Banding Issues with the Nikon 9000

[parasko]

Hi all,

Does anyone know how to prevent or minimise banding with the Nikon 9000?
The banding appears when I try to lighten dark areas of an image in PS and it is prominent when there is less detail in this dark area of the image (think sky, sea etc).

I am using Vuescan to scan Provia 100f 35mm slides.

Does the (very expensive) Silverfast software deal with this problem better?

[richardman]

Probably not needed, if you use Vuescan, enable fine mode and multi-exposure.

[Greg Miller]

Are you in 16bit mode through the entire workflow? It isn't hard to get banding in 8 bit, especially if you are working with a B&W image.

[Oren Grad]

Set the fine scan mode. I use SilverFast, but I still needed to set the fine mode on my 9000 to squelch occasional banding. Didn't need to set multi-exposure mode on mine.

[benrains]

The banding may also be a limitation of the monitor (or printer) you're using. I mean it's entirely possible that if you're scanning your film at 16-bit/channel that the scanned image files themselves contain the necessary information--but if your display or output device is limited to 8-bit/channel or less then banding can show up there.

[RJC]

Set the fine scan mode. I use SilverFast, but I still needed to set the fine mode on my 9000 to squelch occasional banding. Didn't need to set multi-exposure mode on mine.

+1

I'm using Nikon Scan with a Coolscan 8000 and have never suffered from banding since always using 'fine scan'

[richardman]

Sorry, I should emphasize that multi-exposure if you want to extract max shadow details.

[parasko]

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. It looks like Fine Mode does the trick.

I'm trying to extract as much information as possible from my 35mm slides in order to be able to print as large as possible. For those of you familiar with Vuescan, is there a setting I should be using other than the following below?

Input
Scan resolution =4000dpi
Fine Mode
(Still experimenting with Multi Exposure-I cannot see a noticeable difference at this stage)
Number of Samples =1 (Does image quality improve by using a larger number of samples?)

Filter
Infrared Clean =Light

Output
Output = Raw file 48bitRGB (Is there a real world difference between the 48bit and 64bit option?)
What setting should I choose for Printed Size?

[richardman]

For highest quality:
Multiple Samples: this improves the shadow details and dynamic range, so go ahead and set it to 2 or 3.
NO infrared clean - that decreases the resolution slightly. Just clean your neg really well and use photoshop healing brush
Use PropPhotoRGB output space.

[Greg Miller]

This may be hard to see in the real world, but ProPhotoRGB would tend to increase banding. Since ProPhoto RGB and other more limited gamut color spaces. such as sRGB, have the exact same number of total tonal value (in other words, 16 bit is 16 bit regardless of color spaces), and since ProPhoto RGB has a wider color gamut, the discrete total values in ProPhoto RGB are spaced farther from their neighbor tonal values than with a more limited gamut color space. That wider spacing of discrete tonal values will increase banding.

So if one's goal is to reduce banding, one should always choose the smallest gamut color space that still encompasses all the tonal values of the image.

I agree with Ben Rains that the banding may simply be a result of the monitor's ability to display a 16 bit image. The image itself may very well be fine.

[richardman]

Is there a reference to this ProPhotoRGB may cause banding to appear? If any post processing is to be done, then one should use the widest Gamut possible. Besides, LR internally uses something similar to ProPhotoRGB so I'd like to see some references on it.

Thanks.

[Greg Miller]

Is there a reference to this ProPhotoRGB may cause banding to appear? If any post processing is to be done, then one should use the widest Gamut possible. Besides, LR internally uses something similar to ProPhotoRGB so I'd like to see some references on it.

Thanks.

It's just basic math. As I explained before, the number of discrete available tones in a larger color space must be spaced further apart than a color space with a smaller gamut color space (because both color spaces contain exactly the same number of total tonal values). Therefore the tones in the (continuous tome) image that must map to an actual color space tone must travel farther to the nearest tone, and more tones will end up at the same tone. That is banding. All digital color spaces cause banding. The larger gamut color spaces must by definition cause more banding than a smaller gamut color space, because the tones must be spread further apart from each other.

