v750 scans??

[Milton Tierney]

I just hooked up my Epson v750 scanner and learning the basics. Using Epson scan or Silver Fast software, I’ve been scanning my 4x5 b&w negs in tiff and/or jpeg format at various dpi to see how they look.

There are two problems that puzzle me about scanning b&w film. I use PS Elements 7 and notices that the “correct camera distortion” is turned off and have an overall cream color on the monitor instead of black&white. If I scan the b&w neg as color jpeg and invert the image I can use “correct camera distortion”, but I still have the cream color. But, when the image is printed the whites are white, no cream color.

The cream color is annoying making it difficult in judging contrast and I would like to turn on the “correct camera distortion” without inverting.

Any ideas?

[Greg Blank]

My gut instinct is that your seeing ambient
light from your normal room lights tainting the pure
white, the sure way to know is turn all lights off and see if it still appears off white.

In PS you can inadvertently set a backround color for new documents.

How are the images being imported to the image editor?



I just hooked up my Epson v750 scanner and learning the basics. Using Epson scan or Silver Fast software, I’ve been scanning my 4x5 b&w negs in tiff and/or jpeg format at various dpi to see how they look.

There are two problems that puzzle me about scanning b&w film. I use PS Elements 7 and notices that the “correct camera distortion” is turned off and have an overall cream color on the monitor instead of black&white. If I scan the b&w neg as color jpeg and invert the image I can use “correct camera distortion”, but I still have the cream color. But, when the image is printed the whites are white, no cream color.

The cream color is annoying making it difficult in judging contrast and I would like to turn on the “correct camera distortion” without inverting.

Any ideas?

[Milton Tierney]

It’s not ambient light, I checked that. Opening a white layer or pasting a digital shot pic neck to the scan, the layer and digital are white, but the scan b/w is cream color. I just need to run more test.

With the “correct camera distortion”, I ran some test and noticed that every time I used 16-bit gray or 8-bit gray the “correct camera distortion” is turned off. Any other settings works as long as it’s jpeg file. Strange.

Thanks

[Greg Blank]

Maybe you should scan as RGB then desaturate,better tonal scale that way too.



It’s not ambient light, I checked that. Opening a white layer or pasting a digital shot pic neck to the scan, the layer and digital are white, but the scan b/w is cream color. I just need to run more test.

With the “correct camera distortion”, I ran some test and noticed that every time I used 16-bit gray or 8-bit gray the “correct camera distortion” is turned off. Any other settings works as long as it’s jpeg file. Strange.

Thanks

[venchka]

Are you scanning in 16 bit grayscale? JPEGs are 8 bit and useless for editing.

[Milton Tierney]

Thanks, I'll try that.

[Milton Tierney]

You are right, wish PS would edit in 16 bit. Anyway, I’m just experimenting with v750 to learn how it works, what in can do and what it cannot do. I was thinking of scanning the negs in 16-bit gray scale and save them in a tiff file just to archive them.
I grew up in a film only world and trying to get my head around all this digital shtick.

[rdenney]

You are right, wish PS would edit in 16 bit.

One of the real advantages to the full version of Photoshop is the ability to edit in 16-bit mode. Even CS-4 won't do everything in that mode, but it will do everything most photographers need. I can work in lab color, use find edges to creating a sharpening mask, unsharp masking, view histograms (though the 8-bit preview histograms have to be manually updated to check for posterization), and do all the normal adjustments. When I upgraded to CS, I could do most photographs without converting to 8-bit color. When I upgraded to CS4, I could do them all.

Some of my photos require big moves, and 8-bit color can really put the damper on that.

Rick "something to save up for" Denney

[venchka]

You are right, wish PS would edit in 16 bit. Anyway, I’m just experimenting with v750 to learn how it works, what in can do and what it cannot do. I was thinking of scanning the negs in 16-bit gray scale and save them in a tiff file just to archive them.
I grew up in a film only world and trying to get my head around all this digital shtick.

I'm still in a film only world. For the time being, I'm forced to scan my negatives. I use Epson Scan, Ken Lee's tutorial, save as 16 bit TIFF files and do what little editing I need to do in Adobe Lightroom.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.html

Good luck!

