Jump to content

didjiman

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    111

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by didjiman

    Scanning B&W film via a Nikon LS-4000 vs. a Minolta Elite 5400

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    Conventional wisdom says that a film scanner such as the Nikon

    Coolscan does not scan B&W film well because the scanner light source

    acts like the light source in a condenser enlarger ("collimated" light

    source) and the B&W film's silver grains scatter the light and thus

    the scans are more contrasty and the grains "clump" together. There is

    a nice diagram illustrating the light source differences (condenser

    vs. diffuser) on this web site:

    http://www.normankoren.com/scanners.html. One important note is that

    this site does not present any photos supporting this claim.

    http://www.scanhancer.com/ sells a diffuser plate for the Minolta

    Multipro scanner and they make a similar claim that the Multipro with

    their Scan Enhancer (or the Minolta Elite 5400 with the Minolta's own

    grain dissolver) makes less grainy scans, especially on color scans.

     

    I have been using the Nikon LS-4000 scanners for over 3 years,

    scanning well over 300 rolls of slides. I process my own slides on a

    Jobo rotary processor and bulk scan the whole strip of 36-38 exposures

    using the Nikon bulk film adapter. For the past six months, I have

    been gradually doing more and more B&W, and playing with different

    film types and developers. Again, the films are developed in the Jobo

    and then scanned in. While searching for the web for scanning info, I

    found the sites mentioned above. Since my local camera shop rents the

    Elite 5400 per day basis, it is a cheap way to find out whether the

    conventional wisdom is right or not. I use Vuescan to drive both

    scanners, setting the film type to B&W, "Generic" vendor and selecting

    "White Balance." Personally I do not find Vuescan's user interface

    particularly friendly or intuitive, but it does produce good scans.

     

    The short answer is that I see no noticeable contrast differences. The

    so called "clumping" effect due to the collimated light sources is not

    apparent at all. I have tested it on Delta 400, HP5+, Efke 100, and

    Tri X, processed (mostly) in Xtol, and a few in Rodinal and D76. Some

    of the rolls were pushed but most are used in the box speed. The light

    scattering effect does show up in the Nikon scans as being more dusty.

    Unfortunately, you cannot use the automatic dust removal system

    (usually a technology called ICE) built into these scanners on B&W

    film as ICE uses the IR channel to detect dust and scratches. So it is

    worthwhile to keep your negatives clean. In fact, whether due to its

    higher resolution or other factors, the Minolta scans seem to be more

    grainy.

     

    (All photos are not processed except with an USM of 120%/1/0 since

    scanners are known to soften the scans) The following is the engine

    compartment of a working 1911 Pierce Arrow.

     

    This is an Elite 5400 scan. The film is not held flat by the scanner

    mechanism so notice the left and right edges are out of focus:

    http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/scanner_tests/elite5400.jpg

     

    100% crop:

     

    http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/scanner_tests/elite_enlarged.jpg

     

    The Nikon 4000 scan.

     

    http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/scanner_tests/Nikon4000.jpg

     

    100% crop:

     

    http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/scanner_tests/Nikon_enlarged.jpg

     

    Since the Nikon scan is 4000 DPI, the 100% crop is smaller than the

    Elite's. Notice also the hair or dust on the Nikon enlargement :-(

     

    In summary: while there are real benefits to the diffuser light source

    on the Elite 5400 with the grain dissolver option (e.g. less dusty

    scans), there is no discernable differences otherwise. If anything,

    the Nikon scans seems less grainy and are sharper since the film is

    held flatter. The Nikon is also significantly faster. However Minolta

    just releases Elite 5400 II so it may have even the score in the speed

    front. The Minolta is also cheaper than the LS-4000 or the LS-5000

    replacement.

    Some shots with new CV 40 f1.4 S.C.

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    WHat's wrong with this forum that people can't hold a civil discussion? No one is arguing for ultra USM and pixel peeping. Probably 70% of my pictures are taken at 1.4 to 1.8. So what? May be weeds are bad subject to show "things in focus," I can accept that. I am just saying that "flat lighting" is probably not the reason.

    Some shots with new CV 40 f1.4 S.C.

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    Charles, I think you are missing the point. You kept saying flat lighting etc., but that's not the problem. The problem is, at least for me, and I believe for others, is that we don't see ANYTHING in focus. A scanner should be able to pick it up and the JPG should look sharp. So if you are seeing that in your prints, then probably something about the scanning process is not quite right. Keep in mind that scanning almost always introduce some amount of softness so you should a little Unsharp Mask to "tighten" it. Not too much of course..

     

    Good luck and thanks for sharing.

    SilverOxide B&W photo shop filters

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    Whatever you do, do NOT use the mod->"Grayscale." Google the subject and you should find some good tutorials on the web. At the minimum, try Adjustment->"Channel Mixer," and then click on the "Monochrome" checkbox. You can then adjust the amount in each "color." Usuaully when the total adds up to around 100%, it will look the best, but experiment around.

    ?Pondering the RD-1?

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    Within certain limitations, the R-D1 is a great camera.

     

    RAW buffer is a minor concern. However, I shoot only RAW and has never bump up to the limit. Remember, this is a RF, how fast does one usually shoot on an M?

     

    To me, the 3 biggest "problems" are:

    1 - PRICE, but then again, it is the only game available if you want to use your M lens. Leica Digital M, if and when it available (at the earliest, early 2007) will probably be at least $6000-$7000. Think about that.

     

    2 - It's best for using 28/35/50 for an equivalent view of ~42/53/75.

     

    3 - It's slightly larger than an M and slightly louder. Nevertheless, it handles very well.

     

    The focus issues seem to be mainly due to a) early reviewers do not know how to focus RF, b) spotty Quality Control on some cameras, and c) short RF baselength has limitations on focusing things like 90/2 @F2 etc.

    New Zeiss Ikon with Biogon

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    Lucien, it's pretty clear that the teaser pics they showed so far are from a 3D model and not a real prototype of anything like that.

     

    And the only conjecture that it's digital is based on the "fat" hinge.

     

    Here's hoping though. We will find out on Monday I guess. If it is a digital RF, with Zeiss reputation and if it comes out "soon," I will for sure take out my credit card in a hurry.

    21mm Color Skopar

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    I think you'll like the lens! I believe Skopar and Nokton, Heliar etc. are all old names trademarked and used by the original Voigtlander. Not sure about the origin of those names. Zeiss seems to use -gon (biogon, hologon etc.) Leitz uses emari, summi- (summicron, summilux etc. etc.) so I guess Voigtlander has its own unique naming style and scheme.
×
×
  • Create New...