Scanned B&W Workflow

[rob_x2004]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Depends on the scanner and software. Some people like to scan as a colour and then desaturate or drop channels. Ive always found that scanning as b&w always picks up more detail and range, probably something to do with the manufacturers understanding of their product and how to get the most from it. I still use a colour output space, 24 or 48, because it suits my editing.

[jplomley]

This is great feedback everyone.

 

I scan as a color positive in 16-bit aRGB mode and then invert the image in PS. I apply levels to expand the histogram (since it is compressed/flat when neg film is scanned as a positive, but there are no blown highlights and the shadow detail is very good; i.e. all the information is there). I then convert to GS and apply an ICC tag using between a 20-30% dot gain. This increases density and moderates exposure (scans are always light when a neg is scanned as a positive) At this point, absolutely nothing has been done to the pixels, so there is no noise pick-up, but the histogram has been optimized as well as the density by judicious selection of dot gain. Next I convert back to aRGB, and apply a moderate S-curve to aid with mid-tone contrast. This must be done carefully or else you will start to see noise/grain rear its ugly head. Finally, I sharpen using either high pass with a clipping curve to control highlights and shadows, or I will use USM, but with a low radius (10-20) and high amount (60-80) with a threshold between 1-3. Again, with a low amount, noise/grain is well controlled and essentially all that is being controlled is macro-contrast. Throughout this process I will also visit some of the features in ACR such as Clarity (HIRALOAM) and the Black density slider, or I will use Selective Color and add 3-5% K to my neutrals, or if I can't bring the highlights down with the shadow/highlight command I will add 3-5% K and 1% Y to my whites using selective color again. But these additional stages are really image dependent.

 

Hope some of this makes sense.

Edited April 19, 2009 by jplomley

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[antistatic]

Jeff, just as an aside, I just checked out your site. Impressive stuff.

[tobey bilek]

That image under the bridge proves nothing. The shadowed underside of the bridge is a low contrast subject I can scan capture. What I can not capture is a full tone subject with detailed blacks and detailed whites and hold full tones in both ends.

 

My full tonal range negs will print on a Focomat IC on #2 paper just like my tri x and Delta 100, I use a standardised test subject for all films so the negative is the correct for printing. The highlights block in Plus x scans. I have tried to use it because I like Plus X, have tried different dilutions and developers and reduced times in developer and simply can not get what other films achieve.

 

I must admit to being very fussy. People with less demanding standards will think it is fine.

[antistatic]

People with less demanding standards will think it is fine.

 

That must be me then

 

I wish you well in your quest for perfection.

[jplomley]

David, thank-you kindly for taking the time to visit the website. Much appreciated. Fifty new images and additional galleries will be added by end of the month, so please do check back.

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have just tried the "Jeff" method of scanning a Tri-X negative and just can't get a decent looking image out of it, whereas I can with my usual method.

 

So, as with most things, YMMV

 

All good fun.

[jplomley]

Andy, that's very interesting indeed. Could you post the results, and perhaps divulge some details concerning your workflow. I think you have touched on a very critical factor here, and that is that the film-development chemistry-scanner-PS process is a chain that needs to be optimized.

 

What I have described above works very well for TMAX-400 (TMY-2) developed in straight XTOL as per Kodak's tech publication.

[rob_x2004]

...I scan as a color positive in 16-bit aRGB mode and then invert ...

 

KM5400ii native software here and I found the same as Andy. Mainly I find resolution dropped for some reason and shadows blocked up, maybe there is an orange mask compensation or something. Posted results years ago I think when Vic vic was pushing the same route as you are using. He might be a good source of info for you.

 

The biggest single improvement I find in my scanning is the number of passes, up to four, then up to sixteen times which probably has some effect but it is probably subtle and masked by the algorithms of any following application such as photoshop or print send programmes.

 

Your routine would only be for prints wouldnt it? For web posting in any resolution there seems to be a bit of stuff out of sequence?

[jplomley]

Cheers Rob...clearly the Nikon and Minolta scanners differ significantly when running a color positive scan on a B&W neg. This is normal procedure for Nikon and Imacon scanners. There are no blocked shadows nor blown highlights, that is the entire purpose of running it in this fashion. Steve Schaub (Figital Revolution, world renown fine-art printer) runs an Imacon in this exact manner as well.

 

Concerning multi-sampling, I run 8x on the Nikons...I have seen no benefit at 16x other than having to wait additional time.

 

My routine is in fact for printing. Some of the "inky blacks" I post on the web would just pool miserably on the surface of an inkjet print

[rob_x2004]

Will have another look at it sometime soon. I had a fairly detailed look at it a couple of years back scanning different resolutions and passes over a whole range of exposure conditions. (Though related, this was a very separate exercise to finding the optimum negative with respect to exposure and development.) While you might expect colour positive to be the nearest thing to a raw file I am not sure the KM isnt tweaked, to extract slightly differently in colour positive/negative and silver based, before it even writes to file. Who knows, I doubt anyone outside their scanner designers would be able to comment definitively.

