perfectly doable, and as our friend Vic Vic explains in another thread the only way to go with classical photography, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I would like to add that any photography can only be fully judged from prints and to a very limited extent from a monitor, digital or film equally. Unfortunately making prints from colour negatives, I can assure you as one who has done too much of that, is a pain in the blunt end. So the advantage of scanning film and then postprocessing is a matter of retaining control over the end result, but no longer a noble process. As such it is not superior to skipping the first chemical stage, i.e. the film and moving on immediately to the second stage and capturing the image directly on sensor. The rest of the process is identical. Thus sensor photography is more pure than film-and-scan. The two main streams in photography, to my mind, are either the wholly chemical process or the wholly digital process. Scanning is a temporary hybrid process with a few practical advantages for photographers that are for the moment unwilling or for various considerations (financial, esthetic,need to publish on the internet,only practical way of printing,not willing to choose yet, whatever) unable to subscribe completely to the logical consequences of the advent of a new branch of the art of creating images.

[rob_x2004]

Peter there are a couple of things you need to come to terms with.

 

Easiest if you put a neg in the scanner then change the scan settings, and look at your scanners interface, somewhere it will give you the resultant file size.

For example if I scan at 1350dpi the resultant file size will be 15MB, if I scan at 5400dpi the resultant file size will be 242MB. On the minolta that can be seen here;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I dont know your scanner or software, so I cant show you a picture of it. There is a mathematical relationship, dont worry about it now, just toggle through the settings and work out the trends.

 

The big hole in your understanding is in the dpi thing, and the input and output resolutions. When you toggle through the scanner settings for the input resolution you will see the "file size" change. When you adjust the output resolution you will see the apparent "paper size" change but not the file size.

 

You might find you are only able to change the output resolution if you change the "units" from pixels to a physical size, like mm, cm, inch, pica, point.

 

In aside I dont know what you understand about resampling and resizing for posting your images, but by the sound of it you use a generic setting of "post for the web" rather than actually dial in the properties you want. Sticky practice to get in to.

 

Its about time you fathomed file size and physical size are not directly related and can be controlled independently. For in here at the Leica Forum, you can set your image size to 900x540 pixels, and land the file size right on 230KB by applying the appropriate compression.

 

If you havent yet really got the handle on your editing software it is worthwhile creating smaller files sizes so that you can experiment with editing without exceeding the resources of and locking up your computer. But there is a lot less editing required to bring a large file up to an acceptable viewing or printing standard.

 

For web wiewing you should really do a lot of your editing in the final viewed size, that way your changes are "what you see is what you get". For printing it is another story. Generally you should stay with your largest file size. What people gloss over though, is that when you actually send teh file to print, your printers algorithms resample the file to fit it to the paper, so when yo are editing, you are not quite working what you see it what you get. This seems lost on most printing discussions, and people just get a feel for what gets printed from their printer when it looks like that on the screen.

[rob_x2004]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Peter, I use vuescan with my Minolta film scanner. The more information you gather during the scan the better but with the penalty of a bigger file. That's why for B&W silver base use, I scan in 16 bit grayscale and if I see something I really like I'll go back and do a 48 bit rgb. Note though, that as you scan at higher res.'s the resultant scans might not look as well as those done at a lower resolution. I find that right-out-of-the-box scans set on auto with high res will tend to look flat. As you push your scanner to higher res, you have to start using the advanced settings in your scanning software. As you learn the controls, you'll soon surpass the look of the lower res scans.

 

Nick I hear what you are saying, but I am finding that for silver base film, if it is level of detail I am looking for often the 8bit greyscale scan will trump 3x16 or 48bit rgb, and by a damn long way.

 

For smooth even surfaces I think people get confused with the nicer warmer look provided by the RGB scan and, because thte RGB has a much larger file size they think it is a much better scan. It isnt or not necessarily. That is why I scanned the german shepherd on the grass against the trees. Have a look at the images I posted and run your mouse over them and note the file sizes of the crops, and the apparent level of detail. Remember too, these are crops unedited, they arent as I would post or print.

 

Generally I have seen in Vics work, nice warm tones and a really good looking image, but definitely not a lot of fine detail. Another member posted a long to Tmax400? shots exposed at night at 160iso, well the comment ditto.

