Nikon super coolscan 5000 ED B&W film compatabilites

[Don]

I find that hard to believe, Don!

Whilst your software may preview at higher resolution than the *initial
default* preview resolution of Nikonscan

That's exactly what I meant!

, the preview size of Nikonscan
can be set to any size up to almost the entire desktop area.

Indeed! NikonScan preview resolution is totally flexible (another sign
of a well written program!). If memory serves, it's determined
indirectly from the preview window size (that is to say, before the
preview - afterwards, a window size change only scales what's already
in the file).

We talked about all that when I took the NikonScan preview file apart
and found out where the resolution is stored. Of course, the first
thing I did then is feed it a high resolution image by "corrupting"
the preview file, just to see what it does. ;o)

And NikonScan just shrugged (probably thinking "you silly person,
you") and did not bat an eyelid!! An attribute of a well written
program that doesn't hardcode stuff unnecessarily.

Don.

 

[Philip Homburg]

Oh, I see. It's that extreme! Have you asked here if anyone else has
experienced it? (In order to rule out a hardware problem or something
unique to your installation.)

It happened just once (I should have written down which strip is was).
It is not the sort of thing anybody else can duplicate.

I also have a negative somewhere where NikonScan's autoexposure does
something wrong. But I haven't tried that on recent versions of NikonScan.

 

[Don]

I also have a negative somewhere where NikonScan's autoexposure does
something wrong. But I haven't tried that on recent versions of NikonScan.

That's probably the infamous "negative clipping" which may happen due
to how NikonScan (NS) processes the image after it's scanned. NS
selects AutoExposure based on *median* level in the frame and does not
specifically correct for the orange mask variation.

However, contrary to popular belief, this "clipping" is not a bug and
NS can certainly capture the full dynamic range of negatives by, for
example, modifying Master Analog Gain by a few clicks to bring either
highlights or shadows that may be significantly off the median level
into the captured dynamic range.

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

That's probably the infamous "negative clipping" which may happen due
to how NikonScan (NS) processes the image after it's scanned. NS
selects AutoExposure based on *median* level in the frame and does not
specifically correct for the orange mask variation.

What's "orange mask variation", Don?

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

What's "orange mask variation", Don?

Take a look at the orange mask on different makes of film, or even the
same make of film processed in different chemicals - it has a different
density and tone.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Kennedy McEwen ([email protected]) wrote in @kennedym.demon.co.uk:

Take a look at the orange mask on different makes of film

I would if I knew what "orange mask" means...

 

[Don]

I would if I knew what "orange mask" means...

It's a mask which is orange! ;o)

Seriously, it's the orange cast negatives have. Look at something in
the negative that should be black (i.e. white when reversed) such as
unexposed spacing between images. Logically, this should be
transparent, but it's not. It's orange. That's the orange mask and it
will vary from film to film.

That's why it's advisable to scan an unexposed part of the film
together with the image in order to eliminate any residue cast in post
processing.

Don.

 

[CSM1]

Kennedy McEwen ([email protected]) wrote in @kennedym.demon.co.uk:


I would if I knew what "orange mask" means...

It is the base color in Film Color negatives.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

It's a mask which is orange! ;o)

Seriously, it's the orange cast negatives have. Look at something in
the negative that should be black (i.e. white when reversed) such as
unexposed spacing between images. Logically, this should be
transparent, but it's not. It's orange. That's the orange mask and it
will vary from film to film.

What I see is what looks (to me) to be simply the color of the
substrate. "Mask" is something I think of as added to an image, as a
border around it (in your description).

I certainly did note that different negative films have different
colors, some looking more reddish than orange in fact. Most negative
films have quite a bit of completely clear red/orange area, and in fact
I've been keeping some of those clear strips separate, thinking they
might come in useful. ;-) But the variety is striking.

An extra reason why I'm thinking is substrate color rather than a
"mask" (as something added to negatives) is that infamous color negative
film that was developed as B&W: it's just as orange as the the other
correctly developed films of that trip, while there is absolutely no
color at all in the exposed areas: they look like very thin B&W
negatives on an orange substrate. In other words, it's not something
that's "added" during the color development process - it's there already
before development.

The darkest I have is Fuji Reala (more like a reddish brown than orange,
so dark that it's hard to see what's on a negative without a lightbox -
and I don't have a light box), the lightest FujiColor Super HG 200. Agfa
Optima and Agfa Portrait 160 look (about) the same.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

CSM1 ([email protected]) wrote in @newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:

It is the base color in Film Color negatives.

Thanks for confirming that!

Still wondering about the (usage of the) word "mask" though - but that may
be because English is not my native language (I score 100% on practically
everything except vocabulary). I don't see how it's "masking" anything?

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

In other words, it's not something that's "added" during the
color development process - it's there already before
development.

In fact, it is a mask. It has variable density with exposure, and is
there to correct secondary densities of the most 'polluted' color
layers. These secondary densities build linearly with exposure and the
mask is reduced in density, thus eliminating the error.

