Why the massive difference in colours

Today I picked up my first developed roll of slide film, Being such I was quite

apprehensive about the results. However when I picked them up I almost pissed my

pants, they were exceptional. Exposure dead on colours that were sensational,

sharpness that was so detailed I could make out detail in a surfboard when looking at

them through a 10x loup.

 

However when I scan them and attempt to edit them they are looking like dog cr@p. I

just can not get the sharpness or colours to be accurate.

 

I have experimented with settings on my scanner a Nikon super coolscan 5000ED but

no image jumps out at me like it does on a light box.

 

Here are a couple of examples.

 

 

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/patchy001/Image5.jpg

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/patchy001/Image3.jpg

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/patchy001/Image14.jpg

 

All of these images are super crisp and life like on the slides, what needs to be done to

get them as good onscreen as they are on the slides.

 

These were all shot with F1n FD 500/4.5L

I've started to experiment with the ColorPos photoshop plugin from CF Systems. So far I like it. You can download the trial version and test it a bit.

 

http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html

I own the same scanner and have had the same problems with the poor software supplied by Nikon.Very user unfriendly and complicated.The operater manual outright sucks.Oh what I would give for a Canon FS 4000 updated scanner.Many times I default to this unit (especially for Kodachrome) even though it is so slow.Even my 'old' Canon 2710 was more user friendly.Lots of patience required or more money for a aftermarket software program is the answer.For $1000USA you would think they could do better.

"However when I picked them up I almost pissed my pants, they were exceptional. Exposure dead on colours that were sensational, sharpness that was so detailed I could make out detail in a surfboard when looking at them through a 10x loup. "

Welcome to the world of slide photography! Your next step should be to get a used slide projector and prepare for a similarly moving experience. There is no experience in all of photography that matches the impact, excitement, and sheer emotional response as a slide show - especially when those are your images up there on the big screen blown up to 50" or 70" inches across.

As for scanning, perhaps a different scanner is needed. I have a Minolta 5400 scanner and it works flawlessly with slides. Activating the "Pixel Polish" feature replicates the original brilliance of the slide. You could probably sell your Nikon for about what it would cost to pick a a used 5400 or 5400II on the Bay. Or, try a Coolscan V or 9000 from a place that allows a 14 day trial period (BH Photo, Adorama, etc.). Or, have a place like www.theslideprinetr.com / Denver Digital Imaging scan and/or print your selected best frames.

PS - many waste lots of time scanning every frame on a roll. However, one of the advantages to slides is the option of spreading them all out on a light table, and selecting only 2 or 3 prime frames to scan. Such discipline sets up a good weeding out process, so that you dont drown out all your best shots with boatloads of mediocre ones on your hard drive. It allows you to concentrate on only the best, IMHO.

Try out a large format transparency (just have some spare underwear handy). It's the most amazing sight I've ever seen - for me, there is no comparison in the photographic world to a transparency of any size - they are just breathtaking...

 

- Randy

You can get your slides looking great on screen with some more time and skill in post-processing (Photoshop). I find that adding proper contrast back to the shadows is what makes slides pop. Slide scans seem to capture the whole range of tones but don't entirely preserve the relationship between tones that you'll see when you hold your slide up to light.

 

Re: Canon FS4000US vs the Coolscan 5000- give me the latter any day for slides as it has signifcantly better dynamic range and less noise. I use the Canon, by the way, but have to blend multiple exposures on some slides.

I believe my statement said 'a upgraded Canon FS 4000'.With a lot faster scan speed and a greater dynamic range a second generation model would of been my choice over the Nikon unit any day because of the learning curve and human interface.Even though I finally 'learned' how to get great scans out of the Nikon I swore I would never buy another product from them.I guess it is hard to teach a old dog new tricks - the transition from Canon software to Nikon was a nightmare.

