Digital BW, The Print

Somewhere in the midst of the torrent of posts about ever getting a 
simple B&W print, someone noted that Nikon software compresses the 
tonal range vis-a-vis Vuescan.  I scan with a Nikon LS-2000 using 
Nikon software and would like to hear more about this topic.  (I must 
say I am even more confused about optimal scanning resolution after 
the last few days -- I typically scan at either 360 or 400.)  I look 
at scanning as a means to get as much information from the negative 
into PS as possible and if Vuescan will pull more out of the 
negative, I would be willing to give it a try.  Any comments 
appreciated.

Steve

Just download the free trial of Vuescan (www.hamrick.com) and try it.
Quick and easy. It's the full program but puts "$40" all over the
scan. I bet after you use the free trial, you'll pay the $40 for the
key that removes the price tag. 

Bob Michaels

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Kobrin
<skobrin@h...>" <skobrin@h...> wrote:

> Somewhere in the midst of the torrent of posts about ever getting a 
> simple B&W print, someone noted that Nikon software compresses the 
> tonal range vis-a-vis Vuescan.  I scan with a Nikon LS-2000 using 
> Nikon software and would like to hear more about this topic.  (I must 
> say I am even more confused about optimal scanning resolution after 
> the last few days -- I typically scan at either 360 or 400.)  I look 
> at scanning as a means to get as much information from the negative 
> into PS as possible and if Vuescan will pull more out of the 
> negative, I would be willing to give it a try.  Any comments 
> appreciated.
> 
> Steve

On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 06:17  PM, Stephen Kobrin wrote:

> Somewhere in the midst of the torrent of posts about ever getting a
> simple B&W print, someone noted that Nikon software compresses the
> tonal range vis-a-vis Vuescan.  I scan with a Nikon LS-2000 using
> Nikon software and would like to hear more about this topic.  (I must
> say I am even more confused about optimal scanning resolution after
> the last few days -- I typically scan at either 360 or 400.)

Hi Stephen... when you say you typically scan at 360 or 400, I'm 
assuming you mean final print size. When I used my LS2000 I scanned at 
2700. My printer then, the EX, was I believe 1440 x 720, following the 
old epson rule of thirds that would mean 480 files, but I typically 
sent 240 and 360 to get larger print sizes without resampling ... I 
assumed then that the lower 720 was the truer resolution. But what did 
I know. These days I throw all sorts of odd resolution sizes at my 
epsons, I don't see a difference for the most part unless I go under 
300, but I do notice at times that I alleviate some microbanding in 
quad printing with a whacked out dpi setting.... could be wishful 
thinking.

>  I look
> at scanning as a means to get as much information from the negative
> into PS as possible and if Vuescan will pull more out of the
> negative, I would be willing to give it a try.  Any comments
> appreciated.

As another post suggests, I'd just give it a go, you're the best judge. 
  I never used it with my LS2000, it didn't exist then to my knowledge.
Carolyn

Bob,
I totally agree with your recommendations re "Vuescan"... I still a 
relative novice when it comes to the differences between scanner 
software but even I can see that Vuescan is the business, so long as 
you take the time to work at using its full potential. 

Sl\ufffdinte
Iain




To:             	
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

From:           	"Bob_Michaels <Bob@...>" 
<Bob@...>
Date sent:      	Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:35:30 -0000
Subject:        	[Digital BW] Re: Vuescan vs. Nikon software
Send reply to:  	
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] 

Just download the free trial of Vuescan (www.hamrick.com) and try it.
Quick and easy. It's the full program but puts "$40" all over the
scan. I bet after you use the free trial, you'll pay the $40 for the
key that removes the price tag. 

Bob Michaels


Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this 
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various resources on the homepage. 


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

And,
If you have some problems with the software on a particular scanner, (
Polaroid Sprintscan45 in my case ), Ed is very quick with making
patches to his software to help !!!  A very worthwhile $40 investment
IMO....

Best,
Alex

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Iain Kirk"
<ham4472@l...> wrote:

> Bob,
> I totally agree with your recommendations re "Vuescan"... I still a 
> relative novice when it comes to the differences between scanner 
> software but even I can see that Vuescan is the business, so long as 
> you take the time to work at using its full potential. 
> 
> Sláinte
> Iain
> 
> 
> 
> Just download the free trial of Vuescan (www.hamrick.com) and try it.
> Quick and easy. It's the full program but puts "$40" all over the
> scan. I bet after you use the free trial, you'll pay the $40 for the
> key that removes the price tag. 
> 
> Bob Michaels
> 
> 
>

Absolutely! He's fixed two bugs already based on emails I've sent him,
and often supplies patches within days. Highly recommended.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "B. Alex Pettit
Jr. <a_pettit_jr@y...>" <a_pettit_jr@y...> wrote:

> And,
> If you have some problems with the software on a particular scanner, (
> Polaroid Sprintscan45 in my case ), Ed is very quick with making
> patches to his software to help !!!  A very worthwhile $40 investment
> IMO....
> 
> Best,
> Alex
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Iain Kirk"
> <ham4472@l...> wrote:
> > Bob,
> > I totally agree with your recommendations re "Vuescan"... I still a 
> > relative novice when it comes to the differences between scanner 
> > software but even I can see that Vuescan is the business, so long as 
> > you take the time to work at using its full potential. 
> > 
> > Sláinte
> > Iain
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Just download the free trial of Vuescan (www.hamrick.com) and try it.
> > Quick and easy. It's the full program but puts "$40" all over the
> > scan. I bet after you use the free trial, you'll pay the $40 for the
> > key that removes the price tag. 
> > 
> > Bob Michaels
> > 
> > 
> >

Hi Carolyn,

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. Yes, I usually decide on 
the print size when scanning -- actually I scan a bit bigger than I 
want to print to allow for cropping -- and then typically scan at 400 
unless the print size is large enough to bump up again my scanner's 
limits.