Once that mask is 'subtracted' from the Raw data (either by changing
the channel exposure times of by math) the non-exposed areas of the
film should be neutral and all other densities should be
saturated/pure (but not necessarily balanced throughout the density
range).

Bart

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Bart van der Wolf ([email protected]) wrote in [email protected]:

In fact, it is a mask. It has variable density with exposure, and is
there to correct secondary densities of the most 'polluted' color
layers. These secondary densities build linearly with exposure and the
mask is reduced in density, thus eliminating the error.

Then how can the orange/reddish color be there on a film that's been
developed as B&W (i.e., no pigments supplied during development)? I'm sure
I'm missing something here.

I also don't understand what you're saying about "polluted" color layers.
Polluted with what, caused by what?

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in


What I see is what looks (to me) to be simply the color of the
substrate. "Mask" is something I think of as added to an image, as a
border around it (in your description).

Hmmm - I think we have a language problem here. You say tomato, I say
tomato... no that doesn't work in text. ;-)

A mask is something that covers something else - like the plastic horror
masks that kids wear at Halloween. In this context we are talking about
a colour mask, if you like, a filter of the base transparent colour.

What you are thinking of I would call either a frame or a mat - the
border around a picture inside a frame.

I certainly did note that different negative films have different
colors, some looking more reddish than orange in fact. Most negative
films have quite a bit of completely clear red/orange area, and in fact
I've been keeping some of those clear strips separate, thinking they
might come in useful. ;-) But the variety is striking.

That's it. ;-)

An extra reason why I'm thinking is substrate color rather than a
"mask" (as something added to negatives) is that infamous color negative
film that was developed as B&W: it's just as orange as the the other
correctly developed films of that trip, while there is absolutely no
color at all in the exposed areas: they look like very thin B&W
negatives on an orange substrate. In other words, it's not something
that's "added" during the color development process - it's there already
before development.

Actually it is an emulsion layer and you can easily scrape it off to
reveal the transparent substrate if you try. It is certainly not
present on undeveloped film - again, scratching undeveloped emulsion
shows no trace of the mask - and its appearance changes with development
time and, as Bart mentioned, exposure. First developer in colour
processing is almost the same as B&W developer, which may explain why
you have it on a film processed in B&W chemicals.

Somewhere I have some C-41 film (I can't recall the type, since this was
almost 30 years ago) that I processed in E6. This was soon after the E6
process was introduced and I tried it because the process temperature of
E-6 was similar to C-41. The resulting orange mask is purple! ;-)

A previous attempt to process E-4 in C-41 chemistry resulted in a
completely clear substrate with bits of emulsion floating in the
chemicals. ;-)

Now you have me reminiscing - I used to know the E-6 process backwards
and could diagnose processing faults on sight and determine which could
be recovered (by returning the film to whatever bath had been skimped)
from those which hadn't. It is quite surprising how often that happens
in a moderate volume manual dip and dunk lab environment. Its more than
20 years since I processed any E-6 film myself and I certainly couldn't
remember any of that now.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

Bart van der Wolf ([email protected]) wrote in [email protected]: SNIP

Then how can the orange/reddish color be there on a film that's
been developed as B&W (i.e., no pigments supplied during
development)? I'm sure I'm missing something here.

With the single exception of Kodachrome film (where colors are
introduced during subsequent processing steps), all color (and
Chromogenic B&W) films already have dyes (actually dye-sets per film
family) in their emulsion. Some of those dyes are masking layer dyes
in color negative films, but those masking layer dyes are not present
in slide films because those are intended for projection. This will
require a specific color (slightly greenish/blue) of light to
trans-illuminate the color negative films and 'remove' the mask color,
or one can use different exposure times per channel as a temporal
color filter.

When Chromogenic Black&White film will be processed and printed with
the same equipment and on the same paper as color negative film, it
also requires a masking layer to be able and use a similar exposure on
that paper. That paper by the way is not neutral in response, but it
is made to compensate for non-linearities in the color negative film.
That's why Chromogenic B&W film has similar characteristics as Color
negative film, except for the CMY color layers and mask color.

I also don't understand what you're saying about "polluted" color
layers.
Polluted with what, caused by what?

If e.g. Green light strikes a color negative emulsion, then the
Magenta dye layer will increase in density with processing, but the
Yellow layer will also increase a bit in density. This will pollute
whatever the Yellow layer's density should be due to Blue light
exposure, thus after inversion Blue will be lighter (desaturated) than
it should and that's caused by Green light exposure instead of
exclusively Blue. So one could say that Blue in the resulting image is
polluted by green exposure.

Similarly, Blue light exposure causes the yellow dye build-up but also
Green and Red light will cause some Yellow dye formation.

Depending on the emulsion, the Yellow layer (Blue in the inverted
image) could be formed by 60% Blue, 30% Green, and 10% Red exposure.
In order to remove that 'pollution', the masks lose density in an
inverse rate to exposure and effectively removes the impurities. The
impurities result from impurities in the dyes (they are not strict
band-pass filters but they overlap in transmission), and cross dye
layer chemical pollution (chemical reaction affects multiple layers).