 

I dont know whether it is just minolta had their software worked out differently to anyone else. I dont knkow my observation would hold for a Nikon scanner, but I reckon they would.

[Guest stnami]

Scanning is a temporary hybrid process with a few practical advantages,,,,,,,

......... maybe but the advantages have a heap of spunk to them. I can physically make changes to the emulsion and these don't sit on the surface as digital changes do. Matbe temporary to you but not all..........................

[charlesphoto99]

Scanning is a temporary hybrid process with a few practical advantages for photographers that are for the moment unwilling or for various considerations (financial, esthetic,need to publish on the internet,only practical way of printing,not willing to choose yet, whatever) unable to subscribe completely to the logical consequences of the advent of a new branch of the art of creating images.

 

B@llsh*t. The reason I own a $10k Imacon scanner (and an M8, D200 not to mention even more film cameras) is because film has it's own special look and feel. I have editors request I shoot film. I also have my archives of over 25 years of film shooting and have recently decided, reluctantly, to divest myself of a darkroom due to health and enviromental reasons. Also because only now do inkjet prints start to come close to fiber prints.

 

Yes, digital capture has a place, and more and more so in my life, esp with the release of the M8. I just did a ten page essay in a local magazine with the M8 - worked great. Did a 6day promo shoot for Adobe Lightroom with the D200. Worked great. But I can tell you, I'll be shooting film at the birth of my first child. And will relish all the time in the world it takes to scan it (a lot less time on the Imacon fortunately!)

 

Oh, and my workflow for b&w film is (color neg similiar):

 

processed at local pro lab.

 

make proof sheets at friend's darkroom (if no budget for lab proofing)

 

scan at 16bit grayscale on the Imacon size depending on output (adobe rgb for color)

convert to gamma 2.2 grayscale space (matches adobe rgb gamma so if I need to convert to adobe rgb less degradation) in CS3 and then do all neccessary curves, levels, spotting, and dodge and burning (usually with brush in a softlight adjustment layer)

 

sharpen with Photokit both at capture and output (usually dial down a bit though)

 

print on Epson 4800 using Imageprint RIP to Crane Silver Rag.

 

For digital capture raw correction first in LR, then use Alien Skin in CS3 for both color and b&w. Usually dialed down quite a bit.

[tobey bilek]

KM software. Black/white mode. Pick resolution and file size. Hit start. Thats all there is too it.

 

Keep the neg contrast low so it prints on #2 paper with a condenser enlarger.

 

Change to RGB mode in CS2 if you go into photoshop.

[rob_x2004]

my workflow for b&w film is (color neg similiar):

 

....scan at 16bit grayscale on the Imacon size depending on output (adobe rgb for color)

convert to gamma 2.2 grayscale space

 

Cool..thanks.

[peter55]

Hello again.

I'm getting confused because there is more than one Peter posting here on this thread and he was here first.

Also I don't know you guy's yet.

 

Anyway Yes I do look at the file size. On my Plustek OpticFilm 7200 dedicated film scanner which uses SilverFast. If I scan 300dpi at a larger output size like 8 x 10 then it's similar to scanning 600 dpi at output size of 4 x 6. As far as file size.

 

When I scan at 2400 dpi for 4" x 6" the file size is similar to 600 dpi at 13" x 19".

I still some times scan at 2400 dpi for output size 13" x 19" but only if I really like the image.

 

I shoot film and digital and I'm happy with both. For a Wedding of other event I prefer film.

 

For just study type still images I like both film and digital. By study type stills I mean when a light or texture or form or assembly of objects catch my eye, just as when I would draw them on paper with a pencil. Only now I use the camera machine to capture the image of what caught my eye.

I like my M5 and Summilux because they are all manual devices. I especially like the rubberized cloth shutter "snik" sound and I don't miss the mirror slap of my all manual film slr's. But I like them and their lenses too! I find rangefinder focusing just as easy as split screen.

My 3 Canon dslr's allow me to use my 800mm f/5.6 and 500mm f/4.5 Sigma "film only" lenses at wide open aperture only. One of my 3 My Canon film camera's, the EOS 1-V allows these lenses to be used at any apeture. The birds don't seem to notice the mirror slap. People do. So my people machine is the M5.

