ted_c Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>From your experience, what are the best scanning settings for scanning 35 mm and 120 BW negatives on a Nikon 9000 ED in Nikon Scan?<br> *Scan in Neg Color, Neg BW, or Positive?<br> *Scan in 8 bit or 16 bit?<br> *Scan in RGB or Grayscale?<br> *Scan with multi-sampling (1x-16x)?<br> *Scan with Unsharp Mask?<br> *Super Fine Scan?<br> Other settings? Tips and tricks?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>You may want to look at the ColorNeg plugin:</p> <p>http://www.colorneg.de/virtualgrades.html?lang=en<br> http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=1124</p> <p>I use it for color work, but it looks as if it's very good for B&W, too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_savoia2 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p> <p > </p> <p >*Scan in Neg Color, Neg BW, or Positive?</p> <p > </p> <p >Neg BW</p> <p > </p> <p >*Scan in 8 bit or 16 bit?</p> <p > </p> <p >Always 16 bit</p> <p > </p> <p >*Scan in RGB or Grayscale?</p> <p > </p> <p >Grayscale</p> <p > </p> <p >*Scan with multi-sampling (1x-16x)?</p> <p > </p> <p >1X</p> <p > </p> <p >*Scan with Unsharp Mask?</p> <p > </p> <p >Has to be off if real B&W film</p> <p > </p> <p >*Super Fine Scan?</p> <p > </p> <p >No</p> <p > </p> <p >Other settings? Tips and tricks?</p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p >Mark</p> <b>Signature URL removed. Not allowed on photo.net</b> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted_c Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>Thanks. How about ICE or Scan Image Enhancer, LCH Editor, Color Balance, and Curves? All off? Autofocus?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>ICE does not work with B&W film, unless it's a C-41 B&W film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nealcurrie Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>I can't tell the difference between 1x and 16x sampling. I can see that the scans are different, but I don't have a preference for either. I use 16bit, neg BW, regular (not super fine), without anything turned on. I usually set the exposure and curves manually.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted_c Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 West Coast Imaging says for its drum scan with BW that 8 bit delivers better results than 16 bit... Seems counter intuitive but they know what they are doing... Does this relate to what should be done with the Nikon scans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_mareno Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 <p>The only way I could figure it out was to sit down and scan in one image using every possible setting. Took a while, but it worked. However, it really depends on your image, as some images demand a little different approach. For 90% of my B&W, which is all FP4 or Tri-X, the best settings were mono, 16 BIT, RGB, multiscan 4X. Scanning in Mono retains the look of B&W film, whereas if you scan it as a color neg it has more information (marginally) but the look changes. Comes out more like a desaturated color film shot. No like.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bell Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 <blockquote> <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1808529">Neal Currie</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 05, 2009; 02:57 p.m.</p> <p>I can't tell the difference between 1x and 16x sampling. I can see that the scans are different, but I don't have a preference for either. I use 16bit, neg BW, regular (not super fine), without anything turned on. I usually set the exposure and curves manually.</p> </blockquote> <p>In many scans it is difficult to tell the difference between 1x and 16x. I put together a little comparison page showing the same scan with everything the same except for the number of samples taken.<br> <a href="http://www.slidescanningpros.com/price-list/multi-sampling-and-higher-dynamic-range">http://www.slidescanningpros.com/price-list/multi-sampling-and-higher-dynamic-range</a></p> <p>Lars</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_smith4 Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 <p>"West Coast Imaging says for its drum scan with BW that 8 bit delivers better results than 16 bit... Seems counter intuitive but they know what they are doing... Does this relate to what should be done with the Nikon scans?"</p> <p>Definitely not. The more bits the more manipulation you can do without posterization.</p> 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