I hope this short (believe me, there's a lot more to it) course in
Sensitometry helped to clarify a bit. I guess my 3.5 years
Professional Photographer's "Fotovakschool/Apeldoorn" education
provided 'some' foundation.

Bart

 

[rafe b]

CSM1 ([email protected]) wrote in @newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:


Thanks for confirming that!

Still wondering about the (usage of the) word "mask" though - but that may
be because English is not my native language (I score 100% on practically
everything except vocabulary). I don't see how it's "masking" anything?

Look up "dye coupler" and/or "dye coupling" eg.,

<http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Colourcoupledprocess>


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Bart van der Wolf ([email protected]) wrote in [email protected]:

With the single exception of Kodachrome film (where colors are
introduced during subsequent processing steps), all color (and
Chromogenic B&W) films already have dyes (actually dye-sets per film
family) in their emulsion.

Oooh. Your mention of Kodachrome suddenly makes me realize where my
confusion comes from.

My problem is I don't have any hands-on experience (apart from
*exposing* it, of course!) with any color material. I'm trying to
understand a bit more now - while I'm gearing up for my big fim scanning
project - reading what I stumble over. For now my understanding of color
processes is still very fragmented. I must have read something about
adding dyes during the development process - probably that was about
Kodachrome and I didn't realize this was an exception.

Some of those dyes are masking layer dyes in color negative films, but
those masking layer dyes are not present in slide films because those
are intended for projection. (snip)

Thanks for your explanation. It's all beginning to make some sense now.

I guess my 3.5 years Professional Photographer's
"Fotovakschool/Apeldoorn" education provided 'some' foundation.

No doubt

My "foundation" is doing the photography course at the ABK in Arnhem for
a few years (as an "extra" course, not my main subject) but that was all
strictly B&W. I never had my own darkroom, only used the one at school.
I also worked for a while in the photochemical industry - Chemco, inc. -
but all they did there were photograhical materials for the graphical
industry: again strictly B&W (true B&W, excluding greys as much as
possible ). I did have access to some technical literature there -
including about color materials - but never studied that closely:
understanding the companies' products and their problems (I was in QA)
was plenty hard enough. All a long time ago now...

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Kennedy McEwen ([email protected]) wrote in

Hmmm - I think we have a language problem here. You say tomato, I say
tomato... no that doesn't work in text. ;-)

A mask is something that covers something else - like the plastic
horror masks that kids wear at Halloween. In this context we are
talking about a colour mask, if you like, a filter of the base
transparent colour.

What you are thinking of I would call either a frame or a mat - the
border around a picture inside a frame.

Thanks - I'm getting it now (finally)! I think the reference to the
space between negatives put me in the wrong frame of mind - it is
"mask" as I understand the word, after all. Not a language problem but a
"mental image" problem. ;-)

Actually it is an emulsion layer and you can easily scrape it off to
reveal the transparent substrate if you try.

I just did that (try) - with bit of a completely unexposed (but
developed) film. Indeed, it comes off!

First developer in colour processing is almost the same as B&W
developer, which may explain why you have it on a film processed in
B&W chemicals.

Aha. That explains at least partly what I'm seeing.

(I'm trying to understand what really "happened" with that film
(technically), but I realise I don't know enough about color film yet.
I'm trying to understand in order to hopefully come up with the best
strategy of scanning it and see if I can still "salvage" something from
that film. The dimwits in that "professional" lab not only developed the
color negative film in B&W chemicals, they then proceeded to print the
lot on color paper! Vague images on various shades of yellow and orange
backgrounds... When I looked at it again a week or so ago I got angry
all over again.)

Somewhere I have some C-41 film (I can't recall the type, since this
was almost 30 years ago) that I processed in E6. This was soon after
the E6 process was introduced and I tried it because the process
temperature of E-6 was similar to C-41. The resulting orange mask is
purple! ;-)

Was it printable?

A previous attempt to process E-4 in C-41 chemistry resulted in a
completely clear substrate with bits of emulsion floating in the
chemicals. ;-)

LOL!

Thanks for your explanations. It helps!

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Kennedy McEwen ([email protected]) wrote in


Was it printable?

Yes, but the colours were a bit psychedelic - quite unique.

 

[Don]

What I see is what looks (to me) to be simply the color of the
substrate. "Mask" is something I think of as added to an image, as a
border around it (in your description).

It's the inexactness of natural languages.

Mask (like nearly everything else in natural languages) has multiple
meanings. You understood it as "frame" while I meant it as "cast" -
and I actually said so above!

To add to the confusion, this particular cast is most easily
identifiable in the image frame. :-/

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

rafe b (rafebATspeakeasy.net) wrote in

Look up "dye coupler" and/or "dye coupling" eg.,

<http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Colourcoupledprocess>

Thanks, Rafe.

That Photonotes dictionary is an excellent resource! Bookmarked.