[Milton Tierney]

I didn’t know you can edit 16bit with CS4. Yet, the cost of CS is over my head, for now I have to settle for second best. That begs the question, how does 16bit improve my prints over 8bit? Will my Epson r2400 give me that 16bit grayscale.
Nice thing about film enlargers, you do not need to upgrade.

[Milton Tierney]

Thanks for the link. It’s a big help to my learning curve.

[rdenney]

I didn’t know you can edit 16bit with CS4. Yet, the cost of CS is over my head, for now I have to settle for second best. That begs the question, how does 16bit improve my prints over 8bit? Will my Epson r2400 give me that 16bit grayscale.

The printer won't, probably, though I think there are some RIP's that will drive the printers with 16-bit color. But the problem is that when you steepen the tone curve of an 8-bit file, you leave some gaps in the histogram. Those gaps can cause false edges in smoothly graded areas of the print, which is posterization.

With 16-bit color, each of those levels used by the printer has 255 levels in the underlying file. You can steep the tone curve dramatically and still not leave gaps in what the printer sees.

Lightroom is cheaper than CS4 and I'm sure it supports at least basic 16-bit editing. CS does, too, so you might scrounge for an older version of Photoshop on the web. I bought a full version of 5.5 when 6 was just on the market, and paid very little for it. But as a 5.5 bona fide owner, I could get the version 6 upgrade price, and after that I upgraded to 7, CS, and most recently CS4. As much as anything, I needed support for the raw files from my latest digital camera.


Nice thing about film enlargers, you do not need to upgrade.

I started out with some cheapie for 35mm, then when I bought a view camera I also bought an ancient Solar diffusion enlarger. I then traded that in on a D3 Omega, and were I still using it I would have upgraded most of the lenses for it by now. At today's prices, none of that sounds significant--they are giving that stuff away. But I didn't do it at today's prices.:)

Rick "who often buys older software at giveaway prices and then upgrades" Denney

[Paul H]

Another option for 16 bit editing at a reasonable price is Paintshop Pro (http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite/us/en/Product/1184951547051#versionTabview=tab0&tabview=tab0).

"Professional-Level Options
Work with a variety of advanced features, including 16-bits-per-channel editing, color management settings and raw file conversion".

I seem to recall the later versions of PS Elements has some limited support for editing 16 bit mode.

[Milton Tierney]

How is it compared to PS Elements 7?

[Paul H]

Paintshop Pro is probably closer in capabilities to Photoshop CSx than to PS Elements. That considered, it is excellent value for money.

If I had to make the choice between buying PSP or PSE, I'd go for PSP.

[Milton Tierney]

The more I use PSe7 the more I do not like it. PSe5 worked will and I liked it a lot more. I would hate to spend money on PSP then find that I do not like it. It would be great if there were some place one can take all the different models for a test drive.

[Brian_A]

It would be great if there were some place one can take all the different models for a test drive.

Milton,

There is. Go to Adobe's website and download Photoshop CS4. They give you a free thirty day trial of the full version.

-Brian

[Mike1234]

PS may be complicated but any tool with that much capability/flexibility will be. Look at the latest high tech photo hardware offerings. If you want to take advantage of their full capabilties you'd better learn how to use them. :)

[Milton Tierney]

Great! Thanks

[mandoman7]

I don't agree about the 16 bit assertions that have been made. Doubling the file size needs to show advantages and I haven't seen them(yet!). My suggestion would be to not let the suggestions of others override the process of YOU experimenting with your equipment and learning what works.

[rdenney]

I don't agree about the 16 bit assertions that have been made. Doubling the file size needs to show advantages and I haven't seen them(yet!). My suggestion would be to not let the suggestions of others override the process of YOU experimenting with your equipment and learning what works.

The second sentence will find general agreement but it does not prove the first.

I have seen it for myself. But it depends on how much you are manipulating the tone curve on the image.

Since my scanner images are always a bit flat (I do that on purpose to make sure I don't clip any highlights are shadows), and since I want more of the look of an s-shaped response, I often end up steepening the tone curve for middle values pretty steeply. I have frequently had to give up on 8-bit files because I could not get the tonalities I wanted without posterizing the image.

If you can get your tonalities close to what you want in the scanning software, though, you can then let that software save the result as an 8-bit file after those moves have been made. But since Photoshop gives me much more control and a much better view into the image file than does the scanning software, I prefer to take as much information as possible into Photoshop and then throw it away if I don't need it.

