Yippee!

[Michael]

A nice quickie photo Marjolein. What make and model cell phone is it?
At the New York City Photography Expo last year there was a guest speaker
presenting proof in sales numbers that the new point and shoot cameras are cell
phones.

 

[Michael]

Don states it very correctly in his replies to your posts regarding file storage
formats. And I concur that you should save your special "intensive care"
negatives, like the lab burnt one you described, for after you gain a little
experience with 'good' negatives.

But, with the improperly exposed or developed negatives I would advise you to do
as much adjusting at the scanning stage to pull as much of an image out before
it is sent to your Photoshop or PSP program. I find the analog gain settings in
the Nikon software exceptional at doing these corrections.

The one thing I think Nikon forgot to include with their scanners is the coffee.
Because of the amount I seem to drinking waiting for scans to finish.

Michael....

 

[Michael]

If the trip to Nikonia doesn't kill you, the add-ons will.
Good long lasting stuff though.
Michael......

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Michael ([email protected]) wrote in

A nice quickie photo Marjolein. What make and model cell phone is it?

Thanks The second I took of her, she's more relaxed and it turned out
a lot better.

It's a Sony-Ericsson W800i. All-singing-all-dancing: it's got a walkman
built-in as well - on my last trip had three whole CDs ripped to good
quality MP3s in it on the included 512Mb memory stick (with plenty of
room to spare for pictures) - and it also has a little FM radio. Ideal
for long, boring trips.

On the camrea, the autofocus is nice; you can actually pre-focus and
then frame your picture. And it goes all the way down to macro.

Here's a review:
http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/n/6112.html
"The Sony Ericsson W800i is a jack of all trades - and king of most.
Play it again, Sam."
As they say, it cannot replace a dedicated digital camera - but that's
not the point. Not for me anyway, it's a nice extra to have and to
always have on hand.

At the New York City Photography Expo last year there was a guest
speaker presenting proof in sales numbers that the new point and shoot
cameras are cell phones.

It seems here in Europe almost all new phones sold (or given away with
1- or 2-year contracts) are camera phones now. And the cameras are
getting ever better. I think within a couple years these are going to
replace the simpler point-and-shoot digital cameras completely.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Michael ([email protected]) wrote in 4ax.com:

If the trip to Nikonia doesn't kill you, the add-ons will.

Hah! I just ordered the FH-3 film strip holder - and didn't even ask what
it cost: I need the dratted thing!

The scanner isn't cheap here, but I knew that. Electronics hardware is a
lot more expensive here than in the US for instance (or even than in
Germany), and then you have to add 19% VAT. I haggled as much as possible
but the store has to have its own margin, too, of course. And they give
excellent service.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Michael ([email protected]) wrote in

Don states it very correctly in his replies to your posts regarding
file storage formats. And I concur that you should save your special
"intensive care" negatives, like the lab burnt one you described, for
after you gain a little experience with 'good' negatives.

Yes, I'll neeed a bit of practice before I go to try to salvage whatever
there still is on those... but from my last trip (which I intend to
start with). I have a few "difficult" shots anyway, like some
deliberately underexposed shots taken late afternoon in very bad weather
in a dark street - on the last day in town. I just had to try, I didn't
know when I'd be back in Xi'an (though I do intend to be back sometime,
with more time). Such shots will give me plenty of practice, I'm sure.
The contact print I have shows there is at least *something* on the
negative.

But, with the improperly exposed or developed negatives I would advise
you to do as much adjusting at the scanning stage to pull as much of
an image out before it is sent to your Photoshop or PSP program. I
find the analog gain settings in the Nikon software exceptional at
doing these corrections.

I'm going to experiment a lot with the difficult ones from teh last
trip, so I'll get a "feel" for what can be done, and how. Try out
scanner settings, and different plug-in filters as well as Paint Shop
Pro's own editing tools. (I've already found its digital camera noise
reduction is excellent and gives very fine control.)

(You know, I don't even remember what's on the wrongly-developed ones. I
just remember I was very, very disappointed as well as extremely angry;
I guess I repressed the memory! But I did keep the negatives, hoping
*something* could be done with it, some time.)

The one thing I think Nikon forgot to include with their scanners is
the coffee. Because of the amount I seem to drinking waiting for scans
to finish.