[Three Wheels]

I have no problem getting a wide tonal range from my b&w film, scanned on a Coolscan V..

 

What b+w film specifically, please?

 

I read these b+w scanning threads avidly, mostly to either confirm or refute my choices, but the variables can frustrate directly learning from others' experiences: film, developer, scanner, software and methodology, technical skill, eye and expectations of the photographer, and so forth.

 

I remember in the mid-'90s that Ilford marketed their new films as matching their existing papers particularly well (or existing films matching their new papers or some combination therof). I'd never given the necessity of curve-matching much thought before that but now I wonder if we oughtn't be talking a lot, lot, lot more about curves when it comes to making our scans look good.

 

Scanners and PS are such amazing tools (just look at the OP's site) but we've lost the benefit of Kodak's and Ilford's and Agfa's scientists who worked hard to ensure that their films and papers worked well together, delivering - in skilled hands - beautiful tones.

 

Another trip down memory lane,

---Peter

[andybarton]

Tri-X, Delta 100, Pan F mostly. Some Acros too.

 

I use a Coolscan V, with Vuescan software

[jplomley]

Thanks Andy. I have Vuescan as well...I will see how the same B&W neg scans as a positive using this third party app vs NikonScan. Therein could lie the rub.

[Guest Bernd Banken]

Thanks Andy. I have Vuescan as well...I will see how the same B&W neg scans as a positive using this third party app vs NikonScan. Therein could lie the rub.

 

Some hints for Vuescan:

 

Flickr: Discussing VueScan lock exposure tutorial in I Shoot Film

[stunsworth]

I once asked Ed Hamrick, the author of Vuescan, would he offer an option to scan as a positive and then invert automatically. His response was no, because that what the scanner did anyway.

[jplomley]

Steve, if that is indeed the case, then after NikonScan inverts the image, it is completely misinterpretating the histogram and consistently clips the highlights.

[tgray]

I use a Nikon Coolscan and Vuescan for my B&W negatives. I tried it and found absolutely no reason to do the whole scan as a positive and invert in photoshop thing. If I set my white and black points wide enough (as wide as they'll go), I got nice flat scans that a preset of levels and curves adjustments makes look pretty good with my standard Tri-X + XTOL negs. These negs by the way print in the darkroom pretty good at grade 2.5 ± .5.

 

I did however find that my scans were a bit sharper if I had Vuescan make gray from one channel (I think blue?) instead of automatic. One way to determine this is two scan as a color negative, and then inspect each channel individually in photoshop.

[Don'tknowmuch]

I've read through all the above and although I already realised I've a lot to learn about my new Coolscan 5000, I now see that I've more to learn than I thought! (Incidentally I scan B+W negs as 16 bit colour negs and simply change to greyscale in Photoshop. I found this better than the Nikon software undertaking a B+W neg scan.)

However I wonder what some may think of my current practice of doing as little as possible with the options that present themselves once working in the digital domain? I realised I was begining to fiddle about so much with the post-scan data that I was losing the spontaneous feeling of having gone back to film. Obviously the full extension to this train of thought would be to get wet again, and I will I'm sure, but in the meantime I'm trying to avoid what I feel to be a bit of a trap by limiting my activities in the digital domain to the equivalent of just working with the exposure and contrast. I sometimes allow a bit of simple burning and dodging, but not much, and I try to do only what I imagine I might have been able to do in a darkroom. The emphasis is then back almost totally on getting the negs right in the first place, and then living with bare white windows in a darker room or blocked blacks etc. I find this more rewarding and more like I remembered when working with negs in an enlarger. The picture is more like I saw it when I took it even though I might be "throwing away" scanned information should I care to work at keeping it in.

I am noticing that the prints look nicer; more depth and more like a print from a wet darkroom where a bit of dodging and burning was more or less all that was possible beyond the overall exposure and choice of paper-contrast. This is clearly only my experience and is a reflection of my scanning practice, not what anyone else might be doing, but I wondered if anyone else also tried to limit their activities in the post-scan world? After a certain amount of digital fiddling does there almost come a point when one might as well have used a digital camera?

Jim.

 

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/jimsimon/

Edited April 21, 2009 by Don'tknowmuch

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Three Wheels]

. . . by limiting my activities in the digital domain to the equivalent of just working with the exposure and contrast. I sometimes allow a bit of simple burning and dodging' date=' but not much, and I try to do only what I imagine I might have been able to do in a darkroom. The emphasis is then back almost totally on getting the negs right in the first place, and then living with bare white windows in a darker room or blocked blacks etc. I find this more rewarding and more like I remembered when working with negs in an enlarger. The picture is more like I saw it when I took it even though I might be "throwing away" scanned information should I care to work at keeping it in.

I am noticing that the prints look nicer; more depth and more like a print from a wet darkroom where a bit of dodging and burning was more or less all that was possible beyond the overall exposure and choice of paper-contrast. [/quote']

 

I think the logic behind this is exactly what I was getting at in my previous post: proper exposure (LEVELS) and paper grade (pre-set CURVE) used to make gorgeous wet prints, thanks to the science built into the papers.

---Peter