emulsion side down and histograms

[Linda]

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

Hello,
I have two questions.

When scanning 35mm or 4x5s does the emulsion side go down? Is there a
rule for this? I thought it went down but my scans are mirrored and I
get different results when emulsion is up or down.

Is it better to adjust the levels (histogram) with the scanning
software or in Photoshop? I don't want to lose information when
scanning. I've read scantips.com, searched this group and googled. I
have alot of slides of artwork to scan. I don't want the fastest way,
I'd like to do it the best way.

I'm using Silverfast SE (came with the scanner) and an Epson 4870. I
don't know if it's relevant but I'm on a Mac with system 9.2.2

I've become a bit scrambled over this and any help will be so
appreciated.

Thanks, Linda

--
remove invalid to reply

 

[birdman]

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

Scan so the image comes out with correct orientation (however whichever way
yields best results for you is all that counts).
There are two schools of thought about image tuning: adjust extensively
prescan, adjust minimally prescan.
Again whatever works for you works best for you. My personal preference is
to make minimal adjustments prescan that yield uncompromised/unclipped
images and adjust later in Photoshop.
Severely underexposed or overexposed images may require extensive prescan
adjustment to get any kind of usable image.
You have to experiment and learn what you are doing.
It is more important to understand what the adjustments actually are doing
to the image data then to worry about whether or not to make adjustments pre
or post scan.

 

[Guest]

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

use the same rule as with an enlarger, emulsion facing a sensor.
2. at least get white and black points right, then scan. more
manipulation can be done in PS.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:31:02 GMT, "birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net>
wrote:

*Scan so the image comes out with correct orientation (however whichever way
*yields best results for you is all that counts).
*There are two schools of thought about image tuning: adjust extensively
*prescan, adjust minimally prescan.
*Again whatever works for you works best for you. My personal preference is
*to make minimal adjustments prescan that yield uncompromised/unclipped
*images and adjust later in Photoshop.
*Severely underexposed or overexposed images may require extensive prescan
*adjustment to get any kind of usable image.
*You have to experiment and learn what you are doing.
*It is more important to understand what the adjustments actually are doing
*to the image data then to worry about whether or not to make adjustments pre
*or post scan.
*

 

[user]

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

> When scanning 35mm or 4x5s does the emulsion side go down? Is there a
> rule for this? I thought it went down but my scans are mirrored and I
> get different results when emulsion is up or down.

You don't explain what you find "different?" Which produces better results
for you? That is the best answer. If you want to know what Epson
recommends, look at the letter graphic/decal on the holder. That shows how
the lettering on your film should read when you look at the film after it is
placed in the holder.

Doug

--
Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format
film:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html

 

[Guest]

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

Emulsion Down, and 'flip' the image either in the scanning program or in
PhotoShop.

Just ask yourself ... just exactly WHY should I scan *through* the film
base?




"Linda" <lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com> wrote in message
news:230620051935179032%lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com...
> Hello,
> I have two questions.
>
> When scanning 35mm or 4x5s does the emulsion side go down? Is there a
> rule for this? I thought it went down but my scans are mirrored and I
> get different results when emulsion is up or down.
>
> Is it better to adjust the levels (histogram) with the scanning
> software or in Photoshop? I don't want to lose information when
> scanning. I've read scantips.com, searched this group and googled. I
> have alot of slides of artwork to scan. I don't want the fastest way,
> I'd like to do it the best way.
>
> I'm using Silverfast SE (came with the scanner) and an Epson 4870. I
> don't know if it's relevant but I'm on a Mac with system 9.2.2
>
> I've become a bit scrambled over this and any help will be so
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks, Linda
>
> --
> remove invalid to reply

 

[Guest]

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

"RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
news:lc%ue.902$Uc2.403@trnddc03...
> Emulsion Down, and 'flip' the image either in the scanning program or in
> PhotoShop.
>
> Just ask yourself ... just exactly WHY should I scan *through* the film
> base?
>
>

Maybe because the light travels through the film base to produce the image
on the sensor. Either way you turn the film, the light has to travel through
the film to get to the sensor.

That is why it is called a transparency, light passes through the film.

