Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2016/03/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Chris Like you, i have used Vuescan for years, but this was something different. As Richard suggests I think I was picking up the base colour (or color for you!). Gerry > On 17 Mar 2016, at 09:16, Christopher Crawford <chris at > chriscrawfordphoto.com> wrote: > > Gerry, > > I?ve used Vuescan for 13 years now. The low contrast results you are > getting are normal, you just have to do some curves adjustments in > Photoshop. The low-contrast scans are actually a good thing, if you?re > willing to do the work in PS to adjust the final tonality, because they > capture every bit of data in the neg without clipping. Even contrasty negs > scan well. > > Check out my Vuescan tutorial. There?s a written version and a YouTube > video if you like videos better. Here?s the link: > http://crawfordphotoschool.com/digital/scanning.php > > -- > Chris Crawford > Fine Art Photography > Fort Wayne, Indiana > 260-437-8990 > > http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio > > http://www.facebook.com/pages/Christopher-Crawford/48229272798 > Become a fan on Facebook > > > > On 3/17/16, 4:38 AM, "LUG on behalf of Gerry Walden" > <lug-bounces+chris=chriscrawfordphoto.com at leica-users.org on behalf of > gerry.walden at icloud.com> wrote: > >> Thank you Richard. I had just checked and come to that conclusion. At the >> moment I am shooting Fuji 400CN, and I am getting very poor scans through >> Vuescan with an overall lack of contrast which looks like fogging. >> Silverfast is doing a good job. >> >> Gerry >> >>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 08:35, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Silverfast does not scan as Raw, only Vuescan does, IIRC. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Gerry Walden <gerry.walden at >>> icloud.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Richard for your considered and informative answer. Now I >>>> understand. I am not sure Silverfast will scan as any raw format but I >>>> will >>>> carry on scanning as .tiff for now while I look at things. >>>> >>>> Gerry >>>> >>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 07:41, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Gerry, there are two aspects of B&W scanning that you need to >>>>> consider: >>>>> >>>>> 1) scan as negative or positive. Some people scan as "B&W neg" and >>>>> some >>>>> people scan as "(RGB) positive" then invert in Photoshop or the like. >>>> Some >>>>> people claim that certain scanning software ALWAYS clip if you scan as >>>> B&W >>>>> neg (I believe NikonScan is one of them) so option 2) gives more fully >>>>> tonal result. >>>>> >>>>> 2) Save as Raw/DNG or TIFF/JPG. Note that TIFF is "full quality" where >>>> JPG >>>>> is compressed, but otherwise they are the same in this discussion. >>>>> Certainly, always save as TIFF rather than JPG as you want the highest >>>>> quality. >>>>> >>>>> If you save as TIFF/JPG, then usually you have the scanner software >>>>> applying some tone curves and such, so that the image looks pretty >>>>> good >>>>> already, then it's minor way in LR/PSD to get to the final image. In >>>>> this >>>>> regard, it's rather like having a digital camera saving the images as >>>> JPG. >>>>> >>>>> If you save as Raw/DNG, then the scanner software will try to >>>>> maintain as >>>>> much information as possible, e.g. minimal tone curves and exposure >>>>> adjustments, so that it can be processed further post-scan. The >>>>> downside >>>> is >>>>> that it takes a bit more work in LR/PSD to get to the final result. >>>>> The >>>>> upside is that if you improve your LR/PSD skills or if better >>>>> processing >>>>> software are to become available, then you can go back to the original >>>>> Raw/DNG file and redo it. >>>>> >>>>> *** >>>>> Personally, right now I scan as B&W neg or save in TIFF format. With >>>> medium >>>>> format /4x5 (I rarely shoot 35mm film any more), there is so much >>>>> information from those scans that I do not think it's worthwhile to >>>>> use >>>> the >>>>> other options. >>>>> >>>>> YMMV. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Gerry Walden >>>>> <gerry.walden at icloud.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> A number (Peter, Lluis etc) have mentioned scanning b&w as either >>>>>> .tiff >>>> or >>>>>> even .dng. I cannot see any obvious advantage to this, so could >>>>>> somebody >>>>>> pease enlighten me. I tried a couple to .dng which was a pain in >>>> Lightroom >>>>>> as they came out as negatives and the sliders worked the wrong way. >>>>>> I am >>>>>> currently scanning as .tiff but (to be honest) don?t really know why. >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Gerry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Gerry Walden LRPS >>>>>> www.gwpics.com >>>>>> +44 (0)23 8046 3076 or >>>>>> +44 (0)797 287 7932 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> >>>>> // On Facebook: http://facebook.com/richardmanphoto >>>>> // On Instagram: https://instagram.com/richardmanphoto >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> >>> // On Facebook: http://facebook.com/richardmanphoto >>> // On Instagram: https://instagram.com/richardmanphoto >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information