Think of 2 deserts. One desert called ProPhoto. The other desert called sRGB is smaller than ProPhoto desert. Within each desert there are 256 oases, called tones, that ares spaced equidistant from each other. Since ProPhoto is larger than sRGB, the Oases/tones in ProPhoto are spaced farther apart from each other than in the sRGB desert. Now lets say there are people that are scattered around the center of each desert (but not the outer regions). Each person needs to go to the nearest Oases/tone. The people in the ProPhoto desert will have to travel farther to get to the nearest tone, and there will be more people ending up at each oases/tone when they all arrive than there will be in the sRGB desert. That is the same as banding - ProPhoto will have more than sRGB. ProPhoto becomes even worse when you consider that many tones in ProPhoto are not visible to humans. All color spaces have the exact same number of available tones (as long as bit depth remains the same). So ProPhoto actually wastes some of those available tones, leaving fewer to be used to map continuous tones from the input image to.

So, for a person who want to minimize banding, ProPhoto is the worst color space to use (again assuming that a smaller color space contains all the necessary tones).

It is also incorrect to state that "If any post processing is to be done, then one should use the widest Gamut possible". If a smaller gamut color space contains all the tones of an image, the smaller color space is always the better choice for post processing.

And Lightroom does not actually convert image tonal values to RGB values until you export the image. When you export the image you may specify any color space that you want. So just because Lightroom uses something close to ProPhoto during the processing phase means nothing in terms of banding.

[richardman]

That's assuming that a blue sky uses up all 256 levels. BTW, I write C compilers for a living so I do know computer stuff fairly well, albeit that I do not play with photo processing algorithms.

You may be right, I'm just not convinced. Lets leave it at that.

[Greg Miller]

That's assuming that a blue sky uses up all 256 levels.

Given the multiple layers of problems with that comment, leaving it at that is a good idea.

[rdenney]

The problem with using narrower color space, though, is that it will clip the ends of the histogram. This may be a "feature" of Vuescan, but I always clipped the histogram when using a narrow colorspace output, and have largely solved that problem by using ProPhoto. I've never had banding issues with my Nikon 8000 using a wide space like ProPhoto, unless I'm doing something really extreme with a curve adjustment. I did get clipping when I used sRGB, which is worse.

The Raw space in Vuescan is Raw only from Vuescan's point of view, not from the scanner's point of view, near as I can tell. I always scan to a wide colorspace and store in a 48-bit TIFF file, rather than depending on a post-scan raw conversion. So far, I've not lost anything by doing so, that I can tell. I then open the TIFF file with Photoshop and make general corrections and most interpretations in the wide space. If I need specific (and narrower) downstream colorspace (such as for web display), I convert (NOT assign) to that colorspace as part of targeting the image to that output. (I keep correction--which applies to a standard file--and targeting as separate processes.) The only time I get banding is from noise in dense areas, and then only when I'm trying to move those tonal values far from their starting points.

The only time multiscanning does any good for me is in those cases, when there is a lot of density in the slide or negative. Multiscanning averages several samples from those parts of the image where the sensor is starved for photons and therefore subject to noise. For images that are mostly bright, or where I'm not trying to bring shadows up a lot, I don't notice much improvement. (Or for negatives that are mostly dense with highlights where I might be trying to pull them down a lot, particularly bright skies.) One way to avoid the the temptation to really move those values is to get the filtration close in the camera. The less I have to move those tonal values in Photoshop, the better the outcomes for me.

Rick "whose experience may not be universal" Denney

[Greg Miller]

The problem with using narrower color space, though, is that it will clip the ends of the histogram. This may be a "feature" of Vuescan, but I always clipped the histogram when using a narrow colorspace output, and have largely solved that problem by using ProPhoto. I've never had banding issues with my Nikon 8000 using a wide space like ProPhoto, unless I'm doing something really extreme with a curve adjustment. I did get clipping when I used sRGB, which is worse.

The Raw space in Vuescan is Raw only from Vuescan's point of view, not from the scanner's point of view, near as I can tell. I always scan to a wide colorspace and store in a 48-bit TIFF file, rather than depending on a post-scan raw conversion. So far, I've not lost anything by doing so, that I can tell. I then open the TIFF file with Photoshop and make general corrections and most interpretations in the wide space. If I need specific (and narrower) downstream colorspace (such as for web display), I convert (NOT assign) to that colorspace as part of targeting the image to that output. (I keep correction--which applies to a standard file--and targeting as separate processes.) The only time I get banding is from noise in dense areas, and then only when I'm trying to move those tonal values far from their starting points.