I just switch to beer when it gets late.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Marjolein Katsma ([email protected]) wrote in

from my last trip (which I intend to
start with). I have a few "difficult" shots anyway, like some
deliberately underexposed shots taken late afternoon in very bad
weather in a dark street - on the last day in town. I just had to try,
I didn't know when I'd be back in Xi'an (though I do intend to be back
sometime, with more time). Such shots will give me plenty of practice,
I'm sure. The contact print I have shows there is at least *something*
on the negative.

I tried one of these badly underexposed negatives, both with and without
analog gain, but I can see little difference in what detail is brought
out.

With "gain" I lightened the result somewhat, and subtracted some red,
since there was a red cast; but although that gave me a different
starting point for correction in PSP, there isn't "more" or "less" in
there. The end results are slightly different in tonality because of the
different routes to color correction, but I think both are equally "not
bad". I didn't make it bright daylight because it wasn't - it was
raining hard, and very dark and gloomy - but you can see the curious
difference between street level and the much higher level at which the
flats and houses are built, which is what I took the picture for. Two
stops underexposed, wide open aperture, and something like 1/20 second
exposure, and no tripod.

(But on the contact print you could hardly see anything at all!)

The two (reduced in size) results here:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~iamback/tests/scanning/2005-012-32_nogain_adj3
_w1600.jpg
http://www.xs4all.nl/~iamback/tests/scanning/2005-012-32_gain_adj3
_w1600.jpg

I'm happy with the result - not a beautiful photograph, but usable as
"documentary" illustration.

 

[Don]

Hmm - I don't see myself doing this every day... at least not all teh
vacuuming. I had in mind, once I get an archiving scheme and a workflow
sorted out, to work on scanning like an hour every day. I like the
grocery bag though, and maybe I could vacuum once a week ;-) That would
be something unheard of, LOL.

I'm not so keen on vacuuming either but it's a necessary evil. At
least until I finish scanning. Then it's back to normal... ;o)

Another option (what Kennedy did with his scanner) is to get a plastic
bag with a zip. You then put the scanner in the bag with the zip on
top. When you want to scan you just unzip and roll the bag down. That
way there's plenty of air circulation for cooling. And then when the
bag is zipped up the scanner is "hermetically" sealed. Kennedy said
that since he did that he never had to clean the scanner again (that's
the professional cleaning of the mirrors, etc).

Talk about short on cash - but it sounds like a good idea. I have no
idea what such things cost though... New computer is my first priority.

They can be pricey. Here's one place that used to sell them for $400:
http://www.sharperimage.com/
but google for "Ionic Air Purifier" to compare prices.

One worry less: I don't smoke - I'm allergic to smoke so no one visiting
is allowed to either.

Well done! Same here. Both my parents were heavy smokers which
probably caused my (medium) allergy even though I myself never smoked
in my life. And nobody around me isn't allowed either!

Juuuuust wait till I post the dancing coffee seller ;-)

LOL!

Don.

 

[Don]

I'm still trying to work you if you are a man or a woman

I have to preface this by saying I don't believe in translating names
but Marjolein (pronounced "mahr-yo-lane") is supposed to be the Dutch
equivalent of Marjorie.

I only know this because I lived in the Netherlands for a while
picking up conversational Dutch and "marjolein" (the herb) is
"marjoram" in English.

Don.

 

[Don]

But, with the improperly exposed or developed negatives I would advise you to do
as much adjusting at the scanning stage to pull as much of an image out before
it is sent to your Photoshop or PSP program. I find the analog gain settings in
the Nikon software exceptional at doing these corrections.

Indeed! Even for regular shots it's always better to get as much as
possible out at the scanning stage without any image editing
adjustments. And only then (after such "digital negative" is safely
archived) make adjustments in an image editor. That's the basic
premise of scanning "raw".

I think the problem is that many people don't realize that scanning
and image editing are two totally separate tasks. The scanning
software only adds to this confusion by including all sorts of image
editing features but since that's really an afterthought these
features are usually vastly inferior to a dedicated image editor.

I personally only want my scanner software to scan but I can see how
all-in-one software can be useful for a casual user who doesn't really
care for that much quality and only wants a quick JPG. Still, I think
it's an important distinction to make.

The one thing I think Nikon forgot to include with their scanners is the coffee.
Because of the amount I seem to drinking waiting for scans to finish.

