Easy tips for scanning slide for print media?

[JeffOYB]

I have a bunch of slides to scan to make JPEGS that I'm going to place
as images in a Pagemaker file for printing as a book.

These are 35mm slides and the desired output is mostly B&W about 3"x4",
but sometimes it's CMYK color at up to 6"x7".

To do this job I bought a Nikon Coolscan IV. It has Nikon Scan 3.1
software that works with my old Mac OS 8.6. I also mostly use the older
Photoshop 3.0.

The process seems easy... : ) ...just push the button.

But are there a few basic tips I can use to get better scans?

Is there a website where someone gives a quick walkthru? : )

Well, here are my details...if anyone has some good tips...

I'm a small press publisher and have had moderately good results from
flatbed scanning of prints. I've recently learned more about curves and
dot gain. I've found that I get pretty darn good results for B&W on
50#offset paper by using these steps for post-processing images in
Photoshop 3.0: *I set the blacks at 85% and the whites at 5%. *I put
some curve into the curves to flatten/gray the midrange contrast. *I
add some unsharp mask sharpening.

But I'm confused with this scanner. Should I just leave the settings at
default then do my usual post-processing in Photoshop? I had a brief
tutorial last year and I vaguely recall that I should do a pre-scan to
get the histogram of the slide then adjust the curves to fit the main
part of the image registration before making the final scan---and that
this results in better detail in the final scan.

But with the Nikon Scan 3.1 software I'm having troubles and doubts
about all the settings.

*The image size, resolution and crop settings seem hard to manage. It
seems to be hard to just type in 300dpi then the final desire image
size---each parameter changes as I chase it down. If I change the
output size then the rez changes or the scaling. It's like herding
cats. With color scanning I end up with a 24mb scan just trying to get
a 6x7 300dpi final image. It's hard to explain, but frustrating.

*With the curves there are values on both axes. I'm not sure which ones
I should be adjusting. For B&W scans I end up moving the vertical
sliders to make the whites less white and the blacks less black and
then I curve the curve a bit to flatten the midrange. But for color
scans the sliders start working all differently and I end up using one
vertical slider and one horizontal. Seems nutty.

*I haven't done any trapping or limiting of the sliders around the
histogram before the final scan, but I recall that maybe I should be
doing this. ??

*The sharpening function in Nikon Scan 3.1 seems to use different
values compared to Photoshop 3.0. Mostly the difference is that the PS
first setting of "Amount" goes up to 400 or so. But in NS it's called
"Intensity" and it goes to 100. It seems like a common PS unsharp mask
setting to buff up a decent image is, say, 50 out of 400. But for NS it
seems like all images look best at the full 100 out of 100 Intensity
setting!

 

[rafe b]

Is there a website where someone gives a quick walkthru? : )

Yes, there is: www.scantips.com


Feel free to contact me off line with
specific questions with regard to NikonScan.

A reasonably exposed slide should be very
easy to scan. The histogram view in NikonScan
tells you all you need to know on that score.

I would leave any further post-processing to
Photoshop. Since you're only scanning 35mm,
save your files as 16 bits. File sizes out
of the scanner will be around 120 Mbytes each.

Do your curves/levels tweaks in PS, and only
*then*, if HD space is dear, convert them down
to 8 bits before saving.

Also, why are you using NikonScan 3.1?

Does V.4.x not work on your Mac?


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[JeffOYB]

Yes, there is: www.scantips.com

Thanks! I read most of this and it reminded me of most of my lesson
that I had forgotten.

Feel free to contact me off line with
specific questions with regard to NikonScan.

Well, here's further question about handling the curves/histogram
process. For now I plan to do a pre-scan then make all adjustments to
both white/black/mid points and for dot-gain (making whites less white
and blacks less black) THEN do the final scan. Is this correct? Or
should dot-gain correction come AFTER, in post-processing? I also plan
to set the NS sharpening setting to intensity 100, halo 1, threshold 0
before the final scan. I hope this is OK! I'll do more trial and error
but for now this will be my workflow. (Well, I do have the question
about when to do the dot-gain.)

Also, it seems like I can make all the white/blk/mid point and dot-gain
settings at the same time in the curves---that I can grab and adjust
the curve line from all directions---bring it in from left and right to
'trap' the histogram and also bring it in from top and bottom to adjust
for dot-gain. But, again, maybe I should leave the dot-gain 'clipping'
to postprocessing?

