Camera Obscura Posted January 1, 2008 Share #1 Posted January 1, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) So far I have mostly taken colour pictures and now just tried some B&W, an Ilford delta 100. When scanning with my Nikon Coolscan 5000 I however cannot get a result, ie when doing a preview using Neg Mono settings and all else the same as colour films I get an OK preview. When I go into scanning the picture however I get something like an "inverted" very poor scan that is basically useless. Anyone experienced the same and got any tips? What settings do I need to try for B&W? I thought it should be pretty straight forward?? Thanks in advance. By the way, Happy New Year to all Leica fans. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 1, 2008 Posted January 1, 2008 Hi Camera Obscura, Take a look here Scanning B&W films on Nikon Coolscan 5000. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
imported_peter_m Posted January 1, 2008 Share #2 Posted January 1, 2008 Hi John, Did you turn off Ice? Cant use it to scan traditional B&W film. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camera Obscura Posted January 1, 2008 Author Share #3 Posted January 1, 2008 Thanks Peter...You are the best! Switching off ICE worked. A little disappointed though since I will not be able to remove scratches...would have thought Nikon would have thought of this..... So I guess I will have to remove scratches in PS2 or iPhoto. Cheers, John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 1, 2008 Share #4 Posted January 1, 2008 ICE always has to be switched off when scanning silver based film as the silver particles interfere with the Infra Red light. It's not a Nikon thing, it's "physics". A couple of years ago we had a fantastic thread that lasted about six months whereby someone argued until he was blue in the face that it was impossible to scan silver based B&W film at all, something that is patently not true Have fun with your new scanner. I have the Coolscan V, and it makes excellent scans. If you process the film yourself, it's worth experimenting with cutting the development time by about 10% so that the negatives are slightly "thin" - they scan much better that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 1, 2008 Share #5 Posted January 1, 2008 John, there's nothing Nikon can do given the way that the dust correction works. Essentially the IR beam used by the scanner to detect dust sees the opaque film grains themselves as dust. The solution is to either be very careful with your negatives, or use a film such as XP2 which because it's based on colour film technology can be used with ICE. The downside for me is that I don't like the look of XP2, too clean and smooth, lacking sharpness. Dare one say too digital <grin>. If you use Photoshop and silver b&w films the spot healing brush is your friend <grin> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 1, 2008 Share #6 Posted January 1, 2008 A couple of years ago we had a fantastic thread that lasted about six months whereby someone argued until he was blue in the face that it was impossible to scan silver based B&W film at all, something that is patently not true Oh god Andy, don't remind me. As it turned out his reasoning was based on the fact that he couldn't see how it could be _theoretically_ possible together with a single frame of HP5 that a friend of his had once scanned - on a flat bed if I remember. He himself had never scanned a frame in his life, but that didn't stop him telling us repeatedly that it couldn't be done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted January 1, 2008 Share #7 Posted January 1, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Good old Helios- where is he now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 1, 2008 Share #8 Posted January 1, 2008 Probably being thrown off yet another photo forum... can't be many left (He wouldn't have lasted so long if I'd been a mod then ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camera Obscura Posted January 1, 2008 Author Share #9 Posted January 1, 2008 Thanks a lot guys. The tips have been very useful and scanning B&W is no longer an issue. I can touch up in iPhoto (easier and faster than PS2). It is great to see so fast and excellent response to such questions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuan Posted January 6, 2008 Share #10 Posted January 6, 2008 ICE always has to be switched off when scanning silver based film as the silver particles interfere with the Infra Red light. It's not a Nikon thing, it's "physics". A couple of years ago we had a fantastic thread that lasted about six months whereby someone argued until he was blue in the face that it was impossible to scan silver based B&W film at all, something that is patently not true Have fun with your new scanner. I have the Coolscan V, and it makes excellent scans. If you process the film yourself, it's worth experimenting with cutting the development time by about 10% so that the negatives are slightly "thin" - they scan much better that way. Hi andy, i noticed u have the same scanner which i have just bought. may i ask what settings u use when scanning bw 35mm negs? i primarily print them on my printer to not more than 6x6inches size. what resolution should i use for scanning? sorry for hijackng this thread. thanks for your input. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 7, 2008 Share #11 Posted January 7, 2008 I generally just scan them as B&W negatives using Vuescan. I do experiment with the different "film" options, though, as well as the alternative development options. I don't have a "one size fits all" solution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted January 7, 2008 Share #12 Posted January 7, 2008 The good thing about Helios was his advice was never wrong. Just that sometimes in life there is more than one right answer, degrees of best fit. Never knew him as well as you guys cause I cant sit still enough to read all those words.........Gee you guys have a robust sense of purpose and commitment. Dont know how you did it. I'm still hoping he makes a return to the M8 forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 8, 2008 Share #13 Posted January 8, 2008 The good thing about Helios was his advice was never wrong. I'm afraid it was, and the manner in which he put this across led to his demise, both here and elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbldwn Posted January 10, 2008 Share #14 Posted January 10, 2008 Helios was good enough to email me when I was asking the Forum for suggestions for low-light Black & White film. He even answered questions subsequently. His posts on the forum were huge. But the emails weren't a problem. He would use the word "impossible" in them when I expressed a preference for scanning over darkroom printing. However, it was always clear that he, like many on this forum today, saw such a huge quality improvement with darkroom prints he had great difficulty comprehending why anyone would do anything else but print in a darkroom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 10, 2008 Share #15 Posted January 10, 2008 Unfortunately, not many have the luxury of a darkroom, or the time to spend in it these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted January 10, 2008 Share #16 Posted January 10, 2008 I'd say a darkroom is better if you have a good enlarger like a Devere with cathomag head, print on good paper and obviously have the skill and patience to turn out a top quality FB print. Nothing touches a print produced in the manner above, no scanner, inkjet printer or most importantly paper can match the traditional FB print. But.... I mostly print digitally, scan on a film scanner, print on my Epson R2400 on good quality paper like Fotospeed EG (the closest I've come to FB) Like others here I've tested a lot of paper and found them to come far short of the quality of even an average FB print. Hahnemühle, Crane and most recently Harman have all proved VERY disappointing compared to my old Ilfobrom/Portriga/Record Rapid prints done 20+ years ago. There are a lot of 'snake oil' merchants in this game, that seem to be backed up by the photographic press 'looks like traditional FB' when it is all patently lies – for me that is the most disappointing part of digital printing (along with ink costs) Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasimir Posted January 11, 2008 Share #17 Posted January 11, 2008 Try to get You a Scanhancer Official Scanhancer Site Not as good as ICE, but works much better than without. Just make sure You start the scanner with the Scanhancer placed inside. The scanner has to calibrate this way. Otherwise You get some nasty streaks. Took me some time to find out... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 11, 2008 Share #18 Posted January 11, 2008 Mark - I totally agree with you! I constantly read the same sort of rubbish and have occassionally fallen for it, only to be grimly disappointed. About a year ago I threw out my (fully working) Epson printer - I don't remember the number, but it was one of their most expensive A4 models. Simply unplugged it and drove it around to the recycling center. Felt great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted January 11, 2008 Share #19 Posted January 11, 2008 Mani I'd love to do that, but I no longer have the space or time (3 Kids) for a wet darkroom. I can borrow one, when time allows and the prints I produce are much better than I can produce on any ink-jet paper even when custom profiled. What angers me is the rubbish written by those who should know better. Take the case in this months B&W Photography Magazine there is an article testing Harman paper by Les McLean called "living up to silver" where he states "the emerging print looked just like a flattened traditional unglazed glossy print" I use that paper and it is highly glossy, closer to a Cibachrome than an air dried FB paper. Makes me wonder if these people have ever printed a wet print before, if not they can be excused otherwise they are just being dishonest. The Harman Paper doesn't even remotely look like air dried FB, Fotospeed EG comes close but the Harman although a good paper looks more like Multigrade. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 11, 2008 Share #20 Posted January 11, 2008 What angers me is the rubbish written by those who should know better. Take the case in this months B&W Photography Magazine there is an article testing Harman paper by Les McLean called "living up to silver" where he states "the emerging print looked just like a flattened traditional unglazed glossy print" Mark Mark, the fact is they do know better. Les McLean is a good printer, a mediocre artist and a bull shitter par excellence. Those of us who've been around a long time have seen him lecture, had coffee with him and read 1,000 repetitive articles by him. But he's not a 'bad' guy and he's not on his own. These semi pro journalists get by because the fresh from college magazine editors, who last week were working on Camping and Caravan, haven't got the resources to find a fresh approach. It's quite unlikely that a journalist will jeopardise next month's assignment by trashing a product and upsetting the manufacturer. Les is a paid 'consultant' to Harman as well. That's why these pages are so good for balanced and honest, if not a little biased opinion. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.