The only time multiscanning does any good for me is in those cases, when there is a lot of density in the slide or negative. Multiscanning averages several samples from those parts of the image where the sensor is starved for photons and therefore subject to noise. For images that are mostly bright, or where I'm not trying to bring shadows up a lot, I don't notice much improvement. (Or for negatives that are mostly dense with highlights where I might be trying to pull them down a lot, particularly bright skies.) One way to avoid the the temptation to really move those values is to get the filtration close in the camera. The less I have to move those tonal values in Photoshop, the better the outcomes for me.

Rick "whose experience may not be universal" Denney

I was very careful to state previously "one should always choose the smallest gamut color space that still encompasses all the tonal values of the image". Clipping will not occur if the color space can represent all the tonal values.
If the image tones, require ProPhoto RGB, then ProPhoto RGB will need to be used to represent those additional tones. But at the tradeoff of lager spacing between discrete tones.

[Greg Miller]

Actually clipping at the ends of the histogram would be shadow & highlight clipping - It would be hard to say why sRGB would limit the dynamic range and cause this clipping. I don't use Vuescan so I can't comment on why that would happen to you, but using sRGB should not limit dynamic range.

[photobymike]

try changing the cable between your computer and scanner ..use one with a ferrite coil on one end of the cable

[richardman]

Snarky snarky, I know so much. *roll eyes*

[richardman]

Your eyes and monitor can probably not be able to tell initially the difference between sRGB or ProPhoto. So why does it matter? It's when you start any sort of manipulation that you want the larger color gamut. If you do much post processing, then the simple workflow of using sRGB is fine. Otherwise, if you have banding, solve the problem other ways rather than picking on color space based on someone's theory.

Fine mode works for most, and also for OP.

[richardman]

And recommending using sRGB space is one of the worst advice ever. You want to use as large as a gamut your workflow can handle. This is why you use your own printer profiles and not sRGB through the printer driver. LR uses ProPhoto like space, so scan outputting that space would lessen any translation issue on the input side. As you post process, the larger gamut keeps more of the info. Then when you print, that's the only time you need to convert to a different space.

[Greg Miller]

It's when you start any sort of manipulation that you want the larger color gamut. If you do much post processing, then the simple workflow of using sRGB is fine. Otherwise, if you have banding, solve the problem other ways rather than picking on color space based on someone's theory.

That's just not correct. When you start manipulating you start pushing tones to new tones. The closer the new tones are to the original the less banding. The tones in ProPhoto are spaced farther apart than small color spaces. So more banding in the larger color space.

[Greg Miller]

And recommending using sRGB space is one of the worst advice ever. You want to use as large as a gamut your workflow can handle. This is why you use your own printer profiles and not sRGB through the printer driver. LR uses ProPhoto like space, so scan outputting that space would lessen any translation issue on the input side. As you post process, the larger gamut keeps more of the info. Then when you print, that's the only time you need to convert to a different space.

You clearly are not reading what I have written. I never suggested anyone use sRGB for all images. I clearly stated the best practice is to use the smallest gamut color space that fully encompasses the tones in the image. That could be sRGB for a foggy scene. It could be ProPhoto for a highly saturated sunrise. It could be Adobe RGB 1998 for a portrait. The one size fits all use of ProPhotoRGB for all images is just being lazy. And it is just plain wrong to suggest that one should use a wide as a gamut your workflow can handle. And LF photographers tend be be less lazy than the general population, so they should care about this stuff when processing one sheet at a time.

[Greg Miller]

Your eyes and monitor can probably not be able to tell initially the difference between sRGB or ProPhoto. So why does it matter? It's when you start any sort of manipulation that you want the larger color gamut. If you do much post processing, then the simple workflow of using sRGB is fine. Otherwise, if you have banding, solve the problem other ways rather than picking on color space based on someone's theory.

Fine mode works for most, and also for OP.

It is easier to understand this if you think of 2 color spaces where one is half the size (gamut) of the larger color space. That means there are 2 tonal steps in the smaller color space for every one of the larger to cover the same distance. So when you start manipulating you have twice as many new tones to move to in the smaller color space. In a gross exaggeration, you can go from yellow to orange in the smaller space, where you would have to go from yellow to red in the larger color space.

[Greg Miller]

Your eyes and monitor can probably not be able to tell initially the difference between sRGB or ProPhoto. So why does it matter? It's when you start any sort of manipulation that you want the larger color gamut. If you do much post processing, then the simple workflow of using sRGB is fine. Otherwise, if you have banding, solve the problem other ways rather than picking on color space based on someone's theory.

