roger_smith4

<p>They also have dramatically worse permanence. See Aardenburg Imaging: http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/light-fade-test-results/<br /><br />I did a south-facing window test myself and the MIS inks failed within a year. Prints in dark storage and Epson OEM inks lasted fine.</p>

<p>After years of not scanning I just scanned a couple of rolls of slide film with my Nikon LS-5000. I'm using Nikonscan as the last time I used Vuescan it has errors which I reported to Ed H. and then gave up on the program. I spent way too much time testing and debugging that software a decade ago. I recommend disabling/not using most of its software correction settings as I found them worse than useless (agree with Ty's post above. Set white/black clipping to 0%, film type to generic, color balance none and fix the color in Photoshop).<br /><br />Anyway, on my slides I see similar issues at black edges (edge of the frame as well as bright areas with shadows immediately adjacent.) I also notice pepper grain on Provia slides in smooth highlights. I figured out I can minimize pepper grain (at the slight expense of detail) by changing the cleaning from normal to fine. <br /><br />For the ghosting, the best advice I have is not to overbrighten shadows, as this exposes the scanner's flaws. From pepper grain to soft corners to scanner noise to flare/ghosting, scanning is a lossy procedure. I have resigned myself to minimizing problems through good technique but making peace with the limitations of scanning itself.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, it isn't difficult to get a Nikon scanner to work with Windows 7 by doing a search and following instructions. I use my LS-5000 with Windows 7 64 bit using Nikonscan without issue. I had the same concern about needing to keep a Windows XP laptop around. There's no need.</p>

<p>It's one sided. Yes to the moist finger test. Then write "bottom" on the label so you don't have to do this each time. I use the same paper and think highly of it.</p>

<p>These are all good links to explain color and how it works in practice with monitors. Thank you for your thoughtful responses to a somewhat confused line of questioning.</p>

<p>On a practical level I second Andrew's suggestion to get a high quality wide gamut monitor. I'm quite happy with my calibrated Nec screen. It's much better than the CRTs I switched from and now I can see colors beyond sRGB that used to be more or less imaginary to me (I knew I was editing in ProPhoto to future-proof my work but the colors never changed between that and sRGB before.)</p>

<p>I used MIS inks extensively (MISPRO and then their Ultrachrome equivalent.) I would not recommend them. I had some clogging issues with the R1800 but the reason I wouldn't recommend them has to do with longevity. I did my own tests with southfacing window glass, a reference print kept in dark storage and both Epson and MIS ink. The MIS faded quite quickly (less than 1 year). The paper itself (Harmon FB AL and Epson Luster) performed fine with minimal changes (Harmon warmed up a bit). Paper and inks in dark storage didn't appreciably change.<br /><br />For real tests, check out Aardenburg Imaging. I believe my results were generally consistent with theirs.<br /><br />I also used dedicated printers with MIS B&W ink. I think the prints looked great but beware that except for the all-carbon formulations they are using MIS's somewhat inferior pigments to cool the ink tone. You're probably better off with Epson's multi-greys instead.<br /><br />Personally, as a workaround I got refillable carts for my printer, bought high capacity (220ML) Ultrachrome carts and used that cheaper ink to refill my cartridges. Just make sure the bigger printer is using the same inkset as what your printer expects. I think that yields the best of both worlds.</p>

<p>Maybe switch to Panasonic? I think the GH3 has less in the way of moire and aliasing issues and is lighter, too. The announced GH4 will deliver clean 4K video a well.</p>

<p>I'd match your projector's max resolution (probably ~1024x768) and use the "set up slideshow" function in power point to lock in the resolution accordingly, and not get stuck with an odd aspect ratio.</p>

<p>I'm happy with a Sirui N1204. It got better reviews than the Benros from what I read for durability and is very light weight.</p>

<p>Are you saying that the monitor will look substantially different when calibrated and profiled with different devices? I thought matching prints was a function of soft-proofing, not altering the display.</p>

<p>You should be able to remove most objectionable digital noise with a program like Lightroom, where you should also color correct and sharpen before sending to them. Otherwise the quality of the prints will depend on their post-processing skills, and I'd assume they're minimal. Churches I shot in didn't allow flash during the ceremony itself, so noise is unavoidable.</p>