Well, off to testing...then I'll check back and see what your ideas
are! : ) Thanks so much for your advice!

A reasonably exposed slide should be very
easy to scan. The histogram view in NikonScan
tells you all you need to know on that score.

I would leave any further post-processing to
Photoshop. Since you're only scanning 35mm,
save your files as 16 bits. File sizes out
of the scanner will be around 120 Mbytes each.

Do your curves/levels tweaks in PS, and only
*then*, if HD space is dear, convert them down
to 8 bits before saving.

Whoa! My RAM is dear, too---only 96mb. My HD has only 600mb free. : )
My backup has 2gb and I can burn CDs. So it looks like I'll be busy
dealing with these 200 slides!

Also, why are you using NikonScan 3.1?

Does V.4.x not work on your Mac?

I did research last year when I bought this and I recall that only
NS3.1 (of several programs I looked at) could work with my old Mac OS
8.6.

Thanks much! --JP outyourbackdoor.com

 

[JeffOYB]

PS: To adjust curves for a CMYK scan, I have to pull the opposite
sliders, or the sliders in the opposite way, as compared to B&W. Same
with the curve itself---to lighten you pull down, instead of up as in
B&W. I vaguely recall this from my lesson last year but it still seems
weird. Is there a hazard to be aware of when making these adjustments?

Is scanning in 16 bit compared to 8 bit critical for print use at
300dpi and 3x4" typical final output? Does it vary in importance
depending on B&W and CMYK?

Thanks much again, JP

 

[rafe b]

rafe b wrote:

Well, here's further question about handling the curves/histogram
process. For now I plan to do a pre-scan then make all adjustments to
both white/black/mid points and for dot-gain (making whites less white
and blacks less black) THEN do the final scan. Is this correct? Or
should dot-gain correction come AFTER, in post-processing? I also plan
to set the NS sharpening setting to intensity 100, halo 1, threshold 0
before the final scan. I hope this is OK! I'll do more trial and error
but for now this will be my workflow. (Well, I do have the question
about when to do the dot-gain.)

Also, it seems like I can make all the white/blk/mid point and dot-gain
settings at the same time in the curves---that I can grab and adjust
the curve line from all directions---bring it in from left and right to
'trap' the histogram and also bring it in from top and bottom to adjust
for dot-gain. But, again, maybe I should leave the dot-gain 'clipping'
to postprocessing?

Like I said: scan in 16 bits, leave the controls
centered in NikonScan, and do all that stuff in
Photoshop. The only control that's unique to
NikonScan is the Analog Gain, which is in effect
the exposure control. You must make sure that
none of the (R,G,B) histograms are clipped --
and that can only be done in NikonScan.

If you're working in 16-bit mode, *everything*
else can be deferred to Photoshop.

Whoa! My RAM is dear, too---only 96mb. My HD has only 600mb free. : )
My backup has 2gb and I can burn CDs. So it looks like I'll be busy
dealing with these 200 slides!

Why? A Gig of RAM is $80 nowadays, and
a 250 Gig SATA hard drive is $100.

At full res, and 8-bit mode, you'll have
just enough room left on your HD to store
scans from ten slides.

I did research last year when I bought this and I recall that only
NS3.1 (of several programs I looked at) could work with my old Mac OS
8.6.

Not to start a Mac-PC flame war, but
you might consider a cheap PC for
doing your scanning and photo editing.

Seems crazy to be using a current Nikon
film scanner with such limited computer
resources -- but who am I to say...


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[JeffOYB]

OK, I'm almost up to speed here. One last doublecheck: it seems like
the minimum prescan processing that's suggested is to do a preview then
adjust white/black/midpoints to the histogram then do the final scan to
get best sensitivity in the scan. Offhand it seems best to do this at
the scanning step and not i the Photoshop step, in fact I don't see how
it can be done then. ?? Thanks for advice on this one last question!
Whups, one more question: what real world benefit does 16 bit scanning
give me for 300dpi 3x4" output? My inexperienced brain wonders if 16
bit isn't maybe overkill. Thanks for clarifying! --JP
outyourbackdoor.com

 

[Don]

Like I said: scan in 16 bits, leave the controls
centered in NikonScan, and do all that stuff in
Photoshop. The only control that's unique to
NikonScan is the Analog Gain, which is in effect
the exposure control. You must make sure that
none of the (R,G,B) histograms are clipped --
and that can only be done in NikonScan.