Fine mode works for most, and also for OP.

Another way to think about is to imagine that you want to draw a picture that uses only red tones. You have two boxes of crayolas: a 64 color box of only shades of red, and a 64 color box that has reds, yellow, blues, greens,... Which box are you going to choose to draw with? The smaller gamut box with only red crayolas, because it has more tonal options and still covers all the tones that you need. The 64 color box with the wider gamut is cool but isn't the best choice for this image because it has to cover a wider gamut and gives us fewer choices in the gamut that we need to cover, and therefore will result in banding.

[richardman]

The problem is no one really can see how many tones their negatives will need in general. Your eyes are not good enough to determine. Your monitor cannot display them all. The safest thing then is to use the largest gamut that will work reasonably with your machines and workflow.

Like I said in the earlier messages - show us the proof where this banding happens in real life with ProPhoto. Otherwise, this sidetracking to colorspace is just that - sidetracking. There are plenty of evidence and theories to support my thesis, as I am sure you can find some to support yours, but colorspace debate is not the original question. The OP solves it by using Fine Mode.

[Greg Miller]

The problem is no one really can see how many tones their negatives will need in general. Your eyes are not good enough to determine. Your monitor cannot display them all. The safest thing then is to use the largest gamut that will work reasonably with your machines and workflow.

Like I said in the earlier messages - show us the proof where this banding happens in real life with ProPhoto. Otherwise, this sidetracking to colorspace is just that - sidetracking. There are plenty of evidence and theories to support my thesis, as I am sure you can find some to support yours, but colorspace debate is not the original question. The OP solves it by using Fine Mode.

There are plenty of people here in this forum who won't use inkjet printers, even in 16 bit mode, because the think they don't get the same smooth tonal gradations as they get with continuous tone printing methods. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Greg Miller]

The problem is no one really can see how many tones their negatives will need in general. Your eyes are not good enough to determine. Your monitor cannot display them all. The safest thing then is to use the largest gamut that will work reasonably with your machines and workflow.

Like I said in the earlier messages - show us the proof where this banding happens in real life with ProPhoto. Otherwise, this sidetracking to colorspace is just that - sidetracking. There are plenty of evidence and theories to support my thesis, as I am sure you can find some to support yours, but colorspace debate is not the original question. The OP solves it by using Fine Mode.

This is complete nonsense. A wider gamut color space would not help this image at all. It would only hurt it by making the tonal gradations less smooth (or increase banding in other words). And photographer experienced in the gamut shapes of the 3 primary color spaces can tell pretty easily whether an image would benefit by a different color space.
105461

[richardman]

Of course it is there even if one cannot see it, that's exactly why one uses thw widest gamut possible. So you show a more or less monochromatic image. Whoohoo... whatever. I will scan in ProPhoto, you will eyeball your monochromatic images and scan in sRGB. Whatever. There's no banding with ProPhoto.

[richardman]

I really don't care how you scan except for that diatribe against Prophoto for "banding" issues, which was solved by a simple "Fine mode" check box.

[Greg Miller]

Of course it is there even if one cannot see it, that's exactly why one uses the widest gamut possible. So you show a more or less monochromatic image. Whoohoo... whatever. I will scan in ProPhoto, you will eyeball your monochromatic images and scan in sRGB. Whatever. There's no banding with ProPhoto.

So which box of Crayolas would you choose? The one with only 8 tonal values for red (small gamut), or the one with 64 (wide gamut)?

[Greg Miller]

You want to use as large as a gamut your workflow can handle. This is why you use your own printer profiles and not sRGB through the printer driver.

What? No, you use a printer profile because it is device dependent, unlike a color space like sRGB which is device independent. The device dependent print profile corrects for color inadequacies that the printer has for any given printer/ink/paper combination.



LR uses ProPhoto like space, so scan outputting that space would lessen any translation issue on the input side. As you post process, the larger gamut keeps more of the info. Then when you print, that's the only time you need to convert to a different space.

What? LR only uses ProPhoto to display an image during LR processing (it was a safe choice to prevent out of temporary gamut display issues for large gamut images while working in LR). When you output the image, LR converts the RAW data directly to the output colors pace chosen in the output section.

[polyglot]

hey guys, this isn't APUG so you don't need to be fighty...

