Getting good neg scans with Minolta 5400?

[lukep]

Have just received a Minolta 5400 and, call me naive, was a little

disappointed with the way it renders negatives (especially b&w). I

assume the drum scanners in pro labs do not have this problem as

everything seems to go through a digital process nowadays.

My black and whites come out grainy, pixellated and with a very poor

range of tones, so they all look quite "odd".

Is there anything I can do to improve this???

[jack paradise]

You may have better results with Vuescan scanning software. You can download a trial version at --- www.hamrick.com

 

As for grain, it seems that with the newer 35mm scanners, grain reducing software is a must. Either stand alone or incoporated like GEM with Nikon. Maybe it is part of your 5400 scanning software.

 

Also Minolta 5400 scanning software tends to produce high contrast with b&w and may be clipping the highlights.

 

Another thing I would want to do is to choose the very flat negatives first for scanning. Then try scanning different films: you may see a difference.

 

These are just thoughts. Don't give up, there is a learning curve.

[jim_a]

Try Silverfast. http://www.silverfast.com/sf-download/demo/en.html

[david_hansen8]

I too have had some issues when scanning B&W negs. I've found that my best scans have been done when scanning Ilford XP2. I scan Kodak TC400N as a color negative (grain dissolver off!) to get good results. And I know I've gotten good results with other Ilford films.

 

I haven't yet tried VueScan or Silverfast, but I've heard great things about both. After paying almost $800 for a scanner, I'm not going to spend another $100 or so on software until I know the included software inside and out.

 

My recommendation is to pick one of your favorite negs, then scan the heck out of it at every different setting and adjustment you can think of before buying more software.

[seth_prince]

Luke, I am a total beginner at this scanning thing (about 3 months with the 5400) and

I'm still working on slides, haven't gotten to negs yet. I've found that things like

multi-sampling, bit depth, Grain Dissolver and levels adjustment make a huge

differnece. Experiment with the settings in the Preferences panel. You may have to

scan the same image a number of times to get a sense of what preference settings

give you the best results. I thought these things were just "plug-and-play". Boy was I

off. There are slides that I've scanned 3 months ago and am now re-scanning with

different settings and the results are astounding: now I know what people are talking

about when they say "... shadow detail ..."!

 

I've heard of people scanning negatives as positive and then inverting in Photoshop.

 

At least with slides so far, I'm getting on screen exactly what I see thru a lupe. Don't

give up, its a fun learning process

[william_yu]

Try using the Grain Dissolver and the GEM. If you still see the grain, get the NeatImage software to post process the scan. I am shooting slides and try my best not to scan any negs. I would rather scan from a printed picture on a flatbed. Slides are much much easier to scan.

 

I tried VueScan trial version my self. My conclusion is that VueScan or Silverfast does not really reduce grain better than the Minolta scan software. Sometime they appear to reduce grain slightly because they use a different dedault setting, e.g., lower contrast.

[marek_gorecki1]

In my opinion the best B&W film for scanning is T-MAX 100 and 400.

Anyway I get very good scans on my Minolta 5400 from B&W negs using Vuescan (the fastest and very good software I ever tried). For index pictures I set 1340 dpi. All fixes I do on Photoshop, like grain reduction, contrast adjustment, sharpening etc. (ICE doesn't work for B&W). I see that pixellation problem and poor range of tones you got is related to the low resolution or quality of the jpeg output you set up. Do not think about Silverfast - very expensive & slow. For pictures I want to print I use Minolta's software - is excellent.

I have tested Nikon ls-5000 vs. Minolta 5400. Finally after scanning about 5000 slides (for my index pictures) and 200 TIF pictures with resolution 5400dpi for printing I would say that 5400 is the winner (real resolution of the Nikon LS-5000 is much lower that Minolta 5400. It makes very big different for enlargements, also Minolta gives much better tonality in the shadows and bright parts of the picture.

Marek

[ted_marcus1]

<i>I tried VueScan trial version my self. My conclusion is that VueScan or Silverfast does not really reduce grain better than the Minolta scan software. Sometime they appear to reduce grain slightly because they use a different dedault setting, e.g., lower contrast.</i>

 

<p>Another consideration is that many scanner drivers automatically sharpen all scans. With some of them (notably the Canon FS4000US) you can neither control the amount of sharpening nor turn it off. The sharpening can accentuate grain. Vuescan doesn't do any sharpening unless you select a sharpening option. So that may explain the difference. If your scanner's software has automatic sharpening that can't be disabled, Vuescan is a <i>must</i>. To control noise and grain, you need to use selective, controllable sharpening (usually unsharp masking) at the <i>end</i> of processing.

[mendel_leisk]

Another vote for Vuescan, as a way out of your poor black and white results with Minota's software.