If you're working in 16-bit mode, *everything*
else can be deferred to Photoshop.

The only other feature that can't be done afterwards is ICE. So, if
applicable/desired turn that on in addition to AG.

But for all else I agree fully with Rafe. That's all better done
afterwards in Photoshop (or the image editor of choice). Also,
external image editors have a much wider range of tools than NikonScan
which (like all scanner software) is limited to bare essentials.

And last, but not least, by scanning "raw" (i.e. not doing any editing
in NikonScan) and then archiving such a scan you can go back to it at
any time and "start the edit again". By contrast if you did the edits
in NikonScan you would have to rescan each time you wanted to tweak!

Therefore, scanning raw and archiving is easier on both the scanner
and the film, plus it's faster! A win-win-win...

One other thing. I see from the Subject that this is for print. Since
print media is relatively limited in both resolution and color range
you may actually get away with both lower scanning resolution and
color bit depth. It all depends on size of print and type of printer.

However, by scanning raw you are "future proof". When your prints fade
and the time comes to reprint them, the printing technology would have
probably advanced. By having "raw scans" done using maximum scanner
capabilities you'll be able to take advantage of these new printing
technologies without having to rescan! So, add another "win" to the
above "win-win-win"...

Don.

 

[JeffOYB]

A few thoughts in response to Don (and Rafe again because I'm still
confused...maybe repetition helps)...

1. What about the Crop/Scaling settings for the "raw scan"?

Right now I'm scanning with crop settings for 35mm slide usually at
something like: 5" x 3" at 300dpi for a B&W image about 2.5mb in size
(going by vague memory for the mb size) and 5mb for cmyk color. And the
scaling ends up something like 350%.

Are those OK crop settings to make the initial "raw" scan that I'll
later process in Photoshop?

(My desired output is an offset printed book. The printer wants 300dpi
images and will apply a 133 lpi halftone screen.)

2. I gotcha on the ICE for the "raw scan." But what about doing a
preview then setting white/black/mid points to get best scanner
sensitivity before doing the final "raw scan"? The scantips.com site
ranks that as "basic easy how-to" for scanning. Offhand it doesn't seem
like this can be done in Photoshop postprocessing. Should I make the
raw scanning a 3-step process? --1. Preview, 2. Set points (and crop
and ICE), 3. Final scan.

I think I'm almost ready! THANKS MUCH! --JP outyourbackdoor.com

 

[Don]

A few thoughts in response to Don (and Rafe again because I'm still
confused...maybe repetition helps)...

1. What about the Crop/Scaling settings for the "raw scan"?

Right now I'm scanning with crop settings for 35mm slide usually at
something like: 5" x 3" at 300dpi for a B&W image about 2.5mb in size
(going by vague memory for the mb size) and 5mb for cmyk color. And the
scaling ends up something like 350%.

Are those OK crop settings to make the initial "raw" scan that I'll
later process in Photoshop?

Cropping does not influence the quality of the scan so it doesn't
really matter where you do it.

At a risk of causing more confusion but there are a couple of caveats.
Some software uses the crop to determine auto exposure, etc. and that
may influence the quality of the data! But you can ignore that because
NikonScan always determines auto exposure on the full image regardless
of cropping!

The other minor detail is that judging cropping based on the preview
is not as exact as doing it on the full image. But that's just
cosmetics.

For what it's worth, I personally always leave few pixels around the
image and do the fine cropping in Photoshop later. But that's just
personal choice since I don't have to worry about exposure which I set
manually.

(My desired output is an offset printed book. The printer wants 300dpi
images and will apply a 133 lpi halftone screen.)

2. I gotcha on the ICE for the "raw scan." But what about doing a
preview then setting white/black/mid points to get best scanner
sensitivity before doing the final "raw scan"?

You are not getting any more sensitivity that way. Perhaps this
simplified (!) order of what happens will clear things up:

1. The scan is performed and the image is stored in the buffer
2. Any settings e.g. white/black/mid points are applied to it
3. The resulting image is then transferred to your disk

Now, when you scan raw it simply means skipping step 2 and applying
the white/black/mid points in your editor afterwards.

You may try a little test. Set everything up in your scanner software
and then apply white/black/mid points. Mark down the values of these
points!!! Scan and save this image as "cooked.tif". Then clear all
those white/black/mid points in your scanner software and scan again.
Save that as "raw.tif". Now, open both images in your image editor.
Apply, the settings you have marked down to "raw.tif". Now, compare
this edited "raw.tif" to "cooked.tif" and they will look the same.

