Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 2870
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
I am currently using Nikon Scan 4.2 (on Windows XP Pro) with variable results.
I scan both C41 negatives (mainly Portra) and Velvia transparency film, and sometimes get stunning results, but but on other occasions I am less than happy.
Scan quality itself is fine, but I often have difficulty getting the scanner to reproduce colours as I see them on the lightbox, especially blacks, which often look rather blue. Other colours also tend to be reproduced in, shall I say, 'un natural' shades.
Turning Digital ROC down to minimum sometimes has the desired effect, but not always. I also find that turning off Scan Image Enhancer often produces a better image to start with.
Does anyone have any experience getting good (and consistent) results from Nikon Scan, or would I be best advised to use alternative scanning software?
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
Meredith
enthusiast
Reged: 23/10/2006
Posts: 251
Loc: Coventry, UK
|
|
I have very rarely got accurate colours from a scan fresh from my scanner. I use a Minolta scanner myself. I run each scan through Photoshop to get it looking like the original. It usually takes very little editing for me.
--------------------
Meredith Lewis
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4251
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Scan quality itself is fine, but I often have difficulty getting the scanner to reproduce colours as I see them on the lightbox, especially blacks, which often look rather blue. Other colours also tend to be reproduced in, shall I say, 'un natural' shades.
Did you try scanning an unexposed frame (with the same scanner settings) and subtracting that from the images? Maybe the Nikon Scan software doesn't do that but there's certainly third party software that can help...
The problem doesn't arise with cr*ppy scanners with low dynamic range as they have difficulty distinguishing shadows in transparencies from opaque mounts.
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 2870
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Scan quality itself is fine, but I often have difficulty getting the scanner to reproduce colours as I see them on the lightbox, especially blacks, which often look rather blue. Other colours also tend to be reproduced in, shall I say, 'un natural' shades.
Did you try scanning an unexposed frame (with the same scanner settings) and subtracting that from the images? Maybe the Nikon Scan software doesn't do that but there's certainly third party software that can help...
The problem doesn't arise with cr*ppy scanners with low dynamic range as they have difficulty distinguishing shadows in transparencies from opaque mounts.
Thanks for the advice so far.
From what I can see, there is no 'easy' option for subtracting a black slide exposure, although there is an option for setting black target levels, which I suppose could do the same thing.
However, the problem that I am having is not so much one of an overall colour cast. That I could easily correct in Photoshop. The problem I have is that some colours just look un-natural sometimes, but the colour differences are not consistent, and seem to be caused by the ROC software.
I know that I can get much better quality from the scanner than I am at present, but I cannot seem to get any further with Nikon Scan.
If I were to try third party software, is there anything in particualr that is easy-ish to use, and produces consistently good results?
I am not too worried about loosing digital ICE or grain reduction if that is a problem.
Thanks again.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4251
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
If I were to try third party software, is there anything in particualr that is easy-ish to use, and produces consistently good results?
For a Nikon scanner? Vuescan???
BTW I use a program called Deep Sky Stacker (free) which is designed for astrophotography but can do bias & dark frame subtraction etc - does it very well too and is quite easy to use. Takes many standard formats as input, TIFF would be your best choice here but can even manage Canon RAW files 
|
CircleOfConfusion
addict
Reged: 22/01/2006
Posts: 420
Loc: Bedfordshire
|
|
I used to use the Nikon scan software with very variable results, now I use Vuescan all the time. You could try fiddling with different "gain" values for the colours in the Nikon software, this might help.
I think to get the colours right the only easy way is to buy a IT8(?) target for the films you use and profile the scanner, much like profiling the screen/printer. Other wise lots of fiddling and experimenting seems the only other way 
--------------------
Steve
My Photography Blog Updated 27/01/08
My Flickr page
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 2870
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
Quote:
I think to get the colours right the only easy way is to buy a IT8(?) target for the films you use and profile the scanner, much like profiling the screen/printer.
How does that work?
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
CircleOfConfusion
addict
Reged: 22/01/2006
Posts: 420
Loc: Bedfordshire
|
|
A quick google search revealed this website Computer darkroom IT8 target review which should explain it fairly well. basically you get a target which you scan, then using software compare your results with known data values, then adjust the scanners response so that it records the colours accurately.
--------------------
Steve
My Photography Blog Updated 27/01/08
My Flickr page
|
Craftysnapper
enthusiast
Reged: 05/01/2006
Posts: 317
|
|
Another vote for Vuescan , I use it with my Coolscan V and flatbed scanner gives way better control and colour. 
--------------------
Keep on snapping and catch the moment if you can.
Paul
|
Monobod
'Phantom' of the forum!
Reged: 03/04/2003
Posts: 5675
Loc: Just West of Norwich, Norfolk
|
|
Using my Canon FS-4000US and the Canon software, I scanned a transparency photo of a Lighthouse in a stormy sea, set off of the coast of Jersey.
In the transparency the formation of the rocks, althogh dark, were clearly visible. In the scan, they had been turned into blocks of tone that resembled copper sulphate crystals, but in shades of grey and black. The image was totally unuseable.
I have downloaded Viewscan and will try again, hopefully with better results. The Canon software is pretty hopeless, I feel, which is a sad dissapointment from such an otherwise worthy company. I did expect better considering the cost of the scanner. 
--------------------
David.
-----------------------------------------------
Photos hosted by Flickr.
www.flickr.com/photos/monobod/
-----------------------------------------------
I see the world thro' a viewfinder, but the world watches me via CCTV!
Edited by Monobod (16/03/2008 16:26)
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 981
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Quote:
I did expect better considering the cost of the scanner.
So did I but I ended up replacing it with the Nikon.
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 2870
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
Thanks again guys.
I have downloaded the Vuescan and will give it a go.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
John_K
addict
Reged: 03/09/2006
Posts: 546
Loc: North Yorks
|
|
ASre you using the ROC facility all the time? If so turn it off, not just turning it down to the lowest setting. Your scans will be much quicker as a result.
I use a Nikon scanner as well and never have a problem with colours to the degree you are suggesting.
ROC is designed for under exposed negatives or over exposed slides or ones that are ancient and have started to fade.
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 2870
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
Quote:
ASre you using the ROC facility all the time? If so turn it off, not just turning it down to the lowest setting. Your scans will be much quicker as a result.
I use a Nikon scanner as well and never have a problem with colours to the degree you are suggesting.
ROC is designed for under exposed negatives or over exposed slides or ones that are ancient and have started to fade.
Mmm. I will try it, although this also disables the grain reduction feature.
As a point of interest, do you use the 'Scan Image Enhancer'? I seem to find that it gives rather variable results with transparencies, but is OK most of the time with negatives.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