<p><i>"As for scanning, perhaps a different scanner is needed."</i></p>

 

<p>When he already owns one of the finer film scanners available? His scanner is not the issue.</p>

 

<p>I expect that there' re really two things operating here; the first being expectations and the second, experience. And perhaps a 3rd, once experience is gained... software.</p>

 

<p>You really do have to be realistic in your expectations. As others mention, there's just nothing like the visceral impact of a good color transparency on a light table. But as experienced film shooters can tell you, translating that to "something else", whether that something else is a print, a published image or a slide scan, always results in something less. That doesn't mean you can't get very good scans, prints or published images from transparencies - of course you can - but none will grab you the way the original does when viewed with a proper light source.</p>

 

<p>That said, keep in mind that there is a learning curve with both scanning and post-processing film scans of any kind, even if you've got experience with digital images. The best starting point - a consistently color correct scan - is unfortunately something that Nikon Scan just isn't going to give you, as it doesn't allow for calibrated scanning. Consequently, one thing you may want to consider is third party software which allows calibration. Using Silverfast AI Studio with IT8 calibration, for example, I get color accurate results every time, right down to Velvia 50 nuclear greens and over-stated yellows. :-) </p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.westernsteamphoto.com/temp_files/rawah-morning.jpg">Rawah Wilderness - Fuji Velvia 50 w/ Nikon V</a></p>

 

<p>Beyond that, prepping for final output is very much about managing contrast. Typical transparency film has extremely wide dynamic range - a range that will have to be properly managed for best results in a final image in order to translate that "POP" into the new medium you're shooting for, whether print, web or whatever.</p>

 

 

<Good luck,</p>

<P>Scott.</p>

Perhaps your monitor is pooped out. If you aren't color managed, and using a calibrated monitor, all bets are off.

I figure a couple of points are my issues. Firstly I've been (had been) digital for probably 8 years now and am proficient in image editing in PS but thats with RAW conversions.

 

The moniter I am using is a phillips flat screen LCD so that could be a problem and its never been calibtrated so I am pushing **** uphill to start with I quess.

 

The settings on the scanner seem somewhat ancient and limited. Rather than stuff around with scanning I am going to do this. The slides that are gold will be scanned at a lab. The others that are good I have a friend who gets awesome results from his scanner. He'll scan the slides for me.

 

I am prepared to pay for scans, This new slide thing shooting with FD gear is a blast, I got more satisfaction out of this roll of film than any day I have shot in the last 5 years. It is s true test of abillity and concentration to manually focus FD gear with slide film using a acamera that only adjusts in 1 stop increments.

 

To me this is what photography is about.

Darryn,I would not give up on the Nikon scanner.When I first bought mine I was ready to sling the thing against the wall because of soft focus and erratic color shifts.You are wise to take a break from it and try other methods until you have the patience to learn to live with the "quirks' of this particular model's software and lunatic human interface.I've owned four scanners over the years and all had their own unique 'issues'.I still like the Canon units the most even though they are very slow.I imagine some braindead manager at Canon decided to move all the engineers over to the digital camera division from the film scanner group because there was more money in it.

I shoot mainly Canon FD gear (F1N's) other than on 'bad eye' days when I resort to my film EOS cameras.I agree with the others that you will never attain the quality of a good slide under a quality loupe on a light table with any other form of capture - this is the pinnacle of photography.I doubt you ever will be happy with anything else after the experience.You have hit on the main reason 'film guys' get sick every time they are put down because they still prefer shooting transparencies.I just wish someone would design a film scanner that could replicate the quality without all the pain.

Darryn, take your best chromes over to your friend's place, with a decent container of his beverage of choice, and sit with him while he scans them for you. Ask him why he does what he does, odds are good that he's proud of his skill and will be delighted to fill you in on the details.

 

Scott's right, you have one of the best tools available for the task, but a Stradivarius does not make you a great violinist, you have to learn to get the most from the instrument. Your instrument is good enough to make the learning curve worthwhile.

 

Van