 

With Vuescan, try the TMax400 profile with D76ci:.55 as a starting point. Lowering the ci number will help with low contrast images, and raising it can recover blown highlights. I'd keep your white and black points low (.02%~). In my experience, you need to push brightness down from default of 1, usually to around 0.7, to get more punch.

 

I've found it very helpful to keep a text format log file, listing each image, and noting any variations from the base settings.

 

Output Vuescan raw files (raw dump from scanner) so you can put your film away and just experiment with scan-from-disk.

 

You can experiment with scanning as image (not inverted), or working directly with the Vuescan raw files in Photoshop. For now, I've found sticking with b/w Tmax400 approach satisfactory.

[erik scanhancer]

I vote for scanning as B&W positive and inverting in Photoshop.

No VueScan or Silverfast can beat this method. See also the

B&W scantips on this page:

 

http://scanhancer.iddo.nl/index.php?art=20&men=3

 

Although it is specifically written for Scanhancer 5LE users with

the Multi Pro it also applies for scanning with the Elite 5400.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

"I vote for scanning as B&W positive and inverting in Photoshop. No VueScan or Silverfast can beat this method."

 

This just implies you dont know how to scan B&W.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

Mendel,

 

Your comment is the first time I seen anybody mention pulling the brightness down in viewscan. I tend to leave the brightness alone as I dont know how Vuescan implements it and "brightness" typically is just a linear shift of the tonal ramp which introduces clipping (maybe you know what VS does).

 

However, I have found that reducing the RGB sliders (or analogue gain control) to around 0.71~0.73 in VS usually keeps the distribution of tones nicely positioned. I assume our concepts are somewhat similar in results.

 

Nice to hear somebody else has also arrived at this conclusion ;)

 

regards

Craig / Beijing

[erik scanhancer]

Graig:

 

"This just implies you dont know how to scan B&W."

 

And what proof do you give for this assumption? I should note to

you that if there is anything I know it is how to scan B&W. My

scans produce better prints than I've ever seen from anyone

else. Also, my histograms are simply perfect. You are of course

free not to agree with me, but please don't talk rubbish.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

Erik,

<p>

Firstly I *shall* apologise for the lack of civility in the tone and through away nature of my previous response; it buys nobody anything but I did wish to make a point. It was actually more this part "No VueScan or Silverfast can beat this method. See also the B&W scantips" that bugged me. This comment is a definitive one suggesting it is *the* ultimate method and for that I disagree.

<p>

I believe I could also write "I should note to you that if there is anything I know it is how to scan B&W" as its also what I exclusively work with, scan and print digitally. Im also fanatical about scan quality <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=380913">A couple of B&W scans - Nikon 4000ED</a><br>. One other common approach that has me curious about high-end scanning are the frequently seen comments of applying a cookie-cutter approach to post-scan processing - a one action fits all approach - and assume all B&W (or even colour for that matter) will respond in the best manner possible. This cannot be true just by the very different nature of each film's tonal response in conjunction with various scanners. Furthermore, very *good* B&W scanning workflow starts back with choosing a film, an appropriate EI and development process that will deliver a neg that is favourable to your particular scanner and the anticipated results - it can not be an automatic activity for high-quality imaging.

<p>

Im also curious a to what is a "perfect histogram" - are you suggesting there is but one way it should always appear or only that it should at least present certain qualities and general characteristics?

<p>

"...but please don't talk rubbish" tsk, tsk ...Glass houses Erik :) Im not looking for a heated discussion of throw away assertions. I can substantiate what I say probably as much as you can which would only conclude that fortunately this world still does offer alternatives.

<p>

regards<p>

Craig / Beijing

[mendel_leisk]

Craig,

 

It looks like adjusting Color|Brightness and adjusting Color|Brightness red/green/blue (in equal amounts) gives identical results. I tried both just now in Vuescan, and histogram seems not to budge. The Vuescan help pages describe both as "gamma multiplier".

 

Yeah, at least with my Scan Dual II, using brightness 1.0 is way too washed out. I only use that with Color|Color balance "none", if I'm trying outputting flat image for later adjustment in Photoshop. The few amateur images I've posted are at somewhat higher brightness, but I've been redoing, with the brightness pushed down to 0.7~, and comparing. For the majority, the darker version is more pleasing, better apparent contrast, less noisy in the shadows, but with little actual detail loss.

 

I emailed Ed Hamrick, asking advice on what to do about flat images, and his response (literally, word for word) was:

 

"Try Color|Brightness"

 

I looked through your portfolio and like the dark tone, prevalent in many of the shots, just solidifies the picture, more akin to a wet darkroom.

 

Cheers,

 

Mendel Leisk

[lukep]

Thanks for all your advice. My scanning career now goes on hold for a while as it has gone back to the vendor. Horizontal lines were appearing in the scans.