Scan now Edit later?

[www.wesleyalmond.com]

The one thing I've learned so far in Negative scanning is DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST

TIME!

 

I'm slowly scanning my B&W collection for future printing and website.

 

So far this is what I've learned here.

 

Scan BW negs as positives.

Some say scan in 24b color or 16bit grayscale

 

From theses steps on there seems to be a large list of things I could do to "edit"

the raw image.

 

My question here is, can simply save the image freshly scanned and edit (invert,

levels etc) at a later date? Will saving in Tiff discard some of my info and

make future editing impossible? Is there an ideal saving format at this stage of

scanning

 

This might seem like a silly question but I need an answer before I start scanning.

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>My question here is, can simply save the image freshly scanned

and edit (invert, levels etc) at a later date</i></p>

 

<p>Yes</p>

 

<p><i>Will saving in Tiff discard some of my info and make future

editing impossible?</i></p>

 

<p>No</p>

 

<p><i>Is there an ideal saving format at this stage of

scanning</i></p>

 

<p>Yes, TIFF</p>

[www.wesleyalmond.com]

Thanks,

Like I said before all the step by step guides I had read never said if I could safely stop and save. I like the idea of having a scanning day and an editing day.

[Ed_Ingold]

Wesley,

 

The process you describe is called "RAW" or "HDR" scanning. RAW images are composed of the basic data extracted from the sensing array without any in-scan processing. Typically, you use the scanning software to process the RAW images at your leisure. The advantage is that you can try several processing settings without to see what works the best.

 

With B&W film, you need to scan using 16 bits/channel. 24b is actually three channels (RGB) of 8 bits/channel. 8 bit B&W images have only 256 possible levels, and tend to be too contrasty. The only time you need to scan negative B&W as a positive is if the scanning software does not have a negative B&W setting (i.e., does not subtract the orange mask found in negative color film).

[mendel_leisk]

Scan with Vuescan and specify to save Vuescan Raw File in 16 bit red/green/blue is one aproach. The result will be gamma 1.0, though, quite dark compared to more typical gamma 1.8~2.2 output. Depending on your scanner's software, there may be other aproaches to achieve the same thing. Minolta Scan Utility, for example, can output 16 bit linear, which amounts to the same thing.

 

All I would do with these images is crop, rotate (as needed) and dust/scratch cleanup. To facilitate this in Photoshop a custom Proof Viewing Mode can be setup, to brighten the appearance without changing the histogram.

[jtk]

With Nikonscan you do want to invert to avoid artifacts (assuming you're scanning silver B&W...not relevant to C41).

 

With Vuescan there's no need to invert silver B&W...I won't go so far as to say Vuescan's "better" but I prefer the way it works and I don't like the inversion step with Nikonscan.

 

With Nikonscan I see no advantage in inverting C41.

 

Somebody credible said recently that he's seen detail resolution differences between those applications, but I find them both grain sharp with my 35mm, as with Minolta's application. I do want to investigate further one of these days...maybe he was referring to film without grain, such as E6.

[bobmichaels]

First, let me strongly encourage you to "Edit first, then scan". It's very easy to read b&w negs on a light box. Spend a lot of time editing. Then spend more. The goal is not to eliminate those that have problems but to pick out those images that have significant merit.

 

Remember that no one, not even your mother, has any interest in the 50th best photo you shot in 2007 so no need scanning it. Editing greatly simplifies the entire scanning issue.

 

Most, but not 100%, have found no advantages to scanning b&w negs as anything other than 16 bit b&w negs with modern equipment. The goal is simply capture the maximum data to adjust in Photoshop.

 

Never forget that old saying about "making a silk purse out of a sow's ear" No boring photo has ever been made anything by scanning, Photoshop, or anything after the shutter was tripped.

[jtk]

..again, silver B&W suggests different Nikonscan technique than C41 B&W. The artifacts that Nikonscan creates with silver film, scanned without inversion, can't be fixed easily with Photoshop, but can be immediately avoided by inverting or by use of Vuescan.

[johnclinch]

I'm not sure which scanner you are using, but on the Minolta software it is somtimes only possible to obtain an unclipped hisogram by scanning as a positive, then inverting later.

[www.wesleyalmond.com]

I hear you Bob on the "Edit first then scan" but trust me, after years of slow painful darkroom proofs and printing a negative scanner is fun and easy.

 

I enjoy scanning what I never took the time to print 6 years ago.

Sometimes I find gold others times just a laugh.

 

 

 

and yes I do check for unclipped histograms and scan at 16bit

The reason I started scanning BW negs as positives was because I was told PS did a better job of inverting the picture

[robert_k1]

I concur with Edward about scanning raw. Here's my raw scanning process and why:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IUe6