You turn the film the way that when scanned produces a right side up or
correct left to right image. Sometimes with some scanners the image maybe
correct left to right but upside down.

My Canon CanoScan 8400F scans 120 negatives shot with a twin lens reflex
camera are upside down when scanned with the correct left to right
orientation. A simple matter to turn all the images in the image editor at
the same time. (The scanner driver can also rotate the image, one at a
time).

And yes, you can flip or rotate the image in a photo editor, no matter which
way you scanned it.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

>
> "Linda" <lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com> wrote in message
> news:230620051935179032%lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com...
>> Hello,
>> I have two questions.
>>
>> When scanning 35mm or 4x5s does the emulsion side go down? Is there a
>> rule for this? I thought it went down but my scans are mirrored and I
>> get different results when emulsion is up or down.
>>
>> Is it better to adjust the levels (histogram) with the scanning
>> software or in Photoshop? I don't want to lose information when
>> scanning. I've read scantips.com, searched this group and googled. I
>> have alot of slides of artwork to scan. I don't want the fastest way,
>> I'd like to do it the best way.
>>
>> I'm using Silverfast SE (came with the scanner) and an Epson 4870. I
>> don't know if it's relevant but I'm on a Mac with system 9.2.2
>>
>> I've become a bit scrambled over this and any help will be so
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks, Linda
>>
>> --
>> remove invalid to reply
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

But one way ... with the emulsion side of the film *down* ... the *image*
does *not* have to travel through the dirt, distortion and contamination(s)
of the film base. The film base is, was, and always will be manufactured to
simply be a support for the emulsion. The film base was *never* designed to
be part of the optical path, and is not manufactured to the parameters that
would be required for that usage. .

Don't you think that just might be the reason why *all* optical enlargers
and projection systems place the emulsion side of the image towards the
final projected image?






"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:qWcve.1853$5w3.382@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Maybe because the light travels through the film base to produce the
image
> on the sensor. Either way you turn the film, the light has to travel
through
> the film to get to the sensor.
>
> That is why it is called a transparency, light passes through the film.
>
> You turn the film the way that when scanned produces a right side up or
> correct left to right image. Sometimes with some scanners the image maybe
> correct left to right but upside down.
>
> My Canon CanoScan 8400F scans 120 negatives shot with a twin lens reflex
> camera are upside down when scanned with the correct left to right
> orientation. A simple matter to turn all the images in the image editor
at
> the same time. (The scanner driver can also rotate the image, one at a
> time).
>
> And yes, you can flip or rotate the image in a photo editor, no matter
which
> way you scanned it.
>
> --
> CSM1
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com
> --
>
> >
> > "Linda" <lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com> wrote in message
> > news:230620051935179032%lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com...
> >> Hello,
> >> I have two questions.
> >>
> >> When scanning 35mm or 4x5s does the emulsion side go down? Is there a
> >> rule for this? I thought it went down but my scans are mirrored and I
> >> get different results when emulsion is up or down.
> >>
> >> Is it better to adjust the levels (histogram) with the scanning
> >> software or in Photoshop? I don't want to lose information when
> >> scanning. I've read scantips.com, searched this group and googled. I
> >> have alot of slides of artwork to scan. I don't want the fastest way,
> >> I'd like to do it the best way.
> >>
> >> I'm using Silverfast SE (came with the scanner) and an Epson 4870. I
> >> don't know if it's relevant but I'm on a Mac with system 9.2.2
> >>
> >> I've become a bit scrambled over this and any help will be so
> >> appreciated.
> >>
> >> Thanks, Linda
> >>
> >> --
> >> remove invalid to reply
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <pHhve.1096$4M1.772@trnddc07>, rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net says...
>
>
>But one way ... with the emulsion side of the film *down* ... the *image*
>does *not* have to travel through the dirt, distortion and contamination(s)
>of the film base. The film base is, was, and always will be manufactured to
>simply be a support for the emulsion. The film base was *never* designed to
>be part of the optical path, and is not manufactured to the parameters that
>would be required for that usage. .
>
>Don't you think that just might be the reason why *all* optical enlargers
>and projection systems place the emulsion side of the image towards the
>final projected image?


Undoubtedly only to prevent it coming out reversed left to right.

