Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Ellen Rutchick on October 04, 2015, 08:59:12 pm
-
I purchased SilverFast 8 SE to use with my Epson V750. I previously used the older version of SilverFast AI that came bundled with my scanner.
I'm scanning 120 size b/w film negatives. I want to scan the negative and then work on the scanned file in Photoshop. The preview shows the image as a positive, just like the older version of Silverfast did. However, the final scan file comes out as a negative, rather than a positive, image.
I've tried several setting options, but all generate the same results. I'm looking for a high-quality file that I can work in Photoshop at at least 16-bit.
Any thoughts would be welcome. Thanks!
Ellen Rutchick
-
Make sure the scan settings are Transparency, Negative, 48-bit (NOT HDR) and it should come out correctly. Use Negafix to select the appropriate B&W film type.
-
Silverfast SE will scan 8 bit only in normal mode an 16 in HDR mode. You need AI Studio to scan 16 bits in normal mode
-
Silverfast SE will scan 8 bit only in normal mode an 16 in HDR mode. You need AI Studio to scan 16 bits in normal mode
Yes - I overlooked that Ellen is using SE as I am so accustomed to using and thinking in Ai8 Studio; you are correct - a normal scan can only be saved in 16-bit with Ai8, not SE and not SE+. However, it is still entirely feasible of course to get an 8-bit scan with proper reversal of the negatives scanned in SE or SE+, but in 8 bit rather than 16 bit. There are about 33 features available in Ai8 Studio that are not available in either SE+ or SE. Those are all described in some detail near the front of my book, which pages are a free download from the SilverFast website. I provided all that description so that readers could quite readily decide for themselves whether the upgrade price is worthwhile to them.
-
Thanks for the quick response, all!
Not quite what I wanted to hear after buying the upgrade that was recommended on the LaserSoft website for my V750, but it certainly explains why I cannot get the results that I previously was able to obtain.
Ellen
-
Thanks for the quick response, all!
Not quite what I wanted to hear after buying the upgrade that was recommended on the LaserSoft website for my V750, but it certainly explains why I cannot get the results that I previously was able to obtain.
Ellen
Hi Ellen,
I can infer (rightly or wrongly) from your posts that when you bought your V750 it came with SilverFast SE 6 (but that would be unusual - I thought with the V750 they bundled either SE+6 or Ai6, but I may be mistaken - it's years ago and I don't remember). Then they came out with SilverFast-8, so you "up-graded" the version number (i.e. from SF6 to SF8), but not the level (from SE upward)?? If that's right and if you want 16 bit output, which anyone concerned with maximizing intrinsic quality would, you now need to upgrade from SE8 to Ai8. There is an upgrade price of course, which you can find out by going to their website and plunking in your SE8 serial number to see what they will charge you these days for upgrading to Ai8 Studio; then you can determine whether it is worthwhile. Or, plunk in the original serial number for the software that was bundled with the V750 and see what they will charge to upgrade that to Ai8 Studio, and use whichever upgrade path is cheapest.
But I would try something else before going there: assuming you now have the settings right to get a positive B&W out of a B&W negative, try scanning it at maximum optical resolution in 8-bit with your current software version, import it to Photoshop or Lightroom, do all your edits, print it, and see (this is visual quality, not intrinsic quality) whether 8-bit is showing obvious signs of inadequacy. Use a negative that has a nice tonally-graded sky - that would be the first place 8-bit deficiency should appear. If you see trouble, upgrading is indicated. If you don't, perhaps skip the upgrading until such a time that you think it has become necessary.
The other option out there of course is Vuescan which for 80 dollars I believe will give you 16-bit depth. You can download a trial and see whether you like it. Then compare that price, feature set, user-interface with what an upgrade of SilverFast gives you for all those factors. I know these answers don't provide immediate hapiness, but it does take a bit of messing-around to settle on what will be most cost-effective for you.
-
I would never scan at only 8 bit. Never! It’s just too limiting when you additionally want to do post processing. Like Mark I would also propose to go using Vuescan. It has many options, most certainly scanning in 16 bit mode and also infrared clean. For me Vuescan is my preferred scan tool for my Nikon 9000 film scanner.