<p>Hi George, you have too many variables here to isolate the problem.<br>

<br />You claim the background is pure white, but then complain later that the whites are blownout (pure white is "blow out." From that I'm concluding that in fact you have some detail in your background that's getting interpreted differently by different programs. I think the backup issue is likely a red herring.</p>

<p>Please take one of these files as output by Photoshop, merge all visible layers, convert to and embed the sRGB profile, and save them to the desktop as an 8 bit jpeg (not gif or PNG). Then open them in Photoshop, Microsoft Photo Viewer (if windows), and the web browser you use with google drive. Please take screenshots in the different programs and post each of them.<br /><br />This should help sort out what your actual issue is (software, file format, color management, etc.)<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Is this the fully patched version of LR3? By the end the issues with adjustment brushes were sorted out. LR 4 is all around more polished, so you might consider that too. I've had no issues roundtripping to Photoshop.</p>

<p>There is a workaround and I have NikonScan working happily with Win 7 64 bit. Just do a quick search.</p>

<p>I second Coca. http://www.muscallidus.com/coca/ which is based on ArgyllCMS.<br />I used its predecessor SIPC a good bit and liked the interface.</p>

<p>With my P221 I use the factory primaries as my Eye One Display doesn't seem to get close at all on its own. Check "Factory measurements" in Edit>Preferences>ICC Profile>Source</p>

<p>Looking at both at 4000dpi, the Canon FS4000US is showing you texture in the surface of the bricks that isn't there in the 9000F scan at any resolution. There's a pretty big difference between the two, which would be more obvious using a subject that had more detail to begin with (like a field or trees with leaves.) I've looked at a lot of slide scans and have never seen a FS4000US scan that didn't have more detail or at least film grain at a 100% crop at 4000dpi.</p>

<p>I own the FS4000US and the Nikon Coolscan 5000. The Nikon has a modest edge in resolution, but much less shadow noise when scanning slides, faster times, better Dmax, and better color accuracy. You can get great scans from the Canon but it takes some post-processing and work-arounds. It struggles with contrasty slides.</p>

<p>I recommend IR cleaning on for color negs and non-Kodachrome slides. It has negligible impact on image quality and saves a lot of time.</p>

<p>I put some thoughts on noise with the Canon here:<br>

http://jingai.com/scanningguide/slide%20noise%20reduction.html<br>

Vuescan may well behave differently now- I haven't scanned anything in a few years.</p>

<p>Okay, the Epson R800 and R1800 are pigment based printers using a variant of Epson's K3 Ultrachrome ink set, with profiles for this paper.</p>

<p>Yes you can scan at multiple hardware exposures using Vuescan (check "lock exposure" and play with analog gain.) The Vuescan multisampling also reduces noise in slide film. On the LS-4000 and 5000 I believe it samples each pixel more than once on the same pass, so there are no film alignment issues.</p>

<p>In high contrast beach scenes I'd overexpose a stop or two with color negative film to keep the midtones and shadows clean. I don't think that's a scanner issue.</p>

<p>Ways of mitigating the scanner grain issue is to scan at full optical resolution, apply noise filtering, and downsize.<br>

<br />Shadow grain and dynamic range can be an issue for slide films only. It's possible to mitigate this with HDR software and scanning at multiple exposures and combining.</p>

<p>Interesting. This batch of scans shows a clear improvement in detail.</p>

<p>Does this process leave any artifacts? What about point light sources or areas of very high contrast?</p>

<p>I find this a bit baffling. Can you post a before (9000F) and after (9000F through this software) for a clear comparison? The 4x through Vuescan looks terrible, because the scanner can't align itself very precisely.</p>

<p>Velvia does tend to go greenish with long moonlit exposures. I used to use Astia/Sensia when it was around for more neutral colors. Provia 100F also goes a bit cyan at night but is usable.</p>

<p>Is 14MB a jpeg or TIFF? It sounds low-resolution I would stick with your fussy Minolta and know you'll get more resolution and shadow detail that way. The review video I watched there had some horribly color balanced "professional scans" and Wolverine ones that obliterated shadow detail. Hard to tell which were worse or the condition of the actual slides used.</p>

<p>Lightroom can include an audio track I believe. I use Sony Vegas Studio myself, which outputs way higher quality files than Movie Maker (hate how that program made my images look.)</p>