Scanning and Film Latitude + Dynamic Range

[AlanKlein]

<p>I agree with both of you. Two shots combined might have worked but one by itself just doesn't have the "steam" and two scans aren't going to matter because the data just isn't there. And yes GND filters don't always work. I guess my point is that some shots just don't have the umph. I have not tried multiple scans so I cannot speak to it but I do lighten shadow areas in PP a little. I do bracket my landscape shots at of habit by one stop on each side for both negatives and chromes but I never tried to combine them using HDR or what is it called, masks?. Maybe I should - any recommendations? What about "mechanical mis-registration" mentioned above. I assume that means the data doesn't line up because of the "play" in the scanner mechanism. If that's a problem, wouldn't that be a problem scanner either two different bracketed shots or even scanning the same shot twice?</p>

<p>In looking back at my scans, I notice a lot of them especially negatives have the histogram not reaching either end. Of course I adjust that PP. I seem to be getting pretty reasonable results although skin tones are sometimes off but that's due to the fact I used Velvia in some cases. Would separate scans provide a better final result? How would you do that?</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>... I never tried to combine them using HDR or what is it called, masks?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's just another set of tools in the box. It boils down to this:</p>

<ul>

<li>Take multiple exposures and combine in post if the scene dynamic range exceeds what your media can record. Practically, this is much easier done when shooting with digital equipment than with film. Practically, you'll just as likely intentionally let sections of the scene blow out or sink to black because it makes for a better composition.</li>

<li>Contrast masking can selectively bring out more detail on the print if it was recorded at all (and with enough fidelity) on the media.</li>

<li>The goal of multipass scanning is to eliminate the scanner's CCD as a source of noise. The correct implementation is to sample multiply before shuttling the CCD strip to the next row of pixels. The inferior implementation is to combine multiple complete scan passes.</li>

</ul>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>Practically, you'll just as likely intentionally let sections of the scene blow out or sink to black because it makes for a better composition.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robert: I agree with that, my earlier point. I see you did it in your pictures. This one the door, girl's coat etc have little detail. But it doesn't effect the picture in my opinion. If I was to comment on your picture, showing more shadow details would not be one of my comments. The orangy counterpoint of the lights to the B/W nature of the rest of the photo is what jumps out, not that unimportant details are missing. The eye and brain fills them in unconsciously. <a href="../photo/4695032">http://www.photo.net/photo/4695032</a></p>

<p>Regarding noise and multiple scan, I've used Noise reduction in PP where I found too much such as in skies. That seems to work fairly well. Of course I've never really blowup my print more than 8 1/2x11 so maybe my results are a lot different than I think. </p>

[tim parkin]

<p>Seems like a lot of people are missing the original point.. <br /> 1) If you output as 16bit colour tiff you should retain as much of the film range as your scanner can scan (I would recomend turning all corrections to luminosity, colour and sharpening, etc off). <br /> 2) Some scanners have a specific raw file (e.g. Imacon) that you have to then process using their software<br /> 3) Never use jpg as a 'stored' product that you may reprocess at some point - it should only really be used for a final product<br /> <strong>transparencies</strong><br /> Velvia has very dark shadows that most scanners can't quite get at .. We did a comparison of various scanners last year and the results can depend on operator but the best end was a drum scanner and the worst end was a badly set up Epson v750. However, a well set up v750 got pretty good results - almost as good as the Imacon (although more noise and a bit less shadow).</p>

<p><a href="http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/deep-pull-garlic.jpg"><img src="http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/deep-pull-garlic.jpg" alt="" width="2269" height="395" /></a><br /> The Nikon Coolscans supposedly get excellent DMax (between the Imacon and the drum scanner from what I have seen)<br /> <strong>negatives</strong><br /> The issue with negatives is that all of the information is compressed into only about 20-25% of the density range of the film. Hence when you make a nice 8 bit scan, you only really get about 6bits of real data in your final result (you have thrown away quite a lot). <br /> Also, the fact that the grain in negative material is much larger can cause problems if it coincides with the size of the sensor area. Drum scanners can get around this by changing the aperture (or sampling area). <br /> I'm currently writing an article on scanning negatives using Epson v750's and drum scanners (mine is a Howtek 4500) and will hopefully get it complete in the next couple of months (I'm recruiting the services of Andrew Nadolski - a fine art landscape photographer from the UK who specialises in using Vuescan and coolscan to process negs).</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Tim: You mentioned some interesting points. It would be helpful if you "fleshed" them out a little:<br>

1. What makes a V750 badly set up?<br>

2. You recommended turning off all correction to luminosity, colour and sharpening, etc for the scan. So how does Vuescan or any other scanner program help or for that fact even matter?<br>

3. If negative are compressed giving you 6 bits when scanning at 8 bits, what dop you recommedn to scan at and what do you get?<br /><br />Tks Alan</p>

[alistair_haimes]

<p>If there's been any update to this I'd be fascinated; like a lot of people I'm trying to get the very best results out of an Epson but the workflow (and the extra bits of hardware (betterscanning holders etc.) and software - (Vuescan, Negscan etc.) you need to buy!) make the whole thing seem like a dark art. It's very rewarding when you do feel as though you are getting more from a film than you could have done the month before. <br>

Nadolski gets some extraordinary results from his negs so his approach would be really fascinating to read. Having seen Tim's very helpful comparison I'm certainly feeling a bit better about the Epson though - really, when well set-up, there isn't much in it to my eyes.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Does anyone know for certainty, if the Epson scanner program changes the gain adjustment to the hardware capture or output circuits when set by us (black and white points). Or are these adjustments just post processing fixed scanner results?<br>

- for the V500?<br>

- for the V600?<br>

- for the 700?</p>

<p>Are the answer different for Vuescan and Silverfast?</p>

<p> </p>