Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED B&W files HELP

[k.c._bailey]

Any wonderful person out there who would like to throw me a life preserver I

would be eternally grateful. I just started using the Coolscan for a large

project scanning 2 1/4 B&W neg. I brought the tiffs into photoshop, cleaning

them up and proceeded to try to print them on my Epson R1800. They look awful.

Muddy. I went back and re-scanned without digital ICE (I think unchecking the

box turns it off) and still, same quality. Then I printed something old, looks

fabulous. I dupicated all the settings: Mode: grayscale 20%. Checked that all

the color spaces matched up, went to print preview, matched again: Document

profile"adobe 1998"/color handling: let photoshop/printer profile: SPR1800

standard/rendering intent: relative colormetric. Then onto the print dialogue

box where I set the print settings: media type:enhanced matte/color:

black/mode:automatic, quality.

Exactly the same as the other file, but still MUD. HELPPPPPPPP

 

kc

[ilkka_nissila]

Which film were the images shot on?

 

To scan well, you may need to process your negatives specifically with scanning in mind. ICE doesn't work correctly on traditional black and white.

 

I use BW400CN and the scans from my LS-9000 are breathtakingly beautiful, also printed. I also use Delta 100 in dr5 (a slide process) and those scan fine. I prefer to work with slide film because it's easier to manage the archives and locate the correct frame. However I believe BW400CN produces a bit better image quality.

 

Have you tried Vuescan with light grain reduction? This software is supposed to work well on traditional B&W negatives. I haven't got many of those here so I can't test. I've used Kodak's C41 black and white films as long as they have been out and find them among the easiest to scan films, along with Fuji and Kodak iso 100 color slides.

[jonathan_ratzlaff]

The dynamic range of negative film (check the data sheets) is an order of magnitude less than slide film. This means that the information in the film is greatly compressed. The histogram will also look quite compressed as well. This is a proper scan because all the information on the film is contained in the scan, albiet a small portion.

The trick is to expand the range. To do that scan in colour, scan in 16 bit and then do the adjustments in photoshop. You will have to set the black points and white points to fit the histogram. This should give you a workable image.

[k.c._bailey]

Thank you both for the great ideas and thoughts. I will have at them this morning and get back to you. I am scanning trx 120. The thing that really bothers me is that the scans look great on the display (apple cinema), they are just as great as the older files I was testing against. Are you both saying I can't trust the display? Scary!

[pauljm]

I to use a Coolscan 9000 and predominately scan FP4 negs, they to look great on the screen.

What does make the difference is an Epson 2400 to print them.

 

Paul

[k.c._bailey]

Yes, I've heard that the R1800 is not the best thing for B&W, but what's confusing me is that with the same profiles and paper settings, files not scanned look great. So why the difference? Unless I'm missing something on the output.