LOL!

On a serious note, I'm currently "digitizing my life" and basically
doing a complete inventory of all my stuff trying to trim it down to a
manageable size and convert anything worth keeping into the digital
domain at the same time.

Now then, one of the things is to go through the mountains (!) of
computer magazines (some over 20 years old) and cut out interesting
articles or save specific issues in full while throwing out the rest.

Which brings me back to long Nikon scans. So, while the Nikon gargles
and buzzes and huffs and puffs I usually flip through a mag. It works
out quite well and I do two things at the same time!

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

Another option (what Kennedy did with his scanner) is to get a plastic
bag with a zip. You then put the scanner in the bag with the zip on
top. When you want to scan you just unzip and roll the bag down. That
way there's plenty of air circulation for cooling. And then when the
bag is zipped up the scanner is "hermetically" sealed. Kennedy said
that since he did that he never had to clean the scanner again (that's
the professional cleaning of the mirrors, etc).

Oh, I like that idea! Now, to get a (big enough) bag...

LOL!

Pics from my camera phone taken at the vacation fair are now online -
including the Syrian dancing coffee seller. I threw only a few out;
applied noise reduction to all, a little straightening to a few, a few
are cropped a bit ('c' suffix), a little sharpening on a few (most not);
all reduced to 800 wide or high (portrait), and saved as JPG. HERE:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~iamback/travel/2006/vacfair/

The first (2006-DSC-00066_h800c.jpg) is my favorite of the dancing
coffee seller.

 

[Don]

Pics from my camera phone taken at the vacation fair are now online -
including the Syrian dancing coffee seller. I threw only a few out;
applied noise reduction to all, a little straightening to a few, a few
are cropped a bit ('c' suffix), a little sharpening on a few (most not);
all reduced to 800 wide or high (portrait), and saved as JPG. HERE:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~iamback/travel/2006/vacfair/

The first (2006-DSC-00066_h800c.jpg) is my favorite of the dancing
coffee seller.

I thought you were only joking!

Oh, this is great!!!

Don.

 

[Don]

I tried one of these badly underexposed negatives, both with and without
analog gain, but I can see little difference in what detail is brought
out.

With "gain" I lightened the result somewhat, and subtracted some red,
since there was a red cast; but although that gave me a different
starting point for correction in PSP, there isn't "more" or "less" in
there. The end results are slightly different in tonality because of the
different routes to color correction, but I think both are equally "not
bad". I didn't make it bright daylight because it wasn't - it was
raining hard, and very dark and gloomy - but you can see the curious
difference between street level and the much higher level at which the
flats and houses are built, which is what I took the picture for. Two
stops underexposed, wide open aperture, and something like 1/20 second
exposure, and no tripod.

(But on the contact print you could hardly see anything at all!)

I had that too! There were some slides which appeared all black when
viewed with the naked eye, but when scanned all sorts of things showed
up, especially after some post-processing.

BTW, it's common for a cast to be introduced if you apply Analog Gain
(AG) selectively. The first thing I did is to try and use AG to remove
the Kodachrome cast. It didn't work because of the Kodachrome film's
characteristic curve which is non-linear. In plain English that means,
if I correct the cast in shadows using AG it shows up in midtones and
highlights - and vice versa. The only way to fix that is to apply a
non-linear curve corresponding to the film's characteristic curve i.e.
a film's profile. But I do it all manually.

The two (reduced in size) results here:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~iamback/tests/scanning/2005-012-32_nogain_adj3
_w1600.jpg
http://www.xs4all.nl/~iamback/tests/scanning/2005-012-32_gain_adj3
_w1600.jpg

I'm happy with the result - not a beautiful photograph, but usable as
"documentary" illustration.

Yes, that's the beauty of digital post-processing! Pics which were
otherwise hopeless can be improved to the point of being almost OK.

That's why I decided to scan everything regardless of how bad it may
look at first glance. Initially, I thought I'll only scan good ones
but now I just archive it all and I will worry about selection later.

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

I thought you were only joking!

Oh, this is great!!!

Joking? Me? Never!

At least not when referring to coffee sellers!

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

I had that too! There were some slides which appeared all black when
viewed with the naked eye, but when scanned all sorts of things showed
up, especially after some post-processing.

