Nikon Coolscan V Ed - Do you correct images with the Nikon Software or PS3 ?

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>I am new ro scanning. I was wondering, in general, is it best to just save the images as Tiffs and then correct (B&W) in Lightroom and PS3 or use the Nikon Software to do corrections ?<br>

Also, in the exposure settings I notice that the default is auto exposure and auto lighting. In general should this be left alone regardless of PS3 post processing ?</p>

[don_e]

<p>The only tool I use in Nikonscan is Digital DEE for the shadow/highlight control. Scan and save at highest bit depth and dpi and import into LR. I'm not settled on how to scan silver b&w on the Nikon V. At the moment I prefer Vuescan. Haven't used Silverfast, and don't have the scanhancer hw...yet.</p>

<p> </p>

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>I believe the choices upon beginning and saving a scan are auto focus and then auto exposure. So you only check the auto focus option ?</p>

[bob.velkov]

<p>Jon, get vuescan and an IT8 calibration target from B&H. Calibrate your scanner and read some of the vuescan resources on the net. Only then begin scanning your slides.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>I use the TWAIN option to import the scans directly into Photoshop, in my case CS2. I save the scan as a PSD file.</p>

[jtk]

<p>My main argument FOR Nikonscan is the motorized carrier...it saves a lot of frame-adjustment fiddling and it holds film as flat as the strip accessory ...except at the end of strips.</p>

<p>Nikonscan produces white-spot artifacts if you scan a silver B&W neg as a neg, but you can eliminate that by scanning the neg as if it was a slide, then inverting in Photoshop or whatever. </p>

<p>An argument FOR Vuescan is that B&W silver film (as opposed to C41 B&W) doesn't need that negative/inversion step.</p>

<p>In my own tests they're equally good. I do prefer Vuescan's front end, but others hate it.</p>

<p>I installed Scanhancer and couldn't tolerate 15 minute scans for no evident gain. Mine only works with mounted slides...maybe there's something newer/better. It's not magic, just a diffuser ...there's a setting in Lightroom ("Clarity") that seems better than Photoshop's similar setting if you want that. Combined with sharpening, "Clarity" emulates Softar filter. It's good with some portraits.</p>

<p>I scan B&W without any special settings whatsoever EXCEPT sometimes for slight grain reduction (which keeps grain and detail sharp). DEE doesn't help in my case because I print my own and when I shoot color it's usually a low contrast film, like Astia. If you like punchy-looking film or send your files to labs you probably have a different experience...I never do that. </p>

<p> </p>

[Ray House]

<p>I have a Minolta Dual III and use the software that came with the scanner. I found that I wanted to get a good scan with minor corrections to color and manual focusing. Nothing auto, and no sharpening until I was finished editing in Photoshop. I try to get it right in the camera and scanner before importing as a PSD or TIF and then do the heavy editing in Photoshop.</p>

[robert_k1]

<p>The key thing to understand and separate is a scanner's hw and sw capabilities. Its hw capability is very limited: focusing, fixed/limited exposure settings, etc., like a point and shot camera's. Make the most out of it to get the optimal scan from the hw, and post process the raw scan in PS, which offers far superior sw capabilities.</p>

<p>Most film scanners' native sw will support raw scans. If you figure out how to do so, you won't need any third party sw.</p>

<p>The above comment is for scanning a single image. Some scanners' or third party sw do offer capabilities to speed up mass scanning, etc., which PS lacks.</p>

<p>I have responded to similar questions here with the following post.</p>

<p>======<br>

I only use a scanner's hw capability to capture a scan and do all the editing in PS. This raw scanning technique is seldom, if ever, covered by the numerous scanning books and tutorials. These authors fail to separate between what is being done by a scanner's hardware and software, leading the readers to believe that they can do everything better with a scanner's sw. In reality, PS' editing capability is far superior. Once you get over that, you can understand what a raw scan is, and why some prefer it.</p>

<p>Here are some references on the topic:</p>

<p>Real World Scanning and Halftones (3rd Edition)<br />by David Blatner (Author), Glenn Fleishman (Author), Steve Roth (Author), Conrad Chavez (Author) <br />Paperback: 352 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.66 x 9.16 x 7.36 <br />Publisher: Peachpit Press; 3rd edition (April 8, 2004) <br />ISBN: 0321241320</p>

<p>I found that this is the only book that separates a scanner's hw and sw in some details.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.naturephotographers.net/mh0202-1.pdf">http://www.naturephotographers.net/mh0202-1.pdf</a> (See "Input Method 2: Manage Color After the Scan")</p>

<p>This author explained why he preferred raw scans, and cautioned that practioners should be able to stand ugly looking raw scans, which can be profiled and edited to look good in PS.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lumika.org/gear_nikon_scan_vs_photoshop.htm">http://www.lumika.org/gear_nikon_scan_vs_photoshop.htm</a></p>

<p>This author ran a simple test. He concluded that tutorials like Scantips to be incorrect and even recorded Ed Hamrick in agreement.</p>