Digital BW, The Print

Hi,
So, for ~$530-600 I can purchase either a Nikon Coolscan V ED or a 
Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II. Primary use would be for 
35mmBW film. Quality is my primary criteria. Anyone care to offer 
opinions on which way I should go? My local photo store (Pro Photo 
Supply, Portland OR) suggests the Dimage.
Thank you,
Milt

I'd go Minolta.  I got tired of the Nikon (lack of) support way back on the
Coolscan II and never looked back.
Nikon's software is usually clunky and poorly supported also.  

Vuescan is also the way to go.

Seth 

==-----Original Message-----
==From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
==So, for ~$530-600 I can purchase either a Nikon Coolscan V ED 
==or a Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II. Primary use 
==would be for 35mmBW film. Quality is my primary criteria. 
==Anyone care to offer opinions on which way I should go? My 
==local photo store (Pro Photo Supply, Portland OR) suggests the Dimage.

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "opiebreath"
<milt@h...> wrote:
> Hi,
> So, for ~$530-600 I can purchase either a Nikon Coolscan V ED or a 
> Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II. Primary use would be for 
> 35mmBW film. Quality is my primary criteria. Anyone care to offer 
> opinions on which way I should go? My local photo store (Pro Photo 
> Supply, Portland OR) suggests the Dimage.
> Thank you,
> Milt


The Minolta 5400II is plastic mechanical junk (junque, to be polite),
but it's a fine scanner otherwise. If you buy a Minolta be sure you're
quick to return it for replacement one or two times, just in case. Do
not expect any sort of help whatsoever from Minolta directly.

Nikon V is rock solid, has much better negative handling (flatter,
less physical manipulating of the negative because no junk plastic
negative carrier). 

I owned both, dumped two Minoltas for the Nikon. I believe Minolta's
software is better for B&W than Nikon's, but that you won't want to
use either...you'll want to use Vuescan. Minolta's purported 5400ppi
doesn't seem to add up to extra sharpness past 4000...according to the
one comparison I've seen.

Hi Folks,

Currently, I'm printing with a C86 using Photo Black, EZN, EZN, EZW (in 
the yellow position.) This gives a nice duo-tone, which works well for 
some images.  On the papers I'm using going with all EZN is a little to 
cool, and going with all EZW is too warm. Question, would it be 
advisable to try mixing the EZN and EZW inks in the three color 
positions to get a slightly warm print? Perhaps loading cartridges with 
a 50/50 mix of the neutral and warm inks would accomplish this?

Thanks,
Peter De Smidt

Peter,

You can mix the EZ inks if you'd like.  It might be easier to try different
combinations of the Warm and Neutral-cool carts, however.  I don't think
you'll see any difference in terms of smoothness.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter
> De Smidt
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:24 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Mixing EZ inks?
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> Currently, I'm printing with a C86 using Photo Black, EZN, EZN, EZW (in
> the yellow position.) This gives a nice duo-tone, which works well for
> some images.  On the papers I'm using going with all EZN is a little to
> cool, and going with all EZW is too warm. Question, would it be
> advisable to try mixing the EZN and EZW inks in the three color
> positions to get a slightly warm print? Perhaps loading cartridges with
> a 50/50 mix of the neutral and warm inks would accomplish this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Peter De Smidt
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

> 
> 
> Nikon V is rock solid, has much better negative handling (flatter,
> less physical manipulating of the negative because no junk plastic
> negative carrier).
> 
> I owned both, dumped two Minoltas for the Nikon. I believe Minolta's
> software is better for B&W than Nikon's, but that you won't want to
> use either...you'll want to use Vuescan. Minolta's purported 5400ppi
> doesn't seem to add up to extra sharpness past 4000...according to the
> one comparison I've seen.
> 
> 
> 
Do you scan RAW in VueScan?
That strikes me as the way to go. And a reason why I¹ll get it for my Nikon.
Silverfast wants hundreds of bucks all over again it¹s a joke.



Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've not (yet) figured out the logic of scanning RAW...I scan TIFF...

And I've not begun to figure out the workflow logic, if there is any
(!), to Vuescan...but I've gotten great B&W anyway (I was given one
useful cookbook setting). 

I have Vuescan Pro, but I forget what "Pro" meant...maybe just an
opportunity to show off. 

I was irritated at Vuescan a while back (a recent release was buggy,
now it's fine), was prepared to buy Silverfast (I liked the way SE
worked) but I couldn't figure out their marketing info...

Djon




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Rabiner
<mark@r...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Nikon V is rock solid, has much better negative handling (flatter,
> > less physical manipulating of the negative because no junk plastic
> > negative carrier).
> > 
> > I owned both, dumped two Minoltas for the Nikon. I believe Minolta's
> > software is better for B&W than Nikon's, but that you won't want to
> > use either...you'll want to use Vuescan. Minolta's purported 5400ppi
> > doesn't seem to add up to extra sharpness past 4000...according to the
> > one comparison I've seen.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> Do you scan RAW in VueScan?
> That strikes me as the way to go. And a reason why I¹ll get it for
my Nikon.