However which in turn is because the camera does it too, to which your point
is applicable. Early roll film (620/120) even had an opaque paper backing
to protect it, which would have otherwise made it very difficult indeed to
turn it over. All these systems place emulsion towards lens, and it
comes out right, because all are front surface projections.

The flatbed CCD chip surface is also a projection surface, but the chip
views that projected image from the inside, or from the back side of the
projection surface, which is a reversal. Dedicated film scanners could
choose to always flip the image, and then expect the film emulsion towards
the lens. Or not, it really doesnt matter who does it.

But flatbeds primarily expect to scan prints or documents, which are not
reversed like film is, so film emulsion must go up (away from lens) to
prevent retaining the reversal. Film is initially reversed due to
orientation in camera, and (excepting front surface projection, which is
normal for enlargers and projectors) is properly viewed from the back side
(preventing left to right reversal).

One could choose to scan it backwards and flip it later, and there is no
harm in it, but the thickness of the film base is a trivial concern as
compared to the flatbed glass bed.

--
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"

 

[Guest]

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

In article <qWcve.1853$5w3.382@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, CSM1
<nomoremail@nomail.com> writes
>"RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:lc%ue.902$Uc2.403@trnddc03...
>> Emulsion Down, and 'flip' the image either in the scanning program or in
>> PhotoShop.
>>
>> Just ask yourself ... just exactly WHY should I scan *through* the film
>> base?
>>
>>
>
>Maybe because the light travels through the film base to produce the image
>on the sensor.

It certainly does, but after the light has been spatially modulated by
the image it only passes through the film base *if* the film is oriented
the wrong way. Consequently, the optical loss on the *image* only
occurs if the film is oriented with the emulsion on the side of the
light source - which *is* the wrong way.

Put it another way. The film base is not perfect - it scatters and
distorts the light to a certain degree. If the base is on the
illumination side then that scattering and distortion of the light only
serves as a diffuser. Even if the film base scattered significantly,
all that would happen would be that the light reaching the emulsion (and
hence the image) would be more diffuse. The image would still be
perfectly formed on the CCD by the scanner's primary lens. Indeed,
certain scanners have specific diffusers designed into them because
there are advantages of a diffuse source. Mount the film the wrong way
round and that built in mild diffusion on the film base affects the
*image* as well as the illumination. Mount it the correct way and only
the image is not affected.

>Either way you turn the film, the light has to travel through
>the film to get to the sensor.

In an enlarger, light has to travel through the condenser lens or the
diffuser to get to the sensor too - and the same thing happens in
scanners. In neither enlarger nor scanner does the condenser or
diffuser have the same image forming capabilities as the primary lens -
they don't need to because the light passes through them before it picks
up the image. The same is true of the film base - if it is oriented
correctly.

Conduct a simple experiment. Make a synthetically bad film base by
taping a sheet of tracing paper to one side of the slide. Hold it up to
a light source and look through it in each orientation - with the
tracing paper on the illumination side and then again with the tracing
paper on the sensor side (ie. towards your eye). In which orientation
do you see the cleanest sharpest image? Well, to a much lesser degree,
that same light scattering of the tracing paper occurs in the film base
itself.

As a result of conducting that experiment, come back and tell us which
side the non-optical graded film base should be on!

The image losses introduced by scanning the film in the wrong
orientation are minimal and in almost all cases (unless you happen to
get a rogue batch of film) there are other more significant loss
mechanisms, but they are never zero. Since they are unspecified and
variable they are best avoided by adopting the correct orientation as
the default. Only flip the film if there is no alternative.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

 

[Linda]

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

In article <T3Uue.10652$pa3.8874@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
<xvvvz@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > When scanning 35mm or 4x5s does the emulsion side go down? Is there a
> > rule for this? I thought it went down but my scans are mirrored and I
> > get different results when emulsion is up or down.
>
> You don't explain what you find "different?" Which produces better results
> for you? That is the best answer. If you want to know what Epson
> recommends, look at the letter graphic/decal on the holder. That shows how
> the lettering on your film should read when you look at the film after it is
> placed in the holder.
>
> Doug

I think it's best to quote what my partner wrote about the scans of
photos of his artwork.