Film and scanning for me is not a temporary bridge to digtal cameras. It's a different medium that allows me to use all mechanical machine cameras. But then I do have a Pentax K100D and many K mount and a couple of M42 Screw mount lenses and if I set that dslr to M and use these lenses I have an all manual dslr.

I just like all manual cameras as they make me think and this helps me to feel the moment.

Film slows me down and makes me think as I feelfilmis precius and that scanning takes time and effort soI don't just shoot as much film as I do DSLR as far as total numbers go. But I can and do shoot a roll a day or even 2 or three rolls of film a day every few weeks.

[Guest stnami]

I still some times scan at 2400 dpi for output size 13" x 19" but only if I really like the image

.............. bit of a overkill, not may printers understand that output

[imported_peter_m]

Hi Peter,

 

Looks like there is just two of us so far

 

I think you are getting confused with input resolution and output resolution.

 

The input is the resolution the scanner will read the film. Say 4000 ppi on some scanners there is a variable option where you can scan at different input resolution without interpolation on others if you go less then the scanners resolution it will be interpolated and you degrade quality. Probably not to noticeable on many of the better scanners.

 

The output resolution specifies how many ppi are in one inch of printed image. The way I understand for the better inkjet printers anything from 300 to 360 ppi will give excellent results anything higher will be overkill.

 

Peter

 

 

Hello again.

I'm getting confused because there is more than one Peter posting here on this thread and he was here first.

Also I don't know you guy's yet.

 

[imported_peter_m]

Thank you Charles,

 

This is pretty well what I been doing.

 

Peter

 

 

Oh, and my workflow for b&w film is (color neg similiar):

 

processed at local pro lab.

 

make proof sheets at friend's darkroom (if no budget for lab proofing)

 

scan at 16bit grayscale on the Imacon size depending on output (adobe rgb for color)

convert to gamma 2.2 grayscale space (matches adobe rgb gamma so if I need to convert to adobe rgb less degradation) in CS3 and then do all neccessary curves, levels, spotting, and dodge and burning (usually with brush in a softlight adjustment layer)

 

[rob_x2004]

.............. bit of a overkill, not may printers understand that output

 

Sure they do...they just change it into the same thing as a 13x at 600dpi. Still like to give silverfast a go.

[rob_x2004]

Its funny how quick you run out of the scanners rated dpi resolution when you start spreading them out from that little inch by 1.4 inch negative;).

[imported_peter_m]

Just need bigger negative and bigger scanner

 

 

maybe a bigger wallet to

[Jamie Roberts]

{Snipped}print on Epson 4800 using Imageprint RIP to Crane Silver Rag.

 

For digital capture raw correction first in LR, then use Alien Skin in CS3 for both color and b&w. Usually dialed down quite a bit.

 

Except for the fact you own an Imacon and I don't, we have very similar perspectives and workflows

 

But assuming I have a good scan, I'm curious about your printing method. I use a 4000 with Image Print, and have just relegated it to rolls of canvas. I picked up a 3800 to print that Crane silver rag and the H. Fine Art Pearl (and I was talking to the Moab president and they have a fiber-like pearl paper coming too--different that the others).

 

Anyway, do you find you still need ImagePrint with the K3 inks? Just curious. I love it, but I heard the new Epson drivers were just as good....

 

Agreed completely on the Alien Skin stuff. It's very, very good.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NickR]

Peter, I don't think in terms of dpi or ppi. Those terms are really only applicable to the printing process. When viewing on a monitor or scanning, I think in terms of total pixels. You have only so many total pixels at the time of scanning. That's where the information is -in the pixels. Don't be confused by software that interpolates adding or subtracting pixels as you change the image size. Think in terms of the scan size, 8 bit; 16 bit; 24 bit; etc.. The bigger the number the more the info. Whether you can usefully use all that info is a another subject. In any case, whatever size image you eventually print is a different matter and that's where dpi is important.

 

Rob, I just got my computer and scanner working again after a long series of problems. I'm going to go back and rescan some tmax I originally scanned at 16 bit greyscale at 48 bits and see if there's a useful difference.