As to the subsequent ("which options") question, I would suggest the additional things:
- 64-bit RGBI
- AF on Scan
- Raw Save on Save
- IR clean: light*, except for silver-containing films
- make extensive use of Lock Exposure, Lock Film Base and the All Frames option on the Colour tab.
- inspect the Ctrl-1 (raw) and Ctrl-2 (inverted, with clip points) histograms carefully for scan faults like under- or over-exposure of the neg in the scanner Over-exposure does NOT go all the way to the right, you get a little tooth just short of where you expect it on the raw histogram.
- manually adjust your film-base colour to prevent unnecessary (negative) shadow clipping and shadow colour-cast; its auto-detection is sometimes painfully wrong
- save raw: Type Auto, DNG.
- DO NOT check the "Raw Save Film" box, it will save non-raw values i.e. after film-base subtraction, etc. I think if you leave it unchecked, you get basically raw data, prior to the inversion. I don't know if it includes IR cleaning.
- verify the file sizes are appropriate (48b = X*Y*6 bytes for the raw file) after the first save; this can save pain if you've accidentally bumped the Reduce Raw slider or something stupid
- verify the first jpeg to make sure you haven't accidentally left JPG B&W selected (also a hard lesson)
- don't forget you can open your saved RAWs in Vuescan (Scan From File in the Scan Source combo box) to reprocess/invert the jpegs differently if you find better colouring settings later in a roll

* this is contentious. There is a small loss of resolution sometimes, but I contend that in a print from a 120 neg, it's not relevant. The time savings alone when scanning C41 or E6 make it totally worth it. Don't do it if you don't want, but don't blame me for the hours you'll spend spotting your scans.

I'd link you to my "how to scan C41 in Vuescan" FAQ article but my idiot webhost has f*cked up a PHP upgrade and broken my site for the second time in 3 weeks.

[Greg Miller]

That's assuming that a blue sky uses up all 256 levels.

Say what? I haven't seen a sky (except for at night) that uses a valuer of 0 (black). So the sky will use significantly fewer available tonal values that the full 256. But 256 implies 8 bit processing. Everybody I know quit using 8 bit for landscapes years ago because iof banding they got in blue skies.

And where did ever mention blue skies anyway?

And I can write assembler code. Can;t say that ever had any impact on my knowledge of color management.

[rdenney]

Actually clipping at the ends of the histogram would be shadow & highlight clipping - It would be hard to say why sRGB would limit the dynamic range and cause this clipping. I don't use Vuescan so I can't comment on why that would happen to you, but using sRGB should not limit dynamic range.

I'm not being theoretical. In theory, I agree with you. In practice, I see histograms that are clipped.

Rick "who has never seen banding from the Nikon except when making extreme tonal moves, irrespective of color space" Denney

[richardman]

re: the original question about Nikon banding. I used an LS-8000 for 3 years and then LS-9000 for 3 years now. I upgraded to the LS-9000 precisely because the LS-8000 shows more banding on scanning B&W. There are lots of google links on this, and the LS-9000 supposes to be better. However, I found that the LS-9000 still shows banding sometimes, but in all cases, it goes away when Fine Mode is checked.

[parasko]

Great! This was the type of advice I was seeking. Thanks!


hey guys, this isn't APUG so you don't need to be fighty...

As to the subsequent ("which options") question, I would suggest the additional things:
- 64-bit RGBI
- AF on Scan
- Raw Save on Save
- IR clean: light*, except for silver-containing films
- make extensive use of Lock Exposure, Lock Film Base and the All Frames option on the Colour tab.
- inspect the Ctrl-1 (raw) and Ctrl-2 (inverted, with clip points) histograms carefully for scan faults like under- or over-exposure of the neg in the scanner Over-exposure does NOT go all the way to the right, you get a little tooth just short of where you expect it on the raw histogram.
- manually adjust your film-base colour to prevent unnecessary (negative) shadow clipping and shadow colour-cast; its auto-detection is sometimes painfully wrong
- save raw: Type Auto, DNG.
- DO NOT check the "Raw Save Film" box, it will save non-raw values i.e. after film-base subtraction, etc. I think if you leave it unchecked, you get basically raw data, prior to the inversion. I don't know if it includes IR cleaning.
- verify the file sizes are appropriate (48b = X*Y*6 bytes for the raw file) after the first save; this can save pain if you've accidentally bumped the Reduce Raw slider or something stupid
- verify the first jpeg to make sure you haven't accidentally left JPG B&W selected (also a hard lesson)
- don't forget you can open your saved RAWs in Vuescan (Scan From File in the Scan Source combo box) to reprocess/invert the jpegs differently if you find better colouring settings later in a roll

* this is contentious. There is a small loss of resolution sometimes, but I contend that in a print from a 120 neg, it's not relevant. The time savings alone when scanning C41 or E6 make it totally worth it. Don't do it if you don't want, but don't blame me for the hours you'll spend spotting your scans.

