I just learned that the Cultural Heritage version supports only Phase One backs. I was hoping to learn a thing or two that could be implemented in my current workflow with Capture One. Perhaps, one day.
I just learned that the Cultural Heritage version supports only Phase One backs. I was hoping to learn a thing or two that could be implemented in my current workflow with Capture One. Perhaps, one day.
Bummer. Do any of the tools in Cultural Heritage work with other camera files?
When I heard that they only support Phase One digital backs I stopped pursuing it. I did write them in support of adding Canon, Nikon, etc. support and pointed them to a site on using DSLR based scanners to emphasize the advantage of developing for DSLR scanners.
A bit of a double question:
First, where is everyone now with a good light source for the DSLR Scanner? For example, how is the LED light sources turning out say to Xenon or Halogen type of lamps? It would seem that most lamps seem to fall under the 5000K color range. Whereas one can find LED's below and above the 5000K color range. It would seem some of the problems with the LED light sources are that they pulsate and don't have a high CRI. Since LED's seem to have a lower CLI, the attraction to a lamp source seems preferable to some.
Second, yet somewhat related, I'm of the impression that having a color temperature at or above 5000K for DSLR scanning color negatives is preferable to that of, for example, a 3300K color lamp? I'm not sure how true or not that is? But, it would seem the higher color temperature is helpful towards removing the orange cast in color negative film.
Related to the second question, I'm also a bit confused on the color filter (realizing this question is not best probably for this thread): some say the need for color filters are dead. But, I've read that for example one could change the color temperate by the use of a filter. For example, some say one can use a D80 filter (if i have that right) to convert the color temperature from 3000K to say 5000K? Others say that there's no point since this now can be done in post processing as long as RAW files are used from the DSLR.
Hopefully this thread is still being watched and stays active, as I am just starting to make plans for a DSLR scanner...
A question regarding color negatives:
I have read through this entire thread, and did not see anybody mentioning the ColorPerfect plugin for Photoshop/Photoline, which is a dedicated plugin to convert color negatives to positives. While I haven't tried it yet with a DSLR scan, I have been using it exclusively for all my color negative scans, and find that the results are quite good. I think it's fair to assume that any color shifts I have experienced are most likely due to the fact that I haven't calibrated my (film-) scanner yet. Nevertheless, I have been wanting to not use ColorPerfect (because I run Linux and don't like switching back and forth just for this) and tried manual orange mask removal with a couple of different image editors, and I have to admit I finally gave up. While I was able to get good results at times, I could never apply the same settings for other images, and thus not achieve consistent results. Thus I wonder, wouldn't it be easier to just use one very good light source with even illumination optimized for slides, and then use the same light source for negatives but put the task of orange mask removal to a dedicated plugin? Just wondering if anybody has tried that.
And just in case you wonder—no—I did not just sign up for this forum to advertise for ColorPerfect! I shoot mostly 35mm and 6x7, but since my scanner (Minolta DImage Multi Pro) sometimes seems to crash, I investigated the DSLR scanning method and was quite impressed by some very crude tests from my Ricoh GXR with the macro lens and APSC size sensor. The other reason why I am after better scans is, that my modified Beseler King slide projector with a 4.0/250mm Schneider AV-Xenotar MC lens produces so much nicer images than my scans (in terms of color, shadow details etc.)... so I am now gathering information and there is a ton of great info on these forums, so I dared to sign up even though I don't do any large format photography.
Hi Jason,
Nikon and Epson have used LEDs as the light source in some of their scanners, and I've been happy with the LEDs in my scanner, but then I scan 99% black and white film. A pwm dimming circuit can cause banding in the final scan at certain settings, but this can be gotten around. Sure, you can use lighting filters to change the color temp of a source. The big problem with halogen is the heat, especially since the light will be on for a couple of minutes, unlike in a darkroom enlarger. Xenon flashes do work, but if you're using speed lights consistency can be a bit of an issue, and Xenon sources aren't necessarily all that linear in output.
Drtebi,
There are adherents of Colorperfect on the forum. I predominantly scan black and white, though, and so I haven't looked into it.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
I use a Bessler slide duplicator with a copy stand, and a Nikon camera D300 right now, and a 55mm f2.8 Nikon macro. The light source can be strobe or or 3200k tungsten. I use the 4x5 adapter. In the long run I prefer a scanner. My Epson is great with 4x5 but terrible with 2 1/4 formats. For 35mm slides I have a Schneider 60mm duplicating lens I'll use with the Nikon.
Tom
Thank you for your response.Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt
I will test the DSLR scanning of color negatives and conversion with ColorPerfect and report back once I get to it.
So what is the general consensus regarding color temperature for color slides? I assume 5800K daylight should be preferred for slides?
Not sure if I should start a new thread, since this one is kind of old... anyway.
I am pretty far with my DSLR Scanner setup (mostly for 6x7 slides). There is one thing I am curious about, and one of you may have an answer to this.
I am comparing my DSLR scans (with a Nikon D810) to my Minolta Dimage Pro scans, and when I do 2×2 stitches I am getting very close to the same sharpness, sometimes better. I do however get less grain with the DSLR. It made me think that maybe what appears to be grain from the Minolta scanner is actually noise from the CCD. I don't think it comes from the anti-newton glass, because I am actually using the exact same negative carrier for the DSLR setup. Is it reasonable to believe that this "grain" is actually noise? Or is it maybe because my light box has a better diffused light?
Consumer film scanners, such as those from Nikon and Minolta, exaggerate grain, especially with larger-grained film. For instance, many years ago, I owned a Nikon Coolscan V and a Canon 9950F flatbed. With fine-grained film, the Coolscan gave noticeably better scans than the Canon. With larger grained film, though, the results were the reverse. With Kodak High Speed Infrared, for example, the Nikon gave huge grain, so much so that image detail was degraded. The Canon did a much better job. This could've been do to sensor issues, grain aliasing, light source size.... someone made a diffusing screen for the light sources of the Minotla scanners and claimed greatly reduced grain. In comparing prints from both systems to those made with an optical enlarger, the scans produced by the flatbed were clearly more accurate grainwise than the Coolscan scanner for larger grained film.
So, yes, I expect that you're seeing scanner created noise in your Minolta scans.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks