5400 Scanner Software Settings

[jerry_plemons1]

I need some assistance. I have a Minolta DiMage Scan Elite 5400 and

am scanning both Tri-X and other black & white film emulsions (shot

with a Leica, of course). I have both the Minolta 5400 and VueScan

software. My problem seems to be in getting a good tonal

transitions from medium to dark gray to black. The transition is

abrupt from gray to black compared to either color negatives or

(long ago) wet darkroom prints.

 

I use Photoshop to adjust levels, using Levels, Curves and the

associated histograms. This problem is more evident in printing the

results on my Canon s9000 (Canon Glossy Pro, Ilford Smooth Gloss,

and Ilford Smooth Pearl papers). I've tried a number of paper

brands as well including Costco, Office Depot, etc.

 

I seem to have few, if any, of these problems scanning color

negatives or in processing digital images. At least it doesn't seem

that way.

 

Although I have tried multiple emulsion/brand combinations (color

neg, color positive, etc.), the settings I normally use in VueScan

are as follows:

 

Input -

Source: Scan Elite 5400, Media: B/W Negative, Bits per pixel: 16

bit Gray, Preview Resolution: 675 dpi, Scan Resolution: 2700

dpi, Color - B/W Vendor: KODAK, B/W Brand: T-MAX, B/W

Type: 400 Professional

 

For the DiMage Scanner Settings (also tried color positive and

invert in Photoshop): B&W Negative,

Resolution: Input: 2700 dpi, Output: 300 dpi

 

For some additional clues: I process my film (mostly Tri-X) in D-76

1:1. I have processed thousands of negatives (since about 1957) and

printed them in a wet darkroom. I stopped doing photography for

about 10 years and then started again after reading this forum,

acquiring another Leica and a scanner. The old negatives seem to

have less of this problem than the recent ones, but it does show up

some. Although some of my recent negatives seem to print ok, it may

indeed be my film processing technique. I have also tried Kodak's

B&W C-41 (ISO400) film with drugstore processing. Much of the same

problem as with conventional B&W emulsions.

 

In summary, the problem may be my poor film processing technique,

incorrect 5400 scanner settings, or the Canon s9000's inability to

produce B&W prints.

 

I would be happy to send some actual prints and/or negatives which

demonstrate the problem to anyone who might be able to help. I'd

post something, but it shows up much worse in prints than it does on

my monitor.

 

Can some of you more experienced photographers who use the 5400

provide some guidance for getting optimum results from your

scanner/film combinations - or other suggestions?

 

Thanks in advance for your assistance, Jerry

[__jon__]

Hi Jerry,

 

That scanner is on my list to purchase, so I can't help you. You might want to go to the

"Digital Darkroom" forum--there is regular discussion of this scanner.

[ronald_moravec1]

I can`t help much with Vuescan, but I scan tri x with the included Minolta software. Just a straight scan and they print perfectly. Why don`t you try the original software. I f I can find something on this log on with tri x, I will attach it. My tri x is developed for #2 paper and a condenser enlarger.

 

Portra 160 works fine too with normal front lighted subjects.

[ronald_moravec1]

I think these are pretty good tri x scans<div></div>

[paulr]

Jerry,

 

I have a 5400 and have no problems scanning Tri-X. Try using Minoltas basic software not the complicated version. I use an Epson 2200 and print using a black only technique.

 

Not sure, but it seems your problem is in the printing and not the scan.

 

See if this helps:

 

http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn3.htm

[shambrick007]

Scan as a <a href = "http://www.shutterbug.net/features/0902sb_bw/index.html">positive/slide </a>and invert in PhotoShop. You'll get more tonal range.

[jorge]

Jerry,

 

I have never been able to fathom Vuescan horribly cryptic interface. I use my 5400 with SilverFast but have also scanned Tri-X and other B&W films with excellent results using the supplied Minolta software, DiMAGE Scan.

 

My suggestion would be to use the DiMAGE Scan Utility and use the following settings:

 

Type: Color Positive (we'll get to the reason later)

 

Resolution: 5400 (also will explain later)

 

Open the Preferences Dialog, the small button on top with the little hand holding a paper sheet, third from last. Deselect all the checkboxes except Autofocus at Scan. In Color Depth select 16bit linear. This will give you the equivalent of a RAW scan and let you work the adjustments in Photoshop. If your negatives have normal highlights leave Multisampling OFF. Otherwise, if you have very dense highlights, try a 4x sampling but the scan will be unsuferably long.

 

The reason for selecting Color Positive as the film type is that this way you will extract the most detail from the highlights as the scanner will default to its highest dynamic range. The reason for the 5400 resolution is that at 2700 you don't have a scan time advantage; the scanner will read at 5400 and the software will extrapolate on the fly. Photoshop does a much better job at that; better detail too.

 

Once you get the image in Photoshop, which should look exactly as your negative does on a light table, proceed to resize to your needs and then, before inverting the image, do a levels adjustment --normally an autolevels command should work perfectly but you will have to experiment. Always work on a duplicate.

 

Now, invert the image to positive (Ctrl-I) and discard the color info by means of Menu>Image>Mode>Grayscale.

 

Next, correct the midtones by means of a levels adjustment. Now open the curves dialog and adjust the highlights and shadows.

