Nikon Coolscan V ED and Black&White negatives

[Hoshisato]

I'm busy scanning my black&white negatives and I'm looking for some
pointers to get the best results. Digital ICE seems to make a mess of
it so I switched that off, but I also wonder whether I should scan in
greyscale or Calibrated RGB. I believe the latter gives me more
greyscales than the standard greyscales option, but I might be
completely mistaken.
Any other suggestion regarding black and white scanning?
Thanks!

 

[David J. Littleboy]

I'm busy scanning my black&white negatives and I'm looking for some
pointers to get the best results. Digital ICE seems to make a mess of
it so I switched that off, but I also wonder whether I should scan in
greyscale or Calibrated RGB. I believe the latter gives me more
greyscales than the standard greyscales option, but I might be
completely mistaken.

Yes. Digital ICE uses IR. Since color film dyes are transparent to IR, it
allows the scanner to "see" the dust, which isn't. This doesn't work for
IR-opaque silver. Sigh. (It works nicely for XP-2 Super and similar films,
though.)

Any other suggestion regarding black and white scanning?

Another thing to try is to scan it as a positive (as though it were a slide)
and then inverting in Photoshop.

This can have the advantage that it is sometimes easier to get a scan that
matches the exposure range on the film to the histogram in the scan (i.e.
creating a scan with a histogram that runs from black to white and doesn't
overshoot (clip)), thus maximizing information capture and minimize
aggravation of noise when you make adjustments to the black and white
points.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Hoshisato]

David J. Littleboy wrote:
(..)

Another thing to try is to scan it as a positive (as though it were a slide)
and then inverting in Photoshop.

Thanks, the problem with scanning it as a positive is that the scanner
doesn't seem to recognize correctly where the negative starts on the
strip of film and scans half of one and half of the one next to it.
Never had this problem with this scanner when scanning them as
negatives.

 

[David J. Littleboy]

Thanks, the problem with scanning it as a positive is that the scanner
doesn't seem to recognize correctly where the negative starts on the
strip of film and scans half of one and half of the one next to it.
Never had this problem with this scanner when scanning them as
negatives.

Right. It confuses the automagic cropping. On the 8000, I usually can
manually reset the crop, although it's a pain.

Some people like Vuescan, which tends to give more manual control. I used it
years ago, but found NikonScan easier with the 8000.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

(e-mail address removed)...
SNIP

Right. It confuses the automagic cropping. On the 8000, I usually can
manually reset the crop, although it's a pain.

The problem is not automatic cropping but Vuescan. The Vuescan
cropping bug has been there for years.

Some people like Vuescan, which tends to give more manual control. I used it
years ago, but found NikonScan easier with the 8000.

Yes, NikonScan is far superior as is Silverfast (www.silverfast.com).
Not surprising because those are professional products unlike Vuescan
which is really just a little amateur program. So it's not a fair
comparison.

Bart

 

[David J. Littleboy]

The problem is not automatic cropping but Vuescan. The Vuescan
cropping bug has been there for years.

The writer of this message (a) isn't Bart, and (b) doesn't know what he's
talking about.

In particular, no software succeeds in using its _color slide_ cropping
algorithm to crop _negatives_.

Yes, NikonScan is far superior as is Silverfast (www.silverfast.com).
Not surprising because those are professional products unlike Vuescan
which is really just a little amateur program. So it's not a fair
comparison.

Stupid troll.

(For the benefit of people reading this on rec.photo.digital,
comp.periphs.scanners is having problems with a stupid troll who fakes
message headers.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Rick Hamed]

The Vuescan cropping bug has been there for years.

Stupid troll.

You're right. This Bart person is quite some character.

A quick Google search for his full name shows he's been at it for a
few years. Some people, eh?

Rick

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

(e-mail address removed)...
SNIP

(For the benefit of people reading this on rec.photo.digital,
comp.periphs.scanners is having problems with a stupid troll who fakes
message headers.)

Oooh! Great idea, David! Thanks for the tip!

I've been too busy faking messages here and have neglected
rec.photo.digital or, for that matter:

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
sci.engr.color
sci.image.processing
comp.sys.mac.system
sci.engr.color
comp.graphics.algorithms
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
etc

as well as many other places I used to frequent before I started
faking messages here.

You're a peach, David! Thanks a lot for reminding me!

Bart

 

[Don]

Automatic cropping works wonderfully in VueScan. I recommend
everyone download it. You can download it from:

http://www.hamrick.com/

Don

 

[Don]

And another google search will show that Bart doesn't
post from supernews, only the troll (i.e. me) does.

