Re: Scanner woes

On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:44:19 +0100, Alex Wilde
<awilde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No. That's a common misconception. Scanner software is actually
composed of two *unrelated* components: the actual scanning (i.e.
getting data from the scanner) and the editing tools.

So, in theory, it doesn't matter if you let the scanner software do
everything in one big gulp (i.e. scan and edit together) or scan "raw"
and do you edits later.

So what you are saying is that no setting in the editing tools of Nikon
Scan has any effect on the data pulled from the hardware? It only
effects the output, and I can do that better in PS?

Exactly! The only thing that actually does affect the data is Analog
Gain i.e. exposure. But curves and friends only work on that data
after it has been retrieved from the scanner.

Now, there's a complication (as usual) and that's ICE. This is part
hardware and part software. The hardware part is the data from the
infrared LED. The software part is applying this to the image data.

In theory, there's no reason why the software part of ICE couldn't
also be done later. However, for marketing reasons Nikon was forced to
incorporate ICE in NikonScan and it doesn't give you an option of
saving this infrared data separately.

Finally, there's GEM, ROC and DEE. All that is software and in theory
could also be done later. But, again, for marketing reasons Nikon was
forced to incorporate it in NikonScan.

However, you can buy them as Photoshop plug-ins which are actually
much more flexible and powerful than the NikonScan built-in versions.

You can download all three - GEM (Grain Equalization Management), ROC
(Restoration Of Color) and SHO (Shadow & Highlight Optimized) - from:

http://www.asf.com

They (asf = Applied Science Fiction) are also the "inventors" of ICE
but were later bought out by Kodak.

The try-out versions put a watermark on the final image.

However, in practice scanner software editing tools are usually a poor
substitute (i.e. a very limited quick-and-dirty subset) of standalone
external editors like Photoshop. They exist only for marketing reasons
and people for whom that's good enough and they can't justify the cost
of a dedicated editor or wish to spend the extra time.

I understand this, and would rather edit in PS. I won't edit all the
images, just the ones that I want to print, but I thought I might as
well scan them all as best I could, then they can always be edited at a
later date.

Yes, that's the gist of scanning "raw". You get the most out of the
scanner, archive that as your "digital negative" and then work on a
copy i.e. to print or make JPGs for screen viewing, reducing size as
required.

However, since you have the originals, once you get a bigger monitor
or higher resolution printer you can go back and create another print
or JPG to accommodate your new peripherals by making the most of them.

But the biggest benefit of this "digital negative" is that it is
fixed. The original (analog) film will continue to deteriorate and you
can't make a lossless copy. Digital data is frozen in time and you can
make as many lossless copies as you want. Of course, you have to make
sure you refresh and check your archives at regular intervals but
that's another story.

I usually have to convert the images I've edited to 8-bit anyway, but I
leave the original in 14-bit so I can maybe take more advantage of them
if I later get more up to date software. If I'm gonna scan all these
boxes of negatives, I only wanna do it once.

Exactly! That's precisely the point I was making above! Should've read
until the end before replying... ;o)

Basically, I would only use Analog Gain, ICE (if appropriate or
desired) and set gamma to 2.2 (in case of Windows). Strictly speaking
the data from the scanner comes as gamma 1.0 (called "linear gamma")
but since monitors are set to 2.2 there's little point in using 1.0.

Finally, I would do all the edits in 16-bit and convert to 8-bit as
the very last step before printing or converting to JPG or whatever.

Don.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: scanning options for slide archival...
    ... the winners scanner professionally, ... ways to find out the real resolution which is ... whether or not it's worth doing them all at max res. ... The only exception is ICE due to the way ...
    (comp.periphs.scanners)
  • Re: NOT scanning negatives as positives
    ... >to happen if the scanner were doing something obscure, ... >> use the same exposure and simple apply the curve afterwards. ... When you edit a short exposure scan in software, ... do is *show* the noise. ...
    (comp.periphs.scanners)
  • Re: Looking for advice for a good Digital Ice 35mm slide scanner
    ... absolutely no difference to what the IR channel used in ICE ... take a look at this page describing the process as applied in their Film Scanner OEM products: ... Here are all the film scanner products licensed to use transmissive ICE: ... The issue about ICE working or not has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the surface texture of the film emulsion - it is the relative infra-red to visible transmission of the emulsion. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions
    ... advised me /not/ to buy any Coolscan scanner with to optional ... We also talked about Digital ICE and Kodachrome. ... I would have to swap slides from my Kodak Carousel trays to ... For any Nikon Coolscan, ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Scanning and Editing Documents
    ... If i scann it what file format shoudl i save it to to edit.: ... A scanner is basically copying a picture of the item in the scanner. ... separately after the scan when you choose the Send to Microsoft ... LINKS to the 2007 Office System ...
    (microsoft.public.office.misc)