BTW, it's common for a cast to be introduced if you apply Analog Gain
(AG) selectively. The first thing I did is to try and use AG to remove
the Kodachrome cast. It didn't work because of the Kodachrome film's
characteristic curve which is non-linear. In plain English that means,
if I correct the cast in shadows using AG it shows up in midtones and
highlights - and vice versa. The only way to fix that is to apply a
non-linear curve corresponding to the film's characteristic curve i.e.
a film's profile. But I do it all manually.

The thing is, there was a (reddish) color cast *before* applying gain.
And it seemed heavier on a second, even darker picture (thinner
negative!). I'm not sure where that comes from but it may be that the
scanner is not competely compensating for the color of the film base on
such "thin" underexposed negatives - it looks like just that color.

The noise on the scan of the second negative was horrible (and I wonder
if it could be actually worse when applying "gain" since it needs *less*
light rather than more for an underexpoised negative!).

I did my best with PSP's noise reduction tool but I'm not too
experienced with that yet; it did leave artifacts especially in the
smoother areas, which I was able to reduce with the edge-preserving
smooth tool. And then endless fiddling to get a neutral color without
making it bright daylight - which it wasn't. I got a ballpark
"exposure" with the gain settings, making it look easier to post-
process, but it seems PSP's tools actually give finer control. And I can
think of other techniques to try and tackle these (scan as if it's a
slide, scan an empty piece of film, then subtract?) but for now I think
I've had enough practice handling "bad" negatives. And I'm happy my
last-minute shots in Xi'an turn out to be "usable" after all, as I'd
hoped when taking them (already thinking forward to having a scanner). I
spent a lot of time on that second negative, but most of that is
learning process.

And once I learn PSP's noise reduction tool, I'm going to test some
noise reduction plugins as well. Practice, practice, practice.

I'm working on "getting organized" now.

I picked up the indispensable film holder this afternoon (nearly costing
me what it seems I'd haggled off the price of the scanner! Gulp!) - I
didn't ask what it'd cost when I ordered it because there is no way
around it: I *need* that thing. And I found that I have negatives going
back to 1985 (not '87) - and will need to apply my new numbering system
to the films, put the strips all in film-strip-holder-sheets (what do
you call those things?) and already noted some strips with cut-through
sprocket holes and other problems. (That was before I headed off to pick
up the FH-3, so I knew what I was going to pay my money for...) I even
found one sheet with *slides* instead of negatives - and I remember
buying film somewhere in Africa that year... I guess they didn't have
negative film in that shop! While I was picking up my FH-3 I also got me
a nice microfiber cloth (in a little folder that protects it from dust)
and a blow brush - not that I don't have such things but I like to have
and keep a set of "scanner tools" all together.

With those, the FH-3 and the film-strip-holder-sheets and the binder to
store them in: expensive day, today...


One more for today: what would you do with a cut-through negative? 1/3
of the negative on one strip, 2/3 on the next?

 

[Surfer!]

In message <[email protected]>, Don

That's why I decided to scan everything regardless of how bad it may
look at first glance. Initially, I thought I'll only scan good ones
but now I just archive it all and I will worry about selection later.

I am scanning them all as it's too hard for me to tell what has some
value of some kind eyeballing the slides - and also since I have an
SF-200 it's easy to scan the whole lot. However I am cleaning hem all
with a soft blower brush before scanning - not such an issue with
non-Kodachrome, but where I can't use ICE...

Certainly some of my slides have an unexpected interest now, given the
changes in the past 30 years. One thing is how free of cars the roads
used to be. Another is my slides of beautiful formations in caves which
are in many cases now damaged to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[Surfer!]

In message <[email protected]>, Marjolein Katsma

And I found that I have negatives going back to 1985 (not '87) - and

will need > to apply my new numbering system to the films, put the
strips all in film-

strip-holder-sheets (what do you call those things?)

Negative sheets?

My slide films are all numbers on the box (by hand by me!), and the
Kodachrome ones have the dates on the card mounts so I have a directory
\Slides (on my nice new 250gb USB drive), then \Slides (will have \film
alongside it) and in there a directory with the date and set
(yyy-mm-Setxx), and then use the set number as the prefix e.g.
S14_01.tif and so on.

The only thing is I have two sets of slides with '14' written on!
Luckily one set has '14' on the box - the other has '15' so I will
re-write the numbers on the slides.