-
I would never scan at only 8 bit. Never! It’s just too limiting when you additionally want to do post processing. Like Mark I would also propose to go using Vuescan. It has many options, most certainly scanning in 16 bit mode and also infrared clean. For me Vuescan is my preferred scan tool for my Nikon 9000 film scanner.
To be clear, I did not propose using Vuescan. I proposed that Ellen may wish to test it and determine between that and a SilverFast upgrade which would be, in her view, the more appropriate way of meeting her needs. It only makes sense to check out all reasonable options. Both applications by the way support infrared dust and scratch detection. Whether they use similar algorithms for then eliminating these defects I have no idea. That could be determined by careful comparative testing between the applications, which I have not done. I do know that the SilverFast Ai8 Studio version provides considerable user-determined flexibility for adjusting the manner in which the detection phase and hence the repair algorithm works, and properly set, the results are seamless.
Whether to scan at 8 or 16 bit depends on the user's intent for the final output. Personally I agree with you - I wouldn't scan at 8 bit either, but that's because I want maximum post-scan editing flexibility and I make 13*19 inch prints. Other people who do less editing, or make small prints, or don't print at all but view the images on devices could well find 8 bit sufficient. Everything relates to purpose.
-
Ok, this is coming from a Vuescan user, but not sure if it is affecting you in Silverfast, but could be affecting you. I switched to rendering RAW files from Vuescan (.dng) instead of a standard Tiff, and I get the negative image like you are. So, just throwing that out as a possible cause.
In all honesty, I haven't seen a real advantage to scanning in the RAW format for B&W film. As long as I get all the films range in there, seems to work for me.
-
It's possible in SilverFast too - depending on whether her version of SilverFast provides all these format options - I haven't checked recently for SE or SE+. In Ai8 Studio, if one selects "HDR 16 bit raw" and the "dng" format, the result will be a negative scan of a negative. All it does is reproduce a totally unadjusted version of the media. If one selects 16-bit or 8 bit (non-"HDR"), the "dng" option is not available and the provided tiff or jpeg formats will scan the negative into a positive.
You are correct that the dng option provides no real value added - the key is to contain the tonal range within gamut at the scan stage regardless of the file format.
-
I also use Vuescan to run my Epson 750 flat bed and my Nikon 8000 film scanner. The wonderful thing is the software offers the same interface for both scanners; no need to learn two software interfaces. I used this software to scan my father's lost negatives. 220 rolls of film, 16 shots per roll (120 film, 645 format). The negatives were lost for 72 years. He died at age 29, I was three. He was a noted Amateur Photographer. The negatives were found by a complete stranger who lives in another state, and she tracked me down. I have been able to make 17"x23" prints from his negatives, all shot with a 1935 Zeiss Super Ikonta "A" with Tessar lens. If you would like to see the results please visit my web site where I have devoted a special page for my Dad's work.
Good luck
Dave in NJ
LINK:
http://www.modernpictorials.com/alexander_gurtcheff_images_circa.html
-
Really superb work Dave. Tonal modulation and resolution are fine. Did you scan most of those in the Nikon 8000 or the Epson V750?
-
Really superb work Dave. Tonal modulation and resolution are fine. Did you scan most of those in the Nikon 8000 or the Epson V750?
Thank you Mark, coming from you, that is indeed a great compliment. I used the Nikon to scan the images, at 4000 dpi. I was lucky to find a used 8000 with the very hard to find glass negative carrier, so the negatives were held flat, and the scans are sharp edge to edge (limited by the limitations of an uncoated Zeiss f3.5 lens vintage 1935). As an aside, when I purchased the scanner on ebay, before I made the first scan, I laid the glass negative carrier on my office chair, and, you guessed it, I sat on it and broke the glass. Fortunately, an outfit in Florida makes 100% duplicate glass replacements, including the anti-Newton glass which makes up the top piece. I had a dark room for 50 years, so I applied "digital dodge and burn" as I thought my Dad would have done. This Summer, I was blessed to be invited to hang a two man show of about 80 framed prints up to 30"x36" of my work hanging next to my Dad's work. It took me a year and a half to print, mount, mat and frame the work; truly a labor of love to see my work next to my Father's.