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carolyn Frayn 
<carolynfrayn@s...> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 06:17  PM, Stephen Kobrin wrote:
> 
> > Somewhere in the midst of the torrent of posts about ever getting 
a
> > simple B&W print, someone noted that Nikon software compresses the
> > tonal range vis-a-vis Vuescan.  I scan with a Nikon LS-2000 using
> > Nikon software and would like to hear more about this topic.  (I 
must
> > say I am even more confused about optimal scanning resolution 
after
> > the last few days -- I typically scan at either 360 or 400.)
> 
> Hi Stephen... when you say you typically scan at 360 or 400, I'm 
> assuming you mean final print size. When I used my LS2000 I scanned 
at 
> 2700. My printer then, the EX, was I believe 1440 x 720, following 
the 
> old epson rule of thirds that would mean 480 files, but I typically 
> sent 240 and 360 to get larger print sizes without resampling ... I 
> assumed then that the lower 720 was the truer resolution. But what 
did 
> I know. These days I throw all sorts of odd resolution sizes at my 
> epsons, I don't see a difference for the most part unless I go 
under 
> 300, but I do notice at times that I alleviate some microbanding in 
> quad printing with a whacked out dpi setting.... could be wishful 
> thinking.
> 
> >  I look
> > at scanning as a means to get as much information from the 
negative
> > into PS as possible and if Vuescan will pull more out of the
> > negative, I would be willing to give it a try.  Any comments
> > appreciated.
> 
> As another post suggests, I'd just give it a go, you're the best 
judge. 
>   I never used it with my LS2000, it didn't exist then to my 
knowledge.
> Carolyn

Got a question about Vuescan -- I can't seem to open native Vuescan 
48-bit TIFs (with compression) in Mac Photoshop 6 (they open but with 
weird rainbowy garbage and half the image missing), but I can open 
them no problem in Win PS6.

Dont know if this is your problem but the PC and the Mac write the bit order of the data reversed to each other. this is called little and big endian format and can cause some problems with file transfers between the two platforms. Dont know about PS 6 but PS 7 gives a format option in the save command.

regards
Craig 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dsmithhfx <dsmithhfx@y...>" <dsmithhfx@y...> wrote:

> Got a question about Vuescan -- I can't seem to open native Vuescan 
> 48-bit TIFs (with compression) in Mac Photoshop 6 (they open but with 
> weird rainbowy garbage and half the image missing), but I can open 
> them no problem in Win PS6.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "craig 
<craygc@y...>" <craygc@y...> wrote:
> Dont know if this is your problem but the PC and the Mac write the 
bit order of the data reversed to each other. this is called little 
and big endian format and can cause some problems with file transfers 
between the two platforms. Dont know about PS 6 but PS 7 gives a 
format option in the save command.
> 

That's true, but PS (Win & Mac) has no problem opening PS TIF's saved 
in the 'other' format. Baffling then that PS Win can open the VS TIFs 
correctly, but PS Mac apparently can't.

Steve:

I said that.  What I meant was that the Nikon software that comes 
with the 4000 arbitrarily refuses to place any value within 
approximately the 90-100% (or 0-25 on a 256 scale) range.  Nikon 
supposedly has a rationale for this, but I don't buy it.  As far as I 
can tell, the effect is to bunch up all the values that would 
naturally fall in the proscribed range at around 90.  Sometimes an 
image will tolerate this, and so I use the Nikon software.  Sometimes 
it won't, and so I use Vuescan.  In general, the situation is less 
than totally satisfactory.  However, like all this stuff, it works 
well enough, and will, I'm sure, improve over time.

Chuck

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Kobrin 
<skobrin@h...>" <skobrin@h...> wrote:
> Somewhere in the midst of the torrent of posts about ever getting a 
> simple B&W print, someone noted that Nikon software compresses the 
> tonal range vis-a-vis Vuescan.  I scan with a Nikon LS-2000 using 
> Nikon software and would like to hear more about this topic.  (I 
must 
> say I am even more confused about optimal scanning resolution after 
> the last few days -- I typically scan at either 360 or 400.)  I 
look 

> at scanning as a means to get as much information from the negative 
> into PS as possible and if Vuescan will pull more out of the 
> negative, I would be willing to give it a try.  Any comments 
> appreciated.
> 
> Steve

Hi again Steve, if I were you I'd just scan everything at your scanners 
limits, which is 2700, then resize with or without resampling in your 
image editor.  2700 is not a large file for 35mm. I believe you said 
something about getting all you could from your scan (with regards to 
vuescan), scanning full res is one of the ways to do it in my opinion.
Carolyn

On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 06:29  AM, Stephen Kobrin  wrote:

> Hi Carolyn,
>
> I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. Yes, I usually decide on
> the print size when scanning -- actually I scan a bit bigger than I
> want to print to allow for cropping -- and then typically scan at 400
> unless the print size is large enough to bump up again my scanner's
> limits.
>
> Steve
>