Scanned slides don't match projected image

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

From a roll of film developed and printed by a local processor, I've
noticed that my HP4C can duplicate the print nearly exactly, whereas
scanning the negative of the same picture with my Nikon 4000 rarely
matches the print quality, although the detail is usually sharper. The
same applies when I scan slides-the scanned image is never of the
quality of the projected slide. The problem seems to be somewhere in
color management in the Nikon. I'm getting ready to batch scan several
hundred slides, and obvioulsy don't want to have to tweak each one.
Any suggestions? Thank you.
8 answers Last reply
More about scanned slides match projected image
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:31:56 GMT, David Causier
    <davidcausier@worldnet.att.net> found these unused words floating about:

    >From a roll of film developed and printed by a local processor, I've
    >noticed that my HP4C can duplicate the print nearly exactly, whereas
    >scanning the negative of the same picture with my Nikon 4000 rarely
    >matches the print quality, although the detail is usually sharper. The
    >same applies when I scan slides-the scanned image is never of the
    >quality of the projected slide. The problem seems to be somewhere in
    >color management in the Nikon. I'm getting ready to batch scan several
    >hundred slides, and obvioulsy don't want to have to tweak each one.
    >Any suggestions? Thank you.

    Both my Microtek & Minolta have film 'brand' settings that can be tweaked
    and saved as 'profiles'. Doesn't the Nikon for its greater $$$ have this?
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    No, despite its $$$ cost it doesn't. And the problem I described
    occurs with Kodak and Fuji film.

    On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:26:30 -0800, J. A. Mc. <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com>
    wrote:

    >On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:31:56 GMT, David Causier
    ><davidcausier@worldnet.att.net> found these unused words floating about:
    >
    >>From a roll of film developed and printed by a local processor, I've
    >>noticed that my HP4C can duplicate the print nearly exactly, whereas
    >>scanning the negative of the same picture with my Nikon 4000 rarely
    >>matches the print quality, although the detail is usually sharper. The
    >>same applies when I scan slides-the scanned image is never of the
    >>quality of the projected slide. The problem seems to be somewhere in
    >>color management in the Nikon. I'm getting ready to batch scan several
    >>hundred slides, and obvioulsy don't want to have to tweak each one.
    >>Any suggestions? Thank you.
    >
    >Both my Microtek & Minolta have film 'brand' settings that can be tweaked
    >and saved as 'profiles'. Doesn't the Nikon for its greater $$$ have this?
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    It isn't clear that your really understand what color management involves:
    The fundamental role of color management is to try to translate the color
    from your monitor, which must be calibrated to a known standard, to the
    color gamut of your printer (which is supplied by the printer manufacturer
    as a profile packaged with the printer driver) using a color managed program
    like Photoshop.
    Color management can be extended to profiling scanners or printers but that
    is a desirable embellishment of the process, not a fundamental necessity.
    It does not sound like you fully understand why your printed scans of film
    images do not match the colors you believe you see in your monitor.
    Your scanner and printer are capable of achieving stellar results if you
    learn to use them properly. Although manufacturers make it seem like the
    process is automatic it is not automatic and requires understanding the
    principles of color management and a fair degree of understanding of how to
    use a color managed program like Photoshop or Elements. Once you learn a
    routine that works for you it becomes much easier to bascially prepare an
    image for printing but those basic adjustments are rarely enough.
    Each image has to be individually prepared for printing if you want good
    results.
    What you are looking for is a way to do batch scanning such that well
    exposed images from the same film type will scan with similar
    characteristics.
    If you are going to load a large batch of dis-similar images and emulsions
    there is no way to do what you want in the scanner.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:16:15 GMT, David Causier
    <davidcausier@worldnet.att.net> found these unused words floating about:

    >On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:26:30 -0800, J. A. Mc. <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:31:56 GMT, David Causier
    >><davidcausier@worldnet.att.net> found these unused words floating about:
    >>
    >>>From a roll of film developed and printed by a local processor, I've
    >>>noticed that my HP4C can duplicate the print nearly exactly, whereas
    >>>scanning the negative of the same picture with my Nikon 4000 rarely
    >>>matches the print quality, although the detail is usually sharper. The
    >>>same applies when I scan slides-the scanned image is never of the
    >>>quality of the projected slide. The problem seems to be somewhere in
    >>>color management in the Nikon. I'm getting ready to batch scan several
    >>>hundred slides, and obvioulsy don't want to have to tweak each one.
    >>>Any suggestions? Thank you.
    >>
    >>Both my Microtek & Minolta have film 'brand' settings that can be tweaked
    >>and saved as 'profiles'. Doesn't the Nikon for its greater $$$ have this?

    >No, despite its $$$ cost it doesn't. And the problem I described
    >occurs with Kodak and Fuji film.
    >
    You may have to scan, then sort into similar results folders. IF you use
    PhotoShop, then you can make an action to color corrrect and appy to each
    film type/result group in a batch.

    I found Fuggy to be the worst to scan over the time I used film.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:16:15 GMT, David Causier
    <davidcausier@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    >No, despite its $$$ cost it doesn't. And the problem I described
    >occurs with Kodak and Fuji film.
    >

    If you are using NikonScan try turning the color management *off* and
    see what you get. You might need to play with the monitor profile
    as well. Also there is a bit you can do in the "Advanced" settings
    with the color channel gain to create a custom setting.

    These things *sometimes* are plug and play, but most often require a
    lot of work to get the monitor, and printer to agree.

    One question, does your monitor faithfully reproduce the colors from
    the slide and from the print or is there a difference.

    Generally you end up needing to create a profile for the scanner and
    for the monitor. If the monitor is reasonably close for the scanned
    prints but not the scanned slides, then you need to create a custom
    profile, or profiles for the scanner.

