rkfoxman Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Recently, thanks to this forum, I became aware of possible advantages scanning B&W film in RGB (as a color negative) vs. traditional B&W scan. To test the theory I rescaned some Delta 100 frames which gave me problems in the past when scanned as b&w: highlights looked clipped and appeared dull gray. See the comparison below and judge for yourselves (most revealing are the highlights on the person's face.) In addition, I also found that b&w scanning often required a more severe underexposing vs. color. This could be the reason why the highlights turn out clipped and gray.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_reinders Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I am new to home dev and 35mm scanning. I have a Minolta Scan Dual II. I too took someone's advice, and bought vuescan and scan all my b/w negs as generic colour negatives, then desaturate in PS - works for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 You are always scanning in color. It's really just the software at work. You might want to give Vuescan a try. First just output a Vuescan Raw File, specifying any film type _exept_ color negative (which will shift the rgb balance of the raw), then experiment. I liked the Black and White TMax profile with D76ci:.55 contrast index as a starting point. Around 0.7 brightness, and very minimal or 0 clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkfoxman Posted October 26, 2005 Author Share Posted October 26, 2005 Wow... Many thanks! What a difference ScanView makes. Minolta's native software looks lousy in comparison. A lot less cliped highlights and a lot more detail in dark areas. Wow (again) :)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran_ois_courtois Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Roman, I do not see any practical difference between your 2 pictures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimh Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I have the SDIII myself and scanning as color negative makes no practical difference in density range. <p> What <i>does</i> make a difference though is scanning as positive. Either B&W or color. When scanning as positive you can catch all information in the negatives, with the exception of strongly overdeveloped ones. <p> Minolta's software seems to be calibrated only for C41 films. It is impossible to capture the density range of a conventional B&W film when in the negative modes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran_ois_courtois Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 With my Nikon Coolscan V, using Vuescan, scanning a b&w negative as a positive leads to very very ugly results (tried it several times, since I read this trick on several occasions) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I can't see a significant difference either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Come on, guys, the difference is huge (even on a compressed jpeg)! Look at the subject's cheek on the right side of the photo. The B&W scan has very little detail when compared to the color scan. The color scan captured additional detail. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk_teetzel Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I agree; I noticed it right away. Especially the detail in the forehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran_ois_courtois Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I agree there is a "little" difference, but no "practical" difference: this difference could be attributed to a slightly different amplification of the gain, or power of light in the scanner, or a histogram slightly changed from one scan to the other ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 There are many ways to use b&w scans for monochrome output. Since one of these techniques includes splitting the scan into separate channels, it makes sense to always scan to scan as if it were color negative film. Different channels have different levels of grain, for example. You might want to emphasize or deemphasize grain. Scanning as b&w or simply desaturating the scan won't produce quite the same results. But whatever works for you is as valid as anyone else's technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran_ois_courtois Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 "different channels have different levels of grain": surely on my monochrome negative, there is only one and unique layer of grain, right? The 3 channels of a colour scanner are only attempting at reproducing the actual colour cast of the translucid emulsion, or am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkfoxman Posted October 27, 2005 Author Share Posted October 27, 2005 Running more tests last night I found the following: Minolta DualScan III native software is pretty good scanning Ilford's 400 films and fairly good with FP5. It has a lot more trouble with Delta 100: lots of detail lost in shadows/highlights. VueScan is fantastic in that respect. What a difference! On the other hand, VueScan didn't produce any measurable improvement over Minolta's software with faster films. Overall, though, both Minotla and VueScan produced superior results when scanning B&W film as color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkfoxman Posted October 27, 2005 Author Share Posted October 27, 2005 Oops... My bad! Above, I meant FP4 Plus :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan_w. Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I'm fairly certain that the better results you are seeing (in terms of highlight and shadow detail) with conventional-grain B&W films relative to Delta 100 have nothing to do with the scanner's capabilities and everything to do with the quality of the negative. It's important not to underexpose or overdevelop film when you intend to scan it (overdevelopment is especially easy for Delta 100, in my experience). How are you developing these films? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkfoxman Posted October 28, 2005 Author Share Posted October 28, 2005 Well, they may well be overdeveloped (or under :) as I don't have very much experience with Delta. In the past I was using FP4 which is a very forgiving film. Delta seems to be a bit more finicky. In the nutshell, I use Ilford's DDX and try to stick to the "official" timings. I don't think the effect I was describing is related to Delta only or the quality of the negative. I rescaned another negative last night, shot a while back with FP4, now as a color negative and, again, I got better results: more detail in highlights and shadows. OTOH, the difference I get from the scanning in color is not as obvious as when I rescan using VueScan (also as a color neg). What a wonderful program. Only now I realize how much I was missing with Minolta's soft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Roman, if you get into Vuescan's "raw file" workflow, I would _not_ specify color negative as film type. All of the other choices will give identical "raw file". However, specifying color negative will cause Vuescan to shift the brightness of the red, green and blue components of the histogram, in a (misguided) atempt to compensate for color negative film's orange mask. Have another read thru my first thread. The Vuescan raw file will be identical will all other specified film types. And then, with scan-from-disk, you can try color neg, if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joename Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I've done GOBS of experimentation on this one - I have a Nikon LS-9000 scanner, and am scanning b/w film, and using vuescan. What works for me - is to scan it as slide film (generic) @ 48bit have the black & white points at 0%, and frog with the brightness until I see white and black in the negative. This is usually quite low - like 0.4 after that, I photoshop it the way I want (invert, channel mixer/monochrome). This gives me amazing range in tones. The brightness of a negative is confusing - if you jack it up too high, you blow out the tone. Also, I develop in diafine - it makes lousy prints, but great scans. Just my .02cents Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_reinders Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 After following this thread I decided to try the 'slide' route with my FP4+ / Scan Dual II / VueScan setup. What I found is great tonal range, but when I look at the levels in PS, it is heavily weighted to the dark side. To get a normal looking photo, I change my white from 255 to 175. The images are less contrasty and flatter than when I was scanning as a colour neg and desaturating. I haven't decided if I like it yet, but I will agree that there is more to work with, but seems to me there would be more post processing. Does this sound right? (The result I mean) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joename Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Really, the best advice when scanning b/w - learn to apply curves. It's the only way to get great images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now