Interesting, 3 is not very good. With all the finish options clear it's very dark. I am doing some test scans though and I will see if I can lighten it. The bulbs were like $450 I think?
Printable View
Interesting, 3 is not very good. With all the finish options clear it's very dark. I am doing some test scans though and I will see if I can lighten it. The bulbs were like $450 I think?
Well, it's a real rating and not a manufacturer's pipe dream. It has quite a bit more dmax than an Epson scanner, but certainly not as much as a good drum scanner.
How does the scan react to lightening in photoshop? I would use a curve to lighten everything but the dark areas to where you want it. Flatten and run the Highlights/Shadow adjustment to bring up the shadows a bit.
Alternately, you can try setting endpoints in Color Genius. You can use negative numbers in the shadow RGB numbers.
$450 for a set of four? Did you go through Screen in Illinois?
Very true Peter.
I'm doing some test scans but generally lightening the scan only does so much. The H/S adjustment tool always looks very fake to me.
I didn't know you could set the shadow numbers to negative! I will try that.
$450 was for 2. I tried to buy them from Screen but they wouldn't let me, I had to go through a dealer (can't remember who). I tried to get an account started so I could buy direct but the guy in charge of accounts would not answer his phone or call me back ever! I might try again since they are stopping support of the scanner and see if I can buy out a bunch of bulbs.
Make sure to turn the H/S adjustment _way_ down, as in start at 0 and slowly raise it up. I often end up with a very low setting. The default is way too much for 99.99% of images.
Another trick is to use a shadow luminosity mask. You can apply the H/S adjustment through the mask, or you can simply use a curve to apply through the mask. You can also paint in the H/S layer through a shadow luminosity mask to taste.
Another trick is to cycle through the channels to find the one with the best shadow detail. Create a new combined layer. (Shift + Ctrl + Alt + E). Use the Apply Image command to replace the darker color channels with the lighter one. (You'll have to do this twice, once for each of the darker channels.) Now change the mode of the layer to luminosity.
I'll probably pick up two new bulbs sometime before they are no longer sold.
Thanks Peter.
I tried everything and I was actually able to pull a tiny bit more out of the shadows, surprisingly, with the "raw" scan, with no adjustments, even though that actually was really dark to start with. It just seemed to lighten up a bit better than I expected. But, ultimately, trying to pull as much as the Coolscan had out of the shadows just turned everything to mush.
I think I learned a valuable lesson, but I'll continue to tweak my development to try to get a bit more open shadows. And for 120 I might be able to borrow my friend's scanner occasionally (and actually there's a small chance I might buy it from her).
The worst part is I feel like I've scanned chromes before and gotten more out of the shadows but it just must have been a flatter image or something.
Velvia is a real challenge.
The guy I bought my Cezanne from said he tested it against a Howtek 4500 and found it very similar in Dmax. A newer drum scanner will be superior, and when you get that perfect-but-dark velvia shot, send it to Lenny. Bryan, can you adjust the Cezanne file to look like the Nikon one and repost? The two certainly have differences in shadow detail, but they don't appear to be that great. Rather, the midtones in the Nikon scan are much lighter, and it looks like the white point was set further in. Either way, this type of scene - a beach in full sun? - is generally too contrasty for velvia.
Some tricks I have learned over the years are:
1. A dark chrome rarely scans well. I have tweaked my shooting to keep shadows about 1/3 to 1/2 stop lighter. I almost always take 2 shots, one with highlights at zone 7 and another with highlights at zone 7.5. The 7.5 shot almost always wins w.r.t. the Cezanne. It can pull a great deal of detail out of a light slide. The general rule of thumb I use for slide film is that the scene must be no more than 2 stops under average and 2 stops over (-2/+2). With the Cezanne, I generally tweak this to (-1.5/+2 to 2.5). I know others will say that the film has a much greater range than 4 stops, but it only shines in that sweet spot. An ideal velvia scene for me is (-1/+1)
2. The Cezanne does a good job at recording differences between shadow tones, so that a steep curves adjustment can render more separation between them without looking too strained. I have not tried it, but you could also try scanning the slide 2x, once for shadows and once for highlights.
3. Try adjusting your scan settings. Since the scanner is linearly measuring data between the black and white points, those points define the slope of the line, and you want a fairly steep slope in the shadow areas to get more separation of dark tones. I have used the presets and then adjusted the white point densities by about -.05 to -.1 with good effect. You can also manually set the black points, and I rarely see these numbers go beyond about 3.5. In other words, setting the scanner to 4 over 3.5 probably gets you a bit more detail in deep shadows at the expense of shadows that overall are compressed. I think its better to have some areas go solid black and have more open shadows.
4. Set the output levels for shadows at 5-10. This forces shadow values into higher levels that you can then work with to get more tone separation. In Photoshop I will typically set the lowest of those values back to 1-4, and apply a fairly steep curve. The goal is have a few areas of solid black to "anchor" the image, and the rest of the dark tones further up the curves (say 10-20).
5. Finally, block all light except that going through the slide!
Great suggestions, Peter.
Thanks Peter (#2 :)).
I'll post some examples this evening if I get a chance.
I agree, the Cezanne pulls a lot out of the highlights. I've found that what looks like a "perfect" exposure on the light table is rough to scan, so placing the shadows higher one way or another is great. And yes, that shot was in contrasty light so I'm already pushing the envelope with a chrome. I tend to do that - I like the dramatic contrast look with color but sometimes that doesn't work well in post.
By the way, I tested the Coolscan with b&w as well and the Cezanne just blew away the Nikon in terms of tonality and highlight detail. Which is weird since that's in the "denser" portion of the film so it doesn't make much sense to me considering the struggle with density on chromes. The resolution of the scan was also equal to the Nikon. I do love the Cezanne for most films - well worth the trouble!
The density range of a b&w negative is low enough that any scanner should be a able to deal with it. The Nikon may function somewhat similar to a condensor enlarger with a greater Callier effect, while the flourescent tubes of the Cezanne render a cold light feel. The tonality and resolution of the Cezanne is stellar, though I'm still working on the best tray system for holding negatives. This scanner is the reason why I have not yet purchased a digital camera. I need to modify my Epson 3880 for Cone inks, though, to maximize highlight tonality.
Some day, though, the time involved with scanning and the bane of spotting may force me into stitching with a D800.