The point is, if you don't like this edit, in case of "raw.tif" you
can start again. In case "cooked.tif" you're stuck with your initial
edit you made in the scanner software and your room for maneuver will
be severely limited.

The scantips.com site
ranks that as "basic easy how-to" for scanning. Offhand it doesn't seem
like this can be done in Photoshop postprocessing. Should I make the
raw scanning a 3-step process? --1. Preview, 2. Set points (and crop
and ICE), 3. Final scan.

The scantips.com site tries to make things simple and it also caters
more to people who will not do much editing afterwards. The "basic
easy how-to" cuts a lot of corners i.e. it is very basic.

In your case I would suggest the following (rough) workflow:

1. Turn on ICE.
2. Turn off everything else (clear the checkmark so it turns into an
"x' or, set all values to neutral).
3. Preview
4. If you use auto exposure and the preview is too dark/light adjust
Analog Gain accordingly and repeat previewing (i.e. go back to 3.)
until you're happy. NOTE: Beware of clipping!!!
5. Crop and Scan.
6. Archive this image (DVDs are good for backup)
7. Import into your editor and edit.
8. Do whatever you need to do for printing and print.
9. If unhappy, go back to 7 or 8 until you get satisfactory results.

Don.

 

[JeffOYB]

Thanks much!

Now, about this Analog Gain function. I haven't heard of it much. I
don't think my tutor mentioned it at my lesson last year. It seems like
a bit of a slow and awkward function as you can't see the effects of
changing it until you "redraw." Offhand it doesn't seem that a function
based on guessing is a very good one.

I have noticed that basically all my scans have been coming out dark in
the "raw" state. I figured I'd adjust in Photoshop. But I just now
tested the Analog Gain after previewing. I randomly slid the slider to
..80 gain (based on a whim---nothing to look at to guide this
decision---very strange). Then I clicked "redraw" and the image
appeared much lighter and pretty good. Maybe I'll add a little more
gain.

Hmmm, what is the LCH editor? It looks just like the Curves editor.
Useful?

Thanks again! --JP

 

[JeffOYB]

PS: I've been trying the Analog Gain on dark images and am finding that
it easily blows out the whites, so I'm skipping it for now. It's a
"blind" tool and seems to take too long. I hope I can adjust images
well enough later in PS. --JP

 

[Don]

Now, about this Analog Gain function. I haven't heard of it much. I
don't think my tutor mentioned it at my lesson last year.

Analog Gain is what NikonScan calls exposure. It's no different to
setting exposure with a camera. The longer the exposure the brighter
the image, the shorter the exposure the darker the image. Analog Gain
works in exactly the same way.

And it uses the same unit of measurement: EV (exposure value). So you
can directly apply all your instincts from setting exposure when
shooting film to scanning.

It seems like
a bit of a slow and awkward function as you can't see the effects of
changing it until you "redraw." Offhand it doesn't seem that a function
based on guessing is a very good one.

There are only two ways you can see the effects of exposure. Either
you rescan or emulate it in software. Doing it in software i.e.
pressing Redraw after an Analog Gain change, saves time.

But if you don't like it, you can ignore it and press Scan each time
you change Analog Gain. The display will then be updated with the
scanned image.

I have noticed that basically all my scans have been coming out dark in
the "raw" state. I figured I'd adjust in Photoshop. But I just now
tested the Analog Gain after previewing. I randomly slid the slider to
.80 gain (based on a whim---nothing to look at to guide this
decision---very strange). Then I clicked "redraw" and the image
appeared much lighter and pretty good. Maybe I'll add a little more
gain.

That's exactly what you're supposed to do!

The "guide" in this case is the histogram. Leave the Curves window
open. NOTE: Do not modify the curves but just use the window to look
at the histogram!

You're supposed to boost (increase) Analog Gain until the histogram
touches the right edge (don't worry about the left edge). If the
histogram goes too far right you will experience "clipping" i.e. you
will overexpose and bright areas will get "burned out".

Hmmm, what is the LCH editor? It looks just like the Curves editor.
Useful?

It's just more editing you can do in Photoshop later.