Best to you
Dave
-
Very interesting - and yes indeed - that glass carrier is quite essential for edge to edge resolution in that scanner. The work Christopher Campbell and I did with a Nikon 9000 for my Epson V850 review shows what happens without it. How did your digital renditions look compared with his originals in terms of tonality and resolution?
-
Very interesting - and yes indeed - that glass carrier is quite essential for edge to edge resolution in that scanner. The work Christopher Campbell and I did with a Nikon 9000 for my Epson V850 review shows what happens without it. How did your digital renditions look compared with his originals in terms of tonality and resolution?
Mark: unfortunately, there were only the negatives but no hand printed prints. There were several "drug store" prints in the steel box with the negatives that one of the previous owners must have had made. So nothing to compare my digital renditions to. Except a relative recently came upon an original "Salon" (exhibition print), complete with the "Salon" stickers on the back of the mount showing where the print had been accepted and exhibited. She gave it to me, and I took it apart from the hap hazard frame someone had put it in. Someone had made an over mat (as it turns out, covering the title and original signature). It also had a back cardboard cover over the back of the original. When uncovered, there were the stickers, my father's hand printed remarks: "The Last Barrier, Bromide Print". I could see how he burned the corners and edges, etc. As was the practice then, the print is a toned 11"x14", rubber cemented to a non archival 16"x20" mat. The rubber cement has imparted a differential reflection to the toned print, so when you look at it, it has uneven surface reflectivity. I was able to scan it and produce an improved restoration, as the new print has even reflectivity. Unfortunately I have not found the original negative for that particular print. It is on my web site (My father's page referenced above), and is the last image on that page. Note you can see the title and signature. How I did that was scan the signature and title at triple the resolution I needed, blew it up in Photoshop, and retouched the portions of the very light pencil that had rubbed off, then reduced them in size, and pasted back under the print.
Best.....
Dave
-
Hi Dave,
Well, under the circumstances you have done really well, with a combination of the initial stroke of luck obtaining the negatives and your skill applied thereafter. It's unfortunate the original prints aren't at hand, because that would have been a very interesting comparison.
I do have B&W enlargements I made in my various darkrooms over time going back to the 1960s, but that is nothing to compare with the time and salon quality of your late father's work. One of these days when time permits I intend to scan more of those negatives, edit and print them with Lightroom and then see how they compare with the prints I made back in the day. Based on the very few I've done for comparative purposes to date, I expect on the whole the digitized renditions will have superior photographic properties (a) because I know more now than I did then, (b) easier and better process control and (c) the sheer tonality and resolution one can pull from a high quality scanner and an Epson 4900, not withstanding the Beseler enlarger and Schneider Componon lenses I used back in the chemical darkroom era. I know this ignites a whole time-worn debate about darkroom versus digital - well no question where I stand on that one, but at the same time I do recall the inspiring quality those high-end professional salon printers achieved half a century ago and earlier - it was very impressive - both the effort they had to go through and the outcomes.
-
I have received PMs from people wanting info for Anti-Newton Glass. One person wanted to place their negative directly on the platen of a V750, and hold it flat with special Anti Newton Glass, in lieu of the Epson film holders. This Florida company supplied 100% in spec replacement top (Anti Newton), and bottom glass for my glass film holder for my Nikon 8000 scanner. They do have glass for the Epson V750. Highly recommended.
Link is here:
http://fpointinc.com/epson.htm
Good luck
Dave
-
That is very good to know - thanks Dave. I have also found that using Tru-Vue Museum Glass, while not advertised as anti-Newton works to hold the media flat without creating Newton rings. Those who wrote you about placing the media on the scanner platen should be aware that the negatives will not focus correctly doing it this way. They should use the Epson Fluid Mount Accessory which sits at a bit of distance above the scanner glass, place the media on that, but instead of fluid mounting place the anti-Newton or Tru-Vue glass above the media, so the sandwich is Epson FMA bottom-media center-anti-Newton glass top. Then place the scanner lid on top of all this and scan.
-
Your father did great work. Show us yours.
-
Your father did great work. Show us yours.
I had no trouble finding them: Dave's photos (http://www.modernpictorials.com/index.html)
-
Watch out for Newton Rings if you place the film down on to the Epson adapter's glass surface without fluid mounting and be aware that their fluid mount often can provide a less than ideal film suspension height since they didn't incorporate a height adjustment function.