 

The image should be correct at this time. Apply the necessary sharpening and proceed to print on your s9000 using the correct paper profile. I'm not familiar with this printer but my Epson 2200 cranks out prints that are -tonally- a match for my best wet prints.

 

Please let me know if some of this helps...

[jorge]

I see that Sheldon beat me to the suggestion while I was writing my long winded message...

[Tony Rowlett]

When scanning as 16-bit linear, a negative ends up as negative so you have to invert in photoshop anyway.

<p>

<i>"before inverting the image, do a levels adjustment "</i>

<p>

Why is this? I mean, wouldn't you do a levels adjustment after looking at a positive version of the image?

[jorge]

Tony,

 

This is a suggestion I picked somewhere and somehow it helps to achieve a nearly normal positive.

[jorge]

Just scanned this image on my 5400 following the procedure outlined before. It is a very dense negative as I seem to have erred on the overexposure side with my M2. Probably requires a grade 1 setting under the enlarger. Through the explained workflow I ended with a negative image in photoshop that lent itself beautifully to an adjustment curve that extracted full detail from the shadows and highlights. Look at the girls shawl. It's a fairly blocked-up area in the negative but gave very good tonal separation. Also look at the woman's hair. The detail in the shadows is extremely goos although it hardly shows in the reduced image.

<br><br>

This is the kind of negative that would be very hard to print in the darkroom but somehow behaves very well digitally if you know what to do.

<br><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2996904-md.jpg">

[ronald_moravec1]

You have gotten a lot of suggestions. Someone else suggested Vuescan as the culprit as I did. I just installed the

Silverfast SE that came with my Epson 4870 and I think the regular Epson supplied software is easier to use and produces equal results. Perhaps it is because it works just like a color enlarger I have been using for years.

 

Look at the picture of the lemo I put up. You should see all kinds of separation in the black paint of the car and the wheels are are distinctly different tone from the paint. If you can`t see this, your monitor calibration may be off. I sometimes send myself files at work and they look not as good as at home.

 

If you were to print the file, how does the print look. If the print looks fine, I the problem is monitor calibration.

 

I can send you the file to your e mail if you wish and I will send the original neg in the mail. It is just a shot I did to evaluate a lens. It has already been to Germany and back.

[ronald_moravec1]

Jorge Trevino

 

Where did you get the complicated software for the 5400 and how does it differ from the simpler version. My 5400 is 6 months old. Can you guess which software came with it.

 

Thanks for the tip on scanning and then inverting. I always wanted to know if the 2200 would print black only as my C86 Epson does.

[grahams]

Ronald - Forgive me for chipping in - you can download the latest version of the 5400 software and driver (1.1.3 I think) from the Minolta website. My 5400 is also 6 months old and shipped with version 1.1.1.

[john_brewton]

Have been using 5400 for eight months now. I think the supplied software is just fine. I tried Vuescan trial and could not figure out what all the fuss was about. Sometimes I have trouble getting the ICE to work correctly, but that is the only problem I've had. I just scanned in some Agfa 100, here is an example. However, I'm going to go back and rescan using Jorge's system and see what happens.<div></div>

[john_brewton]

I don't understand why my picture showed up so grainy, but it was downsized from 5000 x 7000 so maybe that's the reason. There was NO grain on the original scan and printed at 8 x 10 there was also NO grain!

[ronald_moravec1]

It is still nice even with the grain. I use Photoshop Elements and use file- save for web-and it saves at 72dpi and you can pick the size you want in pixels. It doesn`t seem to pick up grain. I don`t think it is grain, but some electronic artifact.

[john_shriver]

If your monitor is not calibrated, you're navigating in the dark. You may be trying to compensate for a crushed grey scale on your monitor. You can get a decent calibrator and software for under $200.

[john_brewton]

John, you may be right. I've been fighting not calibrating my monitor because it looks ok to me. But hey, something is causing this to happen, so I guess I'll bite the bullet...

[jerry_plemons1]

Here's an example of a recent image. Tri-X ISO400, D76 1:1, 68 degrees for 10 minutes, 3 inversions of the small tank every minute. Scanned on the Minolta 5400 at 2700 dpi in, 300 dpi out, as a B&W negative. The image is 500w x 627h, scanned for web in Photoshop as a jpeg at 80% quality. I can load a larger version (300 dpi, if that would help.

 

So far, from your responses, it seems that there may be two major factors in addressing my problem. I need to scan the image as a color negative or perhaps a color positive and invert in Photoshop. Second, it seems likely that the Canon s9000 is incapable of producing an acceptable B&W print.

 

Thanks for all your contributions. They have really helped in narrowing down some potential solutions.<div></div>

[jerry_plemons1]

The image looks ok as a web image, but as a print, it doesn't look so good.

[jorge]

Ronald,

 

Sorry for the late update... My scanner is over a year old (Sep 03) and it's the software that came with it. I think it installs by default. Just check in the Minolta Dimage Scan folder.

[jorge]

PS, for what it's worth, version 1.1.5 is available for download now...

[michaelwildi]

Hi Jerry

 

Give "Black Only (BO)"-Printing a try. See instructions here:

http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

Michael Wildi Photography

www.michaelwildi.com