That way I should find it easy to get back to the original source
whenever I want.

With those, the FH-3 and the film-strip-holder-sheets and the binder to
store them in: expensive day, today...

Think I might look for an FH-3 on ebay - one in the US would do just as
well as one in the UK or Europe!

Hope you enjoyed your retail therapy.

One more for today: what would you do with a cut-through negative? 1/3
of the negative on one strip, 2/3 on the next?

If you can get the two bits scanned, it should be possible to put each
in a layer of it's own in PSP, and then align & merge them into a single
image.

 

[Don]

The thing is, there was a (reddish) color cast *before* applying gain.
And it seemed heavier on a second, even darker picture (thinner
negative!). I'm not sure where that comes from but it may be that the
scanner is not competely compensating for the color of the film base on
such "thin" underexposed negatives - it looks like just that color.

Casts are quite complicated because there are so many components
(characteristic film curve, scanner response, etc), but in a nutshell,
you can reduce a cast by adjusting individual Analog Gain (AG)
channels *if* the film response is linear (as I explained last time).

For example, try reducing the red channel AG and see what happens.

The noise on the scan of the second negative was horrible (and I wonder
if it could be actually worse when applying "gain" since it needs *less*
light rather than more for an underexpoised negative!).

Negatives add another complication because they have to be inverted.
If you use Auto Exposure then NikonScan has been known to clip a bit.

There are many ways of tackling this. At one end, you can just turn
AutoExposure off, and at the other end, scan negatives as Positive and
then do the inversion manually. In both cases you will also have to
expand the dynamic range by setting the black and white point because
negatives (unlike slides) are compressed on film.

If you want to turn AutoExposure (AE) off, do note that Nikon hates it
when you do that and is very cranky! What you need to do is, turn AE
off in NikonScan. Close NikonScan. Turn off the scanner!!!!!
Apparently this setting is saved in the scanner itself!?!?!? Only
then, is the Auto Exposure truly off. But if you turn it on even for a
brief moment, you have to repeat the whole procedure again.

On the other hand, if you scan negatives as positive, you will have
more control. However, you have to do the inversion yourself (which is
not a big problem) but you also have to remove the orange mask, which
is more complicated. The easiest way is to scan a bit of the unexposed
film edge. You then use that to set the white point and the orange
mask should be gone. There's more to it than that but edge is the key.

And once I learn PSP's noise reduction tool, I'm going to test some
noise reduction plugins as well. Practice, practice, practice.

The best way of removing noise is to scan twice and then combine. I've
written many long messages on the subject because that's what I've
been wrestling with all along. Check the archives (look for "twin
scan") and then let me know if you need more info.

I'm working on "getting organized" now.

It took me 2 years to do that! ;o) Including writing my own scanner
program, 16-bit histogram and a twin scan merge program!

I picked up the indispensable film holder this afternoon (nearly costing
me what it seems I'd haggled off the price of the scanner! Gulp!) - I
didn't ask what it'd cost when I ordered it because there is no way
around it: I *need* that thing.

I don't know how much it is but I do know it's pricey. It's just Nikon
trying to squeeze out every penny. :-/ I think it's despicable because
the film holder is a "must have". As I say they did include it with
the LS-30 but not with LS-50!?

And I found that I have negatives going
back to 1985 (not '87) - and will need to apply my new numbering system
to the films, put the strips all in film-strip-holder-sheets (what do
you call those things?) and already noted some strips with cut-through
sprocket holes and other problems.

I just call them "sleeves" or "negative sleeves".

As to a numbering system, there were some messages here about that.
It's important to figure it all out before you start. And especially
before you burn anything to DVDs!

I use a very simple system. Basically, I put each film into its own
directory the name of which is the date as YYYY.MM.DD e.g. 2006.01.
The day is optional because it's not always known, but by using
"computer date" i.e. year first, they all sort nicely.

I then have 3 prefixes: S for slides, N for negatives, and P for
photographs (i.e. just paper, no negative). Each file name in the
directory is then the image number from the film/slide or a simple
incrementing number for photos.

I also got me
a nice microfiber cloth (in a little folder that protects it from dust)
and a blow brush - not that I don't have such things but I like to have
and keep a set of "scanner tools" all together.

