Loss of detail in B&W scans

[girl_woody]

Hi,

I'm very new to scanning my own negs [I started last night] and have a bottom of the range Primefilm 1800u scanner. I tried scanning some B&W (Kodak TMax 400) negs and have been very disappointed with the results. The image I get has high contrast, but I also lose any subtle detail such as clouds in skies, or writing on market stall signs. I can see this detail on the neg, so how do I get it to appear in my scan?

Any tips and pointers gratefully received

Rebecca

[qleap]

Rebecca,
I'm not sure exactly how you are doing your scans, but here are some suggestions. Always do a pre-scan. This is necessary so the scanner knows the exposure level for the final scan. The pre-scan will also give you a histogram of the picture showing how many pixels are at each level of brightness (0-255). This is called the dynamic range of the image. You can manually adjust the exposure level of the scan by "stretching" the dynamic range or by using a curve adjustment. (These are found under the "Curves and Levels" in Image Adjustment). Basically you are telling the scanner to change the brightness of a pixel to a new value (darker or lighter). This way you can tease out details in the original that are too bright or too dark. All this can be done after the final scan, but it is better to do it during the scanning process for best results.

Scanning is only the first step in producing a good quality picture. Image manipulation (the "digital darkroom") is usually required using image processing software. Post-scanning work will take more time than scanning itself.

Keep trying. Learn to use the scanning software by experimenting. Like most things in life, it takes practice and you will get better. Also read up on Slug's scanning process (http://forums.pbase.com/post?post_id=279) and save all your original scan work in TIFF format (this is your "digital negative") and your manipulated in Jpeg.

-Clayton

[ghoenig]

My experiences with scanning B&W negs (with Nikon Coolscan 4000) have never been good. You can tweak it to get better results, but if you really need to get optimum results you should scan a print on a flatbed.

[per_1948]

My experiences with scanning B&W negs (with Nikon Coolscan 4000) have never been good. You can tweak it to get better results, but if you really need to get optimum results you should scan a print on a flatbed.

I have a 1800 dpi Microtek film scanner.
The default setting works OK for colour (pos or neg) but not very good
for most BW. Prescan is not giving much help.
The only setting giving more info is with contrast on minimum.
I have for example a BW neg with a black (as pos image) area taking
about 10% of the image. This area has one value with most settings.
I can read it for example in PSP 7 with Dropper.
If I use low contrast there are 4 levels of darkness...not bad!

Best regards/ Per

[boonmark]

I have just received my first flatbed scanner. I scaned a couple of picture sofar, and I agreed that somehow, my scan looks softer that the same picture print at photo lab.

It works much better at higher resolution.

[djon]

There's a lot of negative commentary about flatbeds for 35mm film scanning, and I usually play a defensive role.

Here's what I know for sure, from directly comparing very fine silver enlargements with my current best efforts from Epson 3200 (now discontinued) and Epson 2200.

1) In sizes up to perhaps 10" width there's no question that flatbed-scanning at 3200ppi with unsharp masking in Photoshop is readily equal to good Durst condenser enlargments from the same 35mm B&W negative. 120 is better scanned than enlarged.

2) With many images it's possible to produce beautiful 12X18 prints of people and landscapes IF the original is Kodak High Definition 200ei color negative or Fuji Velvia. I've not explored widely but I've been unhappy with several of Kodak's other amateur film stocks....though some 20yr-old Vericolor has scanned and printed attractively after some Photoshopping.

From what I've heard from trusted individuals the recent 4870 Epson is significantly better than the 3200, and from a highly expert owner of the new 4990 I've heard that model is only a slight improvement over the 4870.