    IF you have a number of film types for slides and for negatives but
    the results are off for all negatives and slides, then you most likely
    will need to create a profile for each type.

    Have you tried using VueScan? It works well for me.
    OTOH you have control of virtually everything in VueScan so it has a
    much steeper learning curve than Nikon Scan. Nikon Scan has some nice
    features that make it easy to use.

    In my case using a Nikon LS5000-ED I did not have to create a custom
    scanner profile, or haven't so far and I think I've gone through near
    20,000 slides and negatives so far since last March. I've lost track
    of just how many so my numbers may be off a tad either way.

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

    >On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:26:30 -0800, J. A. Mc. <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:31:56 GMT, David Causier
    >><davidcausier@worldnet.att.net> found these unused words floating about:
    >>
    >>>From a roll of film developed and printed by a local processor, I've
    >>>noticed that my HP4C can duplicate the print nearly exactly, whereas
    >>>scanning the negative of the same picture with my Nikon 4000 rarely
    >>>matches the print quality, although the detail is usually sharper. The
    >>>same applies when I scan slides-the scanned image is never of the
    >>>quality of the projected slide. The problem seems to be somewhere in
    >>>color management in the Nikon. I'm getting ready to batch scan several
    >>>hundred slides, and obvioulsy don't want to have to tweak each one.
    >>>Any suggestions? Thank you.
    >>
    >>Both my Microtek & Minolta have film 'brand' settings that can be tweaked
    >>and saved as 'profiles'. Doesn't the Nikon for its greater $$$ have this?
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:26:30 -0800, J. A. Mc. <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com>
    wrote:

    >On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:31:56 GMT, David Causier
    ><davidcausier@worldnet.att.net> found these unused words floating about:
    >
    >>From a roll of film developed and printed by a local processor, I've
    >>noticed that my HP4C can duplicate the print nearly exactly, whereas
    >>scanning the negative of the same picture with my Nikon 4000 rarely
    >>matches the print quality, although the detail is usually sharper. The
    >>same applies when I scan slides-the scanned image is never of the
    >>quality of the projected slide. The problem seems to be somewhere in
    >>color management in the Nikon. I'm getting ready to batch scan several
    >>hundred slides, and obvioulsy don't want to have to tweak each one.
    >>Any suggestions? Thank you.
    >
    >Both my Microtek & Minolta have film 'brand' settings that can be tweaked
    >and saved as 'profiles'. Doesn't the Nikon for its greater $$$ have this?

    This is a function of the software, not the hardware. NikonScan is an
    "automated" program that is supposed to do it all, but doesn't.
    In general I find it works quite well on my LS5000-ED.

    On the NikonScan 4 header bar, under <Scanner> you can select
    <overall>, or <User> settings. You can adjust the settings on the
    [Tool Palette] and then save them to use as a custom profile.

    Get the settings so you are happy with the results and then save them,
    but remember there are many variations to both Fuji and Kodak films.
    Each brand has types and speeds. Even the different speeds for the
    same type take different settings. On top of that you will find that
    both negatives and slides change with age which requires slightly
    different settings. I have several scanning programs and the one I
    prefer and use the most is VueScan although it does have some short
    comings. I haven't found any that are perfect.

    Unfortunately most scanning is not a "plug and play" sort of thing
    although sometimes you get lucky.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    I have a Nikon Coolscan V and have both Nikonscan 4 and Photoshop CS
    with the Kodak Digital GEM, SHO and ROCpro filters ... In scanning
    slides and negs, which would be preferable:
    1) use the Digital ICE4 in Nikonscan4 to reduce grain, correct
    color/contrast/etc
    or
    2) postprocess using the similar Kodak GEM, SHO, ROCpro filters in PS
    CS?

    Of course I have experimented, but I can't get a handle on which is
    better (I'm just a hobbyist and learning).

    The Nikonscan4 help says its Digital ICE4 actually looks at the
    slide/neg substrate/etc data during the scan process to help make its
    adjustments - this seemingly would be best because it could rescan,
    deep scan or whatever for intricate adjustments ... not real sure how
    that all works. The biggest problem I have is with grain - I have
    heard that the high scanning dpi and the LED lightsource can cause
    grain to be a bigger problem with the Coolscans.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:07:00 -0600, "Markeau"
    <please_reply@news.group> wrote:

    >I have a Nikon Coolscan V and have both Nikonscan 4 and Photoshop CS
    >with the Kodak Digital GEM, SHO and ROCpro filters ... In scanning
    >slides and negs, which would be preferable:
    >1) use the Digital ICE4 in Nikonscan4 to reduce grain, correct
    >color/contrast/etc

    Nikon 4 uses the Digital ICE feature built in the scanner.
    It basically does an infrared scan of the slide or negative and then
    subtracts the results from the regular image. Its latest
    incarnations are far superior to post processing.
    >or
    >2) postprocess using the similar Kodak GEM, SHO, ROCpro filters in PS
    >CS?
    >
    I prefer ROC in the scanning package, but a raw scan with the
    exception of Digital ICE can be post processed.

    >Of course I have experimented, but I can't get a handle on which is
    >better (I'm just a hobbyist and learning).
    >
    >The Nikonscan4 help says its Digital ICE4 actually looks at the
    >slide/neg substrate/etc data during the scan process to help make its
    >adjustments - this seemingly would be best because it could rescan,
    >deep scan or whatever for intricate adjustments ... not real sure how
    >that all works. The biggest problem I have is with grain - I have
    >heard that the high scanning dpi and the LED lightsource can cause
    >grain to be a bigger problem with the Coolscans.

    The new high resolution scanners can have a relatively steep learning
    curve.

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

Read More

Scanners Nikon Peripherals