I went through a few of those as well and found out that not
everything calling itself "microfiber" really is microfiber. The best
microfiber cloth I found was in a camera store in Germany, but someone
here reported seeing the same make in Irelands as well.

The brand name is "Hama", the cloth is gray in appearance and comes
with its own, dust proof, plastic container! Very handy! The price was
about 5 Euro. I got two so when one is in the wash I use the other.

With those, the FH-3 and the film-strip-holder-sheets and the binder to
store them in: expensive day, today...

I know what you mean! But at least you're all set now. The next big
expense is going to be DVDs! I'll start burning mine, not because I'm
done, but because I filled up all my hard disks (1 x 160 GB + 2 * 250
GB). So I need to free up some disk space before I can scan some more.

One more for today: what would you do with a cut-through negative? 1/3
of the negative on one strip, 2/3 on the next?

When I was sorting out all my films I noticed I had one of those! Of
course, it was a very important film!!! How can those *idiots* slice a
film like that is beyond me! I do have the prints (already scanned),
but I certainly want to scan the negatives. It will just take a lot of
work to fix them.

I plan to put them in the holder and then scan together. It's going to
be tricky establishing the exposure because of the light shining
through the crack. But it's essential to scan both halves together so
I can repair the damage without worrying about the alignment. I'll
also probably use the scanned photograph as a template.

There's no way around it, it will just take a lot of work... :-(

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Surfer! ([email protected]) wrote in view.co.uk:

In message <[email protected]>, Marjolein Katsma


Negative sheets?

Looked on the packaging... the ones I bought yesterday are "ringbinder
storage pages for negatives" (even more of a mouthful thatn what I came
up with); an older package of a different brand calls them "negative
filing leaves".

"Negative sheets" sounds better to me ;-)

Apart from one slide film (not mounted, origin unknown) I only have
negatives. From the start I've asked for them to be developed and
contact sheets made. In principle, a contact sheet gets a number, and a
"batch" goes together in an envelope of folder (with year, and numbers);
filmstrips go into "negative sheets", get corresponding numbers, and are
filed in binders.

The problem is, that's the theory. But I've been sloppy (or just too
busy) at times, so I have unnumbered contact sheets, single film strips
for prints ordered (sometimes with a filmnumber written, sometimes not),
whole batches unnumbered... I *do* have all my notebooks, and I'm pretty
good at taking notes while taking pictures - but the notebooks are in
different boxes.

And the numbering system changed twice so I have to go back and add new
numbers to contact sheets, film sheets, prints and notebooks. Apart from
renumbering prints (I can do that later) it will take me a few days,
half-organized as I am...

How I'm going to organize the digital files is a whole different subject
- good for a separate thread; one problem is I'll need to integrate
images from other sources, and non-photographic images (like scans of
objects made on my flatbed scanner). Grey cells in the back of my head
still churning while I get my negatives organized.

If you can get the two bits scanned, it should be possible to put each
in a layer of it's own in PSP, and then align & merge them into a
single image.

That's one method I was thinking of, but I don't know what the scanner
would do with a largish area of "nothing" (pure light). I was also
thinking of trying to put them together in the FH-3 - just as Don
suggested. That's a draw. ;-)

I guess I'll just try both methods and see what works best. Getting (a
bit) organized today I already found several cases of cut-through
negatives. There were also various cases of thick thumb prints on
negatives, torn sprocket holes, and creased negatives. All before I got
fed up with having my negatives maltreated by consumer labs (at one time
at least the Kodak lab was particularly bad here) and decided to only
let professional labs get at them; I consider the extra cost as just
part of "travel costs". The professional lab I used for years let me
down in 2004 though, and delivered drying drops, scratches, and deep
scratches on prints - so I switched to an even more expensive one. Sigh.
Being a perfectionist is expensive!

(Not that they're all perfect shots - but I do my best and don't
tolerate others to permanently spoil my best efforts.)

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

Casts are quite complicated because there are so many components
(characteristic film curve, scanner response, etc), but in a nutshell,
you can reduce a cast by adjusting individual Analog Gain (AG)
channels *if* the film response is linear (as I explained last time).

For example, try reducing the red channel AG and see what happens.

That's what I did to start with - it gives me a ballpark approximation,
but I find I have much finer control in PSP with a curves adjustment
layer. I'm already thinking that I'll use analog gain adjustement for
master only - if that.