I'd link you to my "how to scan C41 in Vuescan" FAQ article but my idiot webhost has f*cked up a PHP upgrade and broken my site for the second time in 3 weeks.

[Denverdad]

While all of this discussion of color spaces is interesting, I believe it came out of a misinterpretation of the OP's question. Let me first explain that the Nikon Coolscan 8000/9000 scanners are notorious for sometimes producing a particular scan artifact usually called "banding". This artifact appears as a regular pattern of parallel lines running along the same axis as the scaner's tri-linear sensor array; i.e., perpendicular to the scan direction. It occurs (when it occurs at all - some users apparently never see it) only when scanning at maximum resolution (4000 spi), and can manifest itself with B&W, color negative or color positive film, and as far as I know at any bit depth and with any color space. Regular spacing is a key aspect - and just as an example, the banding produced by my 9000 has a period of exactly 36 columns of pixels. At the heart of it all is apparently some undefined calibration issue associated with the simultaneous use of the tri-linear array's 3 sensor rows. And as reported, using super fine mode makes the banding go away to "solve" the problem. I have to put that in quotes because while superfine mode does elminate the banding artifact, it also results in substantially longer scan times, as you might expect since it makes use of just one row of the sensor as opposed to all three. Also just for reference, many claim that Nikon solved the banding problem when they came out with the Coolscan 9000, but like richardman, I can report that my particular 9000 does in fact exhibit this artifact too.

So that is "Nikon banding". In contrast, when people are referring to banding as related to color spaces, bit depths, histograms and so forth, I believe they are referring to an effect which is otherwise known as posterization. I am happy to stand corrected on that, but this sense of the word is pretty much unrelated to the OP's banding problem. In any event this has been my attempt to disambiguate the term banding, and hopefully it has been helpful and not just pedantic.


Jeff

[richardman]

Jeff, I concur with your assessment, and I apologize for participating in a "side-tracking" subthread.

When I get banding, it is exactly as you describe, regular columns.

[cabbiinc]

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. It looks like Fine Mode does the trick.

I'm trying to extract as much information as possible from my 35mm slides in order to be able to print as large as possible. For those of you familiar with Vuescan, is there a setting I should be using other than the following below?

Input
Scan resolution =4000dpi
Fine Mode
(Still experimenting with Multi Exposure-I cannot see a noticeable difference at this stage)
Number of Samples =1 (Does image quality improve by using a larger number of samples?)
From what I've read fine mode uses only one line of the CCD to be used. http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc28.htm#inputfinemode Why that would cut down on banding I don't know, but there's plenty of other discussions saying that it does.
Multi-Exposure is only useful with slide film with contrast that exceeds the dynamic range of the scanner.


Filter
Infrared Clean =Light

Output
Output = Raw file 48bitRGB (Is there a real world difference between the 48bit and 64bit option?)
What setting should I choose for Printed Size?
Keep in mind that Vuescan defines "bits" per pixel. So what Photoshop would call 8 bits Vuescan would call 24 (8 bits per pixel. Red Green Blue pixels). PS's 16 bit is Vuescan's 48 bit. And 64 bit in Vuescan is adding the Infrared channel, i.e. RGBI. If you're not going to use that IR channel info then you'll not see a difference. If however you plan to revisit the file within Vuescan and possibly use the IR channels data then saving it would be needed.

[parasko]

….So that is "Nikon banding". In contrast, when people are referring to banding as related to color spaces, bit depths, histograms and so forth, I believe they are referring to an effect which is otherwise known as posterization. I am happy to stand corrected on that, but this sense of the word is pretty much unrelated to the OP's banding problem. In any event this has been my attempt to disambiguate the term banding, and hopefully it has been helpful and not just pedantic.
Jeff

Thanks for clarifying this Jeff. Yes, the 'Nikon banding' is what I was referring to (not posterisation).

After numerous scans using Fine Mode I can confirm that there is no more banding so thanks again to everyone for their input. I am relieved that there is nothing wrong with the scanner and it was just about tweaking the software settings.