"I'm scanning some pastels on sandpaper. They have no "underpainting."
The pastels are pure pigment applied to distinct areas. When scanned
with the emulsion side down, the areas are more consistent but less
vibrant."

That said I went to the Epson manual (for what that's worth) and read
all your suggestions and decided emulsion side down.

I read all the posts from everyone numerous times because I'm very new
at this and there's so much to learn and I thank you all for all your
time and help.

I've also decided to scan "raw" and let my partner do the corrections
in photoshop. It's very difficult to correct (edit) someone else's
artwork, especially since we all see different. Not losing data is very
important for us. If this doesn't work, I still have a scanner and I
still have slides and I'll do it again.

I would like to do some scans adjusting the white point. I also see
mention of setting the exposure. I haven't figure out yet how to do
either. My scans seem to be coming out darker than the originals.
Suggestions welcome. I did download silverfast docs and will go through
those.

So once again,

Thank you all so much. Even though I know so little, I've learned alot
from you.

Linda

--
remove invalid to reply

 

[Guest]

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

In article <260620052119040144%lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com>, Linda
<lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com> writes
>In article <T3Uue.10652$pa3.8874@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
><xvvvz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > When scanning 35mm or 4x5s does the emulsion side go down?
>
>I think it's best to quote what my partner wrote about the scans of
>photos of his artwork.
>
>"I'm scanning some pastels on sandpaper. They have no "underpainting."
>The pastels are pure pigment applied to distinct areas. When scanned
>with the emulsion side down, the areas are more consistent but less
>vibrant."
>
OK, now I am confused. ;-)

I thought you and/or your partner were scanning 35mm or 4x5 film, not
original artwork on sandpaper. I am not sure where the film or the
emulsion comes into the process here. Obviously, on the original
artwork you scan with the pigment, ink or whatever on the sensor side,
bu I am not sure if that is what you are meaning here.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

 

[Guest]

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

In article <XkuLQuDnpYwCFwT9@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy McEwen
<rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <260620052119040144%lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com>, Linda
> <lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com> writes
> >In article <T3Uue.10652$pa3.8874@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> ><xvvvz@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > When scanning 35mm or 4x5s does the emulsion side go down?
> >
> >I think it's best to quote what my partner wrote about the scans of
> >photos of his artwork.
> >
> >"I'm scanning some pastels on sandpaper. They have no "underpainting."
> >The pastels are pure pigment applied to distinct areas. When scanned
> >with the emulsion side down, the areas are more consistent but less
> >vibrant."
> >
> OK, now I am confused. ;-)
>
> I thought you and/or your partner were scanning 35mm or 4x5 film, not
> original artwork on sandpaper. I am not sure where the film or the
> emulsion comes into the process here. Obviously, on the original
> artwork you scan with the pigment, ink or whatever on the sensor side,
> bu I am not sure if that is what you are meaning here.

I'm so sorry I didn't make myself clear. I'm scanning 35mm and 4x5
transparencies (ektachrome 64T) of the artwork.

linda

 

[Guest]

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

In article <280620051840128732%lenny@invalid.com>, Lenny
<lenny@invalid.com> writes
>In article <XkuLQuDnpYwCFwT9@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy McEwen
><rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <260620052119040144%lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com>, Linda
>> <lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com> writes
>> >In article <T3Uue.10652$pa3.8874@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>> ><xvvvz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > When scanning 35mm or 4x5s does the emulsion side go down?
>> >
>> >I think it's best to quote what my partner wrote about the scans of
>> >photos of his artwork.
>> >
>> >"I'm scanning some pastels on sandpaper. They have no "underpainting."
>> >The pastels are pure pigment applied to distinct areas. When scanned
>> >with the emulsion side down, the areas are more consistent but less
>> >vibrant."
>> >
>> OK, now I am confused. ;-)
>>
>> I thought you and/or your partner were scanning 35mm or 4x5 film, not
>> original artwork on sandpaper. I am not sure where the film or the
>> emulsion comes into the process here. Obviously, on the original
>> artwork you scan with the pigment, ink or whatever on the sensor side,
>> bu I am not sure if that is what you are meaning here.
>
>I'm so sorry I didn't make myself clear. I'm scanning 35mm and 4x5
>transparencies (ektachrome 64T) of the artwork.
>
OK, so it is a problem scanning film as we originally thought. It was
the reference to the artwork that confused me, but that is irrelevant to
the problem other than providing a reference against which the results
can be assessed.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