Rick Hamed is also a forged posting from me.

Don

 

[Don]

And again, this is another forged posting from me. Anything coming
from supernews is forged.

Don

 

[Jeff Randall]

Thanks, the problem with scanning it as a positive is that the scanner
doesn't seem to recognize correctly where the negative starts on the
strip of film and scans half of one and half of the one next to it.

The negative strip frame finding/cropping problem is NOT really a
VueScan bug it is just that Ed Hamrick can't or doesn't want to
implement the same method used in NikonScan -- that is doing a low
level scan of the entire strip and then looking for the interframe
areas that define the image frames. VueScan bases its frame
finding/cropping on the sprocket holes. This technique is quite
understandable from Ed's point of view. Note: the users manual gives
guidance. It suggests selecting the second frame and then using the
frame offset controls to center the frame, then scan the strip starting
from frame 1. This proceedure (although clunky) usually works for me
on my LS4000. Your experience may vary.

A bug it is not -- just a feature that is not as elegant as the
original (although I've had occassional problems with NikonScan not
finding the frames as well).

Jeff Randall

 

[David J. Littleboy]

You're right. This Bart person is quite some character.

I'm quite sure Bart didn't write that.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

I'm quite sure Bart didn't write that.

I'm 100% sure I didn't write that ;-) , and I don't post from
supernews.com either.

Besides, 'Rick Hamed' as a permutation of 'Ed Hamrick' is just too
obviously a lame trolling attempt.

Enough said, it doesn't even deserve wasting my time on. There is too
much constructive stuff to share, and too little time to do it ...

Bart

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

And again, this is another forged posting from me.

The trouble is that very few people bother (or even know how) to
inspect the headers.

Otherwise they would also spot your fakes. There are at least 4
glaring errors in your "scrip kiddies" forgeries.

Which means the aggressor now has to spend hours checking all
newsgroups and posting follow-ups which is more than what they
bargained for when they started faking Don's messages.

That's what happens when people don't think things through but just
lash out uncontrollably. And once the hole is dug it's impossible to
get out.

If they quite now, they lose face.

If they continue, it will only get worse for them.

That's the trouble with picking a fight with an unknown entity.

Bart

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

Automatic cropping is totally broken in VueScan. I recommend
checking the archives. You can make up your own mind.

Don is right. Automatic cropping in Vuescan never worked and, by the
looks of it, never will as Ed is incapable of fixing it. Just one of
the many Vuescan bugs... :-(

Bart

 

[Ed Hamrick]

Rick Hamed is also a forged posting from me.

I don't know if it is or isn't but what he writes is correct.

Doing a search on Google using "Bart van der Wolf" (with quotes!)
shows up this link (among others):

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t258352-bart-van-der-wolf-sucks-cock-and-balls.html

So, apparently, Bart has been annoying people at least as far back as
*2004*!

Surely, nobody can blame Don for that. Especially since Don is not the
one who started all this message faking. He's the innocent victim of
this aggression.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

 

[Ed Hamrick]

Besides, 'Rick Hamed' as a permutation of 'Ed Hamrick' is just too
obviously a lame trolling attempt.

Swoosh! Way over your head!

Bart, you're as humorless as ever. You just don't get it!

The only obvious thing is the clever, but not too obscure,
tongue-in-cheek acronym. It's very good, actually!

But you're just too angry to see that.

Enough said, it doesn't even deserve wasting my time on. There is too
much constructive stuff to share, and too little time to do it now that
I'm busy faking Don's messages...

What you also fail to see is that picking a fight with someone who's
protecting his identity is suicidal. Especially, since YOUR identity
is widely exposed.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

 

[Don]

And again, another boring forged e-mail from me.
It's from supernews, and Bart doesn't post from
supernews.

Anyone who is interested can use

http://groups.google.com

Click on Advanced options, choose "Sort by date",
search the group "comp.periphs.scanners", and search
for the keyword "supernews".

When you find a particularly obnoxious or rude
posting, it's from me. You can verify this by
clicking "Show options" and then "Show original".

If the posting came from supernews, it's from me
and is just a troll.

Anyway, I recommend VueScan wholeheartedly.

You can download it from:

http://www.hamrick.com/

Don

 

[Don]

And again, another boring forged e-mail from me.
It's from supernews, and Bart doesn't post from
supernews.

VueScan's cropping actually works extremely
well, much better than in SilverFast. This is
easy to verify by downloading a copy of
SilverFast from:

http://www.silverfast.com/

To compare, download VueScan from:

http://www.hamrick.com/

An intelligent person would never take the word
of a fool like me.

Don