It's easier to throw away what you don't need than to need it and not have it.

Rick "who maintains a 16-bit workflow even with an 8-year-old computer and very large scan files" Denney

[Paul H]

The more I use PSe7 the more I do not like it. PSe5 worked will and I liked it a lot more. I would hate to spend money on PSP then find that I do not like it. It would be great if there were some place one can take all the different models for a test drive.

Take a look at the web site - there's a free trial (http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite/us/en/Product/1184951547051#versionTabview=tab1&tabview=tab0) (just like adobe's products)

[Brian Ellis]

I didn’t know you can edit 16bit with CS4. Yet, the cost of CS is over my head, for now I have to settle for second best. That begs the question, how does 16bit improve my prints over 8bit? Will my Epson r2400 give me that 16bit grayscale.
Nice thing about film enlargers, you do not need to upgrade.

I don't remember exactly when Photoshop greatly expanded the ability to edit in 16 bit, it may have been with the first version of CS or it may even have been earlier than that. Whenever exactly it was, I've been editing everything in 16 bit for a long time. Since you can't afford CS4, possibly you find a legal version of CS3, it has essentially the same 16 bit editing capability as CS4.

I've seen several lengthy discussions about the benefits, if any, of sending a 16 bit image to the printer vs sending an 8 bit image. I think the consensus has been that there is no advantage but that's just my interpretation of the things I've seen. I've done a little testing (with my former Epson 2200 printer, none with my current 3800) and saw no difference so when I'm ready to make a final print I switch to 8 bit and save the file as an 8 bit file (once I've printed I never go back and re-edit). If you want to know whether 16 bit improves your prints it's a simple matter to find out - make some prints both ways and see what you think.

With respect to editing in 8 vs 16 bit. I always edit in 16 bit but I don't think it's fatal to edit in 8 bit especially color. Even if you see gaps in the histogram the important thing is what the print looks like, not what the histogram looks like. Depending on the image Photoshop can often interpolate and fill in those gaps just fine.

[Milton Tierney]

I agree, I was certified as an AutoCad tech and I’m not intimidated by complex programs.
Now retired, no money, no school.

[mandoman7]

The second sentence will find general agreement but it does not prove the first.

I have seen it for myself. But it depends on how much you are manipulating the tone curve on the image.

Since my scanner images are always a bit flat (I do that on purpose to make sure I don't clip any highlights are shadows), and since I want more of the look of an s-shaped response, I often end up steepening the tone curve for middle values pretty steeply. I have frequently had to give up on 8-bit files because I could not get the tonalities I wanted without posterizing the image.

If you can get your tonalities close to what you want in the scanning software, though, you can then let that software save the result as an 8-bit file after those moves have been made. But since Photoshop gives me much more control and a much better view into the image file than does the scanning software, I prefer to take as much information as possible into Photoshop and then throw it away if I don't need it.

It's easier to throw away what you don't need than to need it and not have it.

Rick "who maintains a 16-bit workflow even with an 8-year-old computer and very large scan files" Denney

As usual, I find myself having to back up a blanket statement that I might have been better off keeping to myself. If the original poster is working with photoshop elements, though, it seems likely that there's a ram limit also. If you're not going to be doing a lot of editing and its going to be saved as a jpg then we agree an 8 bit is probably satifactory.

When I used to teach music my goal was to get them playing as soon as possible to experience the joy before loading them down with scales and theory, figuring that they will find the level of technique that suits them on their own. Most people seemed to be struggling with the belief that they can actually do it and would be easily daunted. That's still where I'm coming from, I guess.

[rdenney]

When I used to teach music my goal was to get them playing as soon as possible to experience the joy before loading them down with scales and theory, figuring that they will find the level of technique that suits them on their own. Most people seemed to be struggling with the belief that they can actually do it and would be easily daunted. That's still where I'm coming from, I guess.

But when you teach those young musicians, you teach them the principles of good sound right from the start, and partly because making a good sound increases the joy. As I said, my computer is probably no better than the OP's, having 2GB of RAM and an ancient AMD processor (ancient = about 8 years old). I've been doing 16-bit editing for half that time, and my scan files are in the range of half a gigabyte. Admittedly, there are some scales I cannot play (to carry your analogy a bit further), but at least I'm getting a decent tone.