PS: I've been trying the Analog Gain on dark images and am finding that
it easily blows out the whites, so I'm skipping it for now. It's a
"blind" tool and seems to take too long. I hope I can adjust images
well enough later in PS. --JP

Actually Analog Gain is the most essential tool because that's how you
get the most out of film! All else (like Curves, LCH, etc) is just
"pretend". But Analog Gain enables you to get the most data.

Auto exposure will do this for you automatically but depending on
image content, sometimes you may want to tweak it a little. If the
highlights (the brightest areas in the image) are not significant
(e.g. reflections) you can burn them a little since they don't contain
important information and bring shadows up. On the other hand, if the
highlights are significant you may want to bring the exposure down.

Again, it's no different to taking a photograph.

BTW, in virtually all cases Auto Exposure does a very good job.

Don.

 

[rafe b]

PS: I've been trying the Analog Gain on dark images and am finding that
it easily blows out the whites, so I'm skipping it for now. It's a
"blind" tool and seems to take too long. I hope I can adjust images
well enough later in PS. --JP

No, no no. Analog gain is the *most important* adjustment of all.

Let me repeat that:

** Analog gain is the most important adjustment of all. **

It's "blind" because it's not a software manipulation. If it were
a software manipulation, it wouldn't matter, because you could
fix it or re-do it in Photoshop.

You need to understand that, because without it, all your other
efforts (in scanning) may be compromised.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[rafe b]

Hmmm, what is the LCH editor? It looks just like the Curves editor.
Useful?

No. I've been working with NikonScan for nearly five
years. Never touched it once.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[JeffOYB]

Thanks you guys for ALL THE GREAT HELP! I understand much better now, I
think. --JP

 

[Roger]

PS: I've been trying the Analog Gain on dark images and am finding that
it easily blows out the whites, so I'm skipping it for now. It's a
"blind" tool and seems to take too long. I hope I can adjust images
well enough later in PS. --JP

Just a quick comment to add.

That analog gain, when set properly will allow you to get the most
information possible from a slide, or negative. OTOH set to far one
way and you will lose highlight information and set to far the other
way you lose information in the dark areas.

Good Luck,

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[One4All]

Since you're only scanning 35mm,

save your files as 16 bits. File sizes out
of the scanner will be around 120 Mbytes each.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

I'm scanning MF film on a 4870 flatbed, and those files are 200+ MB
when I scan in 16-bit. Are you saying one doesn't need 16-bit with MF?
I hope so. I'm going broke buying CD's to archive these images. I'm
buying the Delkin eFilm CD's & will not buy cheaper. If I don't need
16-bit for MF film, I'd like to know.

 

[rafe b]

I'm scanning MF film on a 4870 flatbed, and those files are 200+ MB
when I scan in 16-bit. Are you saying one doesn't need 16-bit with MF?
I hope so. I'm going broke buying CD's to archive these images. I'm
buying the Delkin eFilm CD's & will not buy cheaper. If I don't need
16-bit for MF film, I'd like to know.

DVD burners are well under $100 now. I don't bother
with CDs any more.

At this point, I'm indifferent to the issue of 16 bit
vs 8 bit scans, or even whether the "archive" version
of the file should be 16 or 8 bits.

In any case the decision has little or nothing to do
with the film format, so make your own choice.

If I were to store 16-bit scans of LF on CDs, I'd
get exactly one scan per CD.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Roger]

I'm scanning MF film on a 4870 flatbed, and those files are 200+ MB
when I scan in 16-bit. Are you saying one doesn't need 16-bit with MF?
I hope so. I'm going broke buying CD's to archive these images. I'm
buying the Delkin eFilm CD's & will not buy cheaper. If I don't need
16-bit for MF film, I'd like to know.

The last batch of DVDs cost me 30 cents each. Dual layer burners are
now on the order of $50 or so.

I have several hundered DVDs so I can't imagine using CDs even if they
are free which the last 100 were with rebates.

I now have something like 16 HDs and around 5 Terabytes of storage
space between 4 computers.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[One4All]

I have several hundred DVDs so I can't imagine using CDs even if they
are free which the last 100 were with rebates.

I understand that DVD's are far less archival than CD's, something to
do with their manufacture for video rather than data. The Delkin Gold
eFilm claims 300-year archivablilty. It's probably a trade-off (what
isn't?): Pay now for more CD's and long-range archivability, or pay
for fewer DVD's, but continual re-burning every 5 years to maintain
image integrity. I'm assuming the digital file is all that remains.