Doug
-
[..]
If you would like to see the results please visit my web site where I have devoted a special page for my Dad's work.
Good luck
Dave in NJ
LINK:
http://www.modernpictorials.com/alexander_gurtcheff_images_circa.html
Thanks for letting us see these David. Some really nice images. You must be proud of your Dad and you should be proud of yourself too.
Anthony.
-
Watch out for Newton Rings if you place the film down on to the Epson adapter's glass surface without fluid mounting and be aware that their fluid mount often can provide a less than ideal film suspension height since they didn't incorporate a height adjustment function.
Doug
So in your view does this mean that Epson failed to engineer the distances between the FMA and the scanner lens correctly? Or that unit to unit manufacturing tolerances are too loose to be assured of satisfactory focus from one scanner of the same model to the next? Those questions aside, I think it would have been nice if the V850 and V750 models had been equipped with a lens that could be focused from scanner software, but I have no idea of the feasibility.
-
So in your view does this mean that Epson failed to engineer the distances between the FMA and the scanner lens correctly? Or that unit to unit manufacturing tolerances are too loose to be assured of satisfactory focus from one scanner of the same model to the next? Those questions aside, I think it would have been nice if the V850 and V750 models had been equipped with a lens that could be focused from scanner software, but I have no idea of the feasibility.
In this day and age, I would think feasibility would be almost certain. I think the problem is they have no real competition, so why try? The v600 level has a bit of competition, but the V850 and V700 are pretty much on their lonesome.
-
Mark: Thanks for the clarification. I quote you:
"They should use the Epson Fluid Mount Accessory which sits at a bit of distance above the scanner glass, place the media on that, but instead of fluid mounting place the anti-Newton or Tru-Vue glass above the media, so the sandwich is Epson FMA bottom-media center-anti-Newton glass top. Then place the scanner lid on top of all this and scan."
When I re-read the link to the Anti-Newton Glass Site, it said exactly what you recommended. Great Minds Think Alike!
Dave
-
Those who wrote you about placing the media on the scanner platen should be aware that the negatives will not focus correctly doing it this way.
Mark, what about using the Epson 8x10 insert that ships with the scanner and which appears to be designed for an 8x10 transparency to be placed directly on the platen, and place the museum glass on top of the media? I assume using the 8x10 insert makes the scanner change the plane of focus somehow?
-
Mark, what about using the Epson 8x10 insert that ships with the scanner and which appears to be designed for an 8x10 transparency to be placed directly on the platen, and place the museum glass on top of the media? I assume using the 8x10 insert makes the scanner change the plane of focus somehow?
Yes. Please see reply #17 - the insert you mention is the Fluid Mount Assembly, (except we don't always need the fluid) - the Tru-Vue (or A-N glass) does the job of the fluid in my experience.
-
>> Or that unit to unit manufacturing tolerances are too loose to be assured of satisfactory focus from one scanner of the same model to the next? <<
Manufacturing tolerances definitely are one factor. I think their definition of "good enough/acceptable to most users" is another factor. With the 4990, they promoted it as an 8x10 capable scanner but it only had one fixed lens. Advising to scan 8x10 off the glass and roll film in a holder suspended at a height above the glass utilizing just one fixed focus lens is a compromise they felt was acceptable. The dual lens system implemented in both the 7xx and 8xx was an economical attempt to improve things but still is a compromise and has proven to have manufacturing variance issues. My guess is that Epson felt target customers were not willing to pay for the increased cost of a variable focus system. They had already engineered one for the 10000XL's system so they had the knowledge and probably the hardware to put it in the 7/8xx series.
Doug
-
>> Or that unit to unit manufacturing tolerances are too loose to be assured of satisfactory focus from one scanner of the same model to the next? <<
Manufacturing tolerances definitely are one factor. ............. The dual lens system implemented in both the 7xx and 8xx was an economical attempt to improve things but still is a compromise and has proven to have manufacturing variance issues. ............
Doug
Doug - when you say "definitely" and "has proven", this indicates to me that you have supporting data or operational experience with numerous units clearly demonstrating this problem. Care to elaborate? This is interesting to know more about.