 

[Linda]

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

In article <EoTPDxCQtkwCFwQB@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy McEwen
<rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <280620051840128732%lenny@invalid.com>, Lenny
> <lenny@invalid.com> writes
> >In article <XkuLQuDnpYwCFwT9@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy McEwen
> ><rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <260620052119040144%lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com>, Linda
> >> <lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com> writes
> >> >In article <T3Uue.10652$pa3.8874@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >> ><xvvvz@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm so sorry I didn't make myself clear. I'm scanning 35mm and 4x5
> >transparencies (ektachrome 64T) of the artwork.
> >
> OK, so it is a problem scanning film as we originally thought. It was
> the reference to the artwork that confused me, but that is irrelevant to
> the problem other than providing a reference against which the results
> can be assessed.

Correct. It is a problem scanning film.

Linda

--
remove invalid to reply

 

[Guest]

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

"Linda" <lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com> wrote in message
news:290620050836006583%lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com...
>
> Correct. It is a problem scanning film.
>
> Linda
>
> --
> remove invalid to reply

However, if the pieces of "sandpaper artwork" are of the common size
(roughly "standard letter size"), it might be very interesting to scan them
directly.

 

[Linda]

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

In article <Vtzwe.7344$dz6.4491@trnddc02>, RSD99
<rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote:

> "Linda" <lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com> wrote in message
> news:290620050836006583%lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com...
> >
> > Correct. It is a problem scanning film.
> >
> > Linda
> >
> > --
> > remove invalid to reply
>
> However, if the pieces of "sandpaper artwork" are of the common size
> (roughly "standard letter size"), it might be very interesting to scan them
> directly.
>
>
>
Yes I just pulled out some b & w pen and ink drawings to scan. All my
scans are very dark. In the histogram everything is scrunched to the
far left 0-78. This particular slide is of a drawing on white paper
with black ink and color washes. I just looked at it again in the
projector and although the slide is old and not perfect it is not dark.
I also examined it with a loop. So I'm about to scan some originals
and we will see.

Thanks for the idea about the pastels. Most of them are framed and the
rest are still packed, since we've recently moved, but I think I can
dig them out and give that a try also.

Good suggestion and I'll try it.

linda

--
remove invalid to reply

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:36:49 -0400, linda
<lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com> wrote:

>In article <Vtzwe.7344$dz6.4491@trnddc02>, RSD99
><rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote:
>
>> "Linda" <lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com> wrote in message
>> news:290620050836006583%lrcullen@invalidnc.rr.com.com...
>> >
>> > Correct. It is a problem scanning film.
>> >
>> > Linda
>> >
>> > --
>> > remove invalid to reply
>>
>> However, if the pieces of "sandpaper artwork" are of the common size
>> (roughly "standard letter size"), it might be very interesting to scan them
>> directly.
>>
>>
>>
>Yes I just pulled out some b & w pen and ink drawings to scan. All my
>scans are very dark. In the histogram everything is scrunched to the
>far left 0-78. This particular slide is of a drawing on white paper
>with black ink and color washes. I just looked at it again in the
>projector and although the slide is old and not perfect it is not dark.
>I also examined it with a loop. So I'm about to scan some originals
>and we will see.
>
>Thanks for the idea about the pastels. Most of them are framed and the
>rest are still packed, since we've recently moved, but I think I can
>dig them out and give that a try also.
>
>Good suggestion and I'll try it.
>
>linda

A couple of points that only apply to me. No recommendations for
others.

1. I've lot of old slides that were no doubt severely under exposed.
The details in the slides that evade my scanner even at the highest
resolution, only appear in a dark room with a powerful slide projector
lamp.

2. My best (and easiest) reproduction of album photos or photo
album pictures is done with my digital camera at its highest
resolution - avoiding the scanner altogether. Tripods and light
tents make it fast and foolproof.

As to the film base argument, I think the only sensible thing to do
is try it both ways and choose the method based on the result.
Neither argument favoring one or the other is persuasive.