Negatives add another complication because they have to be inverted.

Exactly - I'm thinking that on negatives "gain" really is "loss" with
*less* light being used, and thus probably increasing noise. I'll have
to do some controlled tests to check my theory though. ;-) I've already
seen that "gain" on negatives goes the same way as on slides (moving the
master slider to the right makes the preview lighter) - but it *can't*
be the same. And if "gain" on a negative actually means *less* light, I
don't think noise could be reduced - if anything, only increased.

If you use Auto Exposure then NikonScan has been known to clip a bit.
Hmm...

There are many ways of tackling this. At one end, you can just turn
AutoExposure off, and at the other end, scan negatives as Positive and
then do the inversion manually. In both cases you will also have to
expand the dynamic range by setting the black and white point because
negatives (unlike slides) are compressed on film.

If you want to turn AutoExposure (AE) off, do note that Nikon hates it
when you do that and is very cranky! What you need to do is, turn AE
off in NikonScan. Close NikonScan. Turn off the scanner!!!!!
Apparently this setting is saved in the scanner itself!?!?!? Only
then, is the Auto Exposure truly off. But if you turn it on even for a
brief moment, you have to repeat the whole procedure again.

I'll watch out for this! I guess when I hit a really bad negative that I
really do want to salvage, I'll just try all possible methods and pick
what's best. Eventually I should (I hope) get enough experience to
estimate what approach is going to work best / fastest for a particular
negative.

The best way of removing noise is to scan twice and then combine. I've
written many long messages on the subject because that's what I've
been wrestling with all along. Check the archives (look for "twin
scan") and then let me know if you need more info.

I don't see myself doing this for *every* negative. I'm already finding
there is always some noise, but on a perfectly-exposed negative it's
very light and PSP's noise reduction takes care of it very well (and a
damn lot faster than doing two scans and combining them). But for the
bad ones, it's worth a try.

It took me 2 years to do that! ;o) Including writing my own scanner
program, 16-bit histogram and a twin scan merge program!

Well, I'm "half-organized" now - see my reply to Surfer! But I'm not
about to write my own software (If I really needed to I could - but I
won't).

I don't know how much [the FH-3] is but I do know it's pricey. It's
just Nikon trying to squeeze out every penny. :-/ I think it's
despicable because the film holder is a "must have". As I say they did
include it with the LS-30 but not with LS-50!?

The salesman at my photography shop said pretty much the same thing...
they can ask what they want: if you need it you need it and there's no
way around it! SoNkon can ask whatever they like for the thingy. The
darned thing cost me almost EUR 48! But I guess if you really only scan
slides, you wouldn't need it.

I just call them "sleeves" or "negative sleeves".

See my reply to Surfer! for some fancy names I found on packaging. ;-)

As to a numbering system, there were some messages here about that.
It's important to figure it all out before you start. And especially
before you burn anything to DVDs!

Indeed. I'm working out my system (my current film numbering system will
stay - storage of digital files is another matter); I'll start a new
thread about that pretty soon (once I'm "organized" ).

I went through a few of those as well and found out that not
everything calling itself "microfiber" really is microfiber. The best
microfiber cloth I found was in a camera store in Germany, but someone
here reported seeing the same make in Irelands as well.

Blower brush and micro fiber cloth both bought at the camera store. They
had two types of micro fiber cloth, and I picked the one that came in
its own sleeve; it was the cheapest as well. I'll see how it behaves...

When I was sorting out all my films I noticed I had one of those! Of
course, it was a very important film!!! How can those *idiots* slice a
film like that is beyond me! I do have the prints (already scanned),
but I certainly want to scan the negatives. It will just take a lot of
work to fix them.

I plan to put them in the holder and then scan together. It's going to
be tricky establishing the exposure because of the light shining
through the crack. But it's essential to scan both halves together so
I can repair the damage without worrying about the alignment. I'll
also probably use the scanned photograph as a template.

There's no way around it, it will just take a lot of work... :-(

While getting organized today (starting to) I found I have not one, but
several. Talk about idjits! I was indeed thinking of putting them in the
film strip holder together (if they'll fit in together!!). Using a
scanned photograph is a good idea - but there isn't one! The first one I
noted isn't really important though, so I'll save those gymnastics for a
rainy day.


Oh, wait, all scanning is done inside!