Even though I argued with you, however, I left room for us to both be right. If one gets the tonal adjustments close to right in the scanning software, then those moves will be made before the conversion to 8-bit JPG files, and the subsequent adjustments in the editor will be less likely to leave visible holes in the tonal scale.

Rick "a musician who enjoyed your analogy" Denney

[mandoman7]

But when you teach those young musicians, you teach them the principles of good sound right from the start, and partly because making a good sound increases the joy.

Well, not exactly Rick. I would say that at the outset, the biggest concern is to establish a minimal level of muscle memory such that a rhythm can be established. Like riding a bike, the first step is getting your feet off the ground. The question of style comes afterwards, although its always in the neighborhood.


Even though I argued with you, however, I left room for us to both be right. If one gets the tonal adjustments close to right in the scanning software, then those moves will be made before the conversion to 8-bit JPG files, and the subsequent adjustments in the editor will be less likely to leave visible holes in the tonal scale.

Rick "a musician who enjoyed your analogy" Denney

I certainly agree that the loss of smooth gradations is something to watch out for. But as you've suggested, sometimes that's more a matter of how dramatic the later adjustments are, more than the bit depth of the scan.
I hope I don't seem too argumentative while you're trying to be diplomatic. I'm like the dog who wants you to tug at the other end of his stick to excercise his teeth, basically. No ill will intended.

[rdenney]

Well, not exactly Rick. I would say that at the outset, the biggest concern is to establish a minimal level of muscle memory such that a rhythm can be established. Like riding a bike, the first step is getting your feet off the ground. The question of style comes afterwards, although its always in the neighborhood.

I play the tuba. For a tuba player, there are three first-tier priorities: Sound, rhythm, and pitch. On the second tier, there are articulation, dynamics, and phrasing.

Muscle memory is bound up in all these. But bad habits learned in sound production often stay with that musician for life, while steady practice usually results in steady improvement in the other areas. Every good teacher I know at all levels emphasizes good sound production fundamentals right from the very beginning. Good sound requires two things: 1.) a sound in one's head that is guiding the result (that sound is usually provided by the teacher), and 2.) a dependence on air flow rather than pressure. I hear many adult amateurs using pressure, and I (sadly) hear it most acutely in recordings of my own playing. Making a good-sounding whole note is salve for the soul compared to making a bad-sounding 16th-note run where all the right buttons were pressed, don't you think? Too many kids are taught the opposite, and end up with lots of technique but without the tools to make music.

I suspect this translates to this discussion in the following way:

Focus on the tonality of the image right from the start, and build your technique around that tonality. Even the first prints should have clean whites, rich blacks, and smooth gradations in between. Any simplifications that constrain one's ability to achieve the desired tonality are going too far. Better to simplify in other ways, such as by scanning at lower resolution and living with smaller prints, if the machine's processing capability is a limitation. Or, not using some of those filtration techniques that eat up too much processing power.

Rick "recognizing that some get the tonality they want with an 8-bit workflow" Denney

[mandoman7]

The tuba? What a wonderful choice. That does seem like an instrument that benefits from attention to tone. You must have a great time when you're playing in an ensemble. I always focus on the tuba player in bands and how they set up the rest of the sound. Good for photos, too, I would think.

We're not disagreeing about much really, just about which thoughts a beginner should focus on when starting. The flood of sellers of LF cameras with comments about never really having used the camera is my basis, more than a dismissal of aesthetics. The initial hurdle of just Doing It

[rdenney]

The tuba? What a wonderful choice.

I confess it was no choice of mine. The instrument absolutely chose me, with a little assistance from a 7th-grade band director who needed a tuba player and noted that I was the largest male to walk through the door on join-the-school-band day. Once the sound gets in your head, though, nothing else provides the same satisfaction. That is very much like the thrilling experience of viewing a 4x5 transparency or negative on a light table for the first time.


The initial hurdle of just Doing It

The hardest part about practicing the tuba is getting it out of the case.

One key advantage to having film is that you can set up a cheap and quick scan capability to start with, and then have the option of going back and rescanning the film with a better capability at a later date. All of this is just stuff to think about. But I absolutely agree with your principle. I'd rather shoot Polaroids of my living room than let the camera sit unused.

Rick "even at $4 a pop" Denney