-
Yes. Please see reply #17 - the insert you mention is the Fluid Mount Assembly, (except we don't always need the fluid) - the Tru-Vue (or A-N glass) does the job of the fluid in my experience.
No, the insert I'm talking about is not the FMA, but the "film area guide," a piece of black plastic card stock with an 8x10 cutout and a cutout at one end which I think is for pre-scan calibration or something.
-
Alan, I've never used that frame so I can't speak to it from first hand experience, but according to Epson's manual for the V850 (should be the same for the V700/750) one can use it to scan very large media up to 8*10 inches. However, they do recommend using the FMA and fluid mounting for optimal sharpness.
-
>>indicates to me that you have supporting data or operational experience with numerous units clearly demonstrating this problem. <<
Yes, a large pool of feedback from customers over the past 10+ years plus the fact Epson applied concepts from my holders to include, among other things, a variable height adjustment function.
Doug
-
The film area guide's main purpose is to allow the scanner to calibrate correctly during the initialization routine. It doesn't change the focus. Focus is changed by the selection you make in the software which doesn't do any actual focusing but just tells the scanner which of the two fixed-focus lenses in the optical system to use. One is supposed to focus at the scanner glass level and one is supposed to focus at the default holder height level. Depending on your particular scanner, it may or may not focus at that height.
Doug
-
The film area guide's main purpose is to allow the scanner to calibrate correctly during the initialization routine. It doesn't change the focus. Focus is changed by the selection you make in the software which doesn't do any actual focusing but just tells the scanner which of the two fixed-focus lenses in the optical system to use. One is supposed to focus at the scanner glass level and one is supposed to focus at the default holder height level. Depending on your particular scanner, it may or may not focus at that height.
Doug
So this implies that the selection one makes in the software must be consistent with the media holding arrangement in the scanner, otherwise the wrong lens could be deployed. Though I have not experienced issues with this, presumably because I do (and recommend) select the software frame options consistently with what I have in the scanner.
-
The film area guide's main purpose is to allow the scanner to calibrate correctly during the initialization routine. It doesn't change the focus. Focus is changed by the selection you make in the software which doesn't do any actual focusing but just tells the scanner which of the two fixed-focus lenses in the optical system to use. One is supposed to focus at the scanner glass level and one is supposed to focus at the default holder height level. Depending on your particular scanner, it may or may not focus at that height.
Doug
Thanks Doug, you are correct, which I saw when I finally got off my ass and actually looked at things.
I did a couple quick and dirty scans of a 4x5 negative at 2400 dpi with my V700, once with the film holder and once with the film area guide with the negative emulsion side down on the platen and a piece of Tru-Vue AR glass on the top. Results are very close with one side being a little softer with the negative holder. We are talking about pixel peeping a 10,800 x 8600 px image at 1:1. I have not tried tweaking the negative holder height, it's just out of the box setting. Anyone who's interested, here's a zip of jpegs of the files after rough exposure/color/crop matching and flipping the platen version in Lightroom, about 100MB. http://www.ahfairley.com/misc/Scanner.zip
Anyway, it would seem that except for any improvement from use of fluid between the surfaces, there's no real advantage from the FMA over Mark's "glass on film" because I read that the FMA does not have any height mounting adjustment (well, I guess there would be an advantage if your factory focus setting for the film holder/FMA were spot on but the Platen setting was off; and if the FMA needed to be farther from the platen to get best focus you could always fix that with shimming). Does the use of fluid per se give improvements, or is it just a flatness thing?
-
Does the use of fluid per se give improvements, or is it just a flatness thing?
Mainly flatness, but the fluid is also said to reduce the appearance of image defects in the scan. However, these defects can be eliminated in a more controlled manner with iSRD in SilverFast or other infra-red based algorithms in other applications.
-
So this implies that the selection one makes in the software must be consistent with the media holding arrangement in the scanner, otherwise the wrong lens could be deployed. Though I have not experienced issues with this, presumably because I do (and recommend) select the software frame options consistently with what I have in the scanner.
Correct. The Epson Scan software gives 3 choices: Reflective, Film with film area guide, and Film with film holder. You can choose a mismatch in the software and still do a scan, but if you do, your scans will show noticeably incorrect focus (I just did this to see if the software would detect a mismatch and prevent a scan, but it does not).