> Silverfast wants hundreds of bucks all over again it¹s a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> 
> 
> I was irritated at Vuescan a while back (a recent release was buggy,
> now it's fine), was prepared to buy Silverfast (I liked the way SE
> worked) but I couldn't figure out their marketing info...
> 
> Djon
> 
> 
> 
> 
Well part of the logic is you get all excited about the whole Raw thing in
shooting ³capturing² and then when you see it as an option in scanning its
deja vu all over again. No you can¹t rebalance your whitepoint from scratch
but the idea of all the information getting to you with no filtering appeals
to me and has worked for me a bit so far.
Plus the aspect of Photoshop I KNOW: All these scanning software coming and
going with these mystical interfaces WHO KNOWS.
Photoshop I was in at at square one on and I¹m totally on top of it I feel.

I notice they try to make ³Photoshop² versions of the scanning software
because you use IT instead of Photoshop as you supposedly get real
comfortable with THAT interface.
I¹m talking about image editing version of scanning software that you¹d use
instead of Photoshop for tweaking, not scanning.
The Opposite seems more logical to me.
Skip it. Skip the scanning interface.


Raw Raw Raw

There's hamburger all over the highway in sector 8.



Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mark...uh...I think what you're trying to say is that RAW scanning
lets you confine all your processing to Photoshop, where you're
happiest working. Keep it simple, etc. Is that it? Or do you think RAW
inherently leads to better results than TIFF? 

Perhaps RAW isn't as useful in scanning as in digital photography? 

I've not seriously played with digital camera output (just a p&s) but
what I've read suggests camera RAW has little advantage over TIFF...
primarily just as a way to bypass the camera's own internal noise
reduction (Vs TIFF or JPEG)...but I don't think scanners have internal
noise reduction systems, though they are available in scanner
applications.

Scanners do (I think) have capabilities that Photoshop doesn't. Multi
pass is one, though I've never seen a convincing case for bothering. I
 also think (don't know) extreme film profiles would be harder to
impliment after scanning.  

Guess I'll have to scan RAW Vs TIFF and see for myself. 

Djon



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Rabiner
<mark@r...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I was irritated at Vuescan a while back (a recent release was buggy,
> > now it's fine), was prepared to buy Silverfast (I liked the way SE
> > worked) but I couldn't figure out their marketing info...
> > 
> > Djon
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> Well part of the logic is you get all excited about the whole Raw
thing in
> shooting ³capturing² and then when you see it as an option in
scanning its
> deja vu all over again. No you can¹t rebalance your whitepoint from
scratch
> but the idea of all the information getting to you with no filtering
appeals
> to me and has worked for me a bit so far.
> Plus the aspect of Photoshop I KNOW: All these scanning software
coming and
> going with these mystical interfaces WHO KNOWS.
> Photoshop I was in at at square one on and I¹m totally on top of it
I feel.
> 
> I notice they try to make ³Photoshop² versions of the scanning software
> because you use IT instead of Photoshop as you supposedly get real
> comfortable with THAT interface.
> I¹m talking about image editing version of scanning software that
you¹d use

> instead of Photoshop for tweaking, not scanning.
> The Opposite seems more logical to me.
> Skip it. Skip the scanning interface.
> 
> 
> Raw Raw Raw
> 
> There's hamburger all over the highway in sector 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Using Vuescan in raw mode, you can "rescan" your raw file as many
times as you like -- i.e., no need to reinsert film in the scanner --
and tweak the file using the Vuescan software. Or, if you prefer, you
can do all of your editing in PS. With raw files all the possibilities
are left open. The disadvantage is that you initially have larger
files to edit since the crop is at maximum size and your files are RGB
instead of grayscale. 

Chris Hargens

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

> Mark...uh...I think what you're trying to say is that RAW scanning
> lets you confine all your processing to Photoshop, where you're
> happiest working. Keep it simple, etc. Is that it? Or do you think RAW
> inherently leads to better results than TIFF? 
> 
> Perhaps RAW isn't as useful in scanning as in digital photography? 
> 
> I've not seriously played with digital camera output (just a p&s) but
> what I've read suggests camera RAW has little advantage over TIFF...
> primarily just as a way to bypass the camera's own internal noise
> reduction (Vs TIFF or JPEG)...but I don't think scanners have internal
> noise reduction systems, though they are available in scanner
> applications.
> 
> Scanners do (I think) have capabilities that Photoshop doesn't. Multi
> pass is one, though I've never seen a convincing case for bothering. I
>  also think (don't know) extreme film profiles would be harder to
> impliment after scanning.  
> 
> Guess I'll have to scan RAW Vs TIFF and see for myself. 
> 
> Djon

If you want to consider a KM5400 model, look at the first version
rather than the II.  If it's a choice between the 5400 II and the
Coolscan V, go for the Nikon.  

Both the first edition 5400 and the new Nikon use cold cathode
fluorescent light sources.  The 5400 II uses an LED light source.  LED
is a much poorer option and doesn't work well for b&w at all.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Hargens"
<chargens@s...> wrote:

> Using Vuescan in raw mode, you can "rescan" your raw file as many
> times as you like -- i.e., no need to reinsert film in the scanner --
> and tweak the file using the Vuescan software. Or, if you prefer, you
> can do all of your editing in PS. With raw files all the possibilities
> are left open. The disadvantage is that you initially have larger
> files to edit since the crop is at maximum size and your files are RGB
> instead of grayscale. 
> 
> Chris Hargens
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon"
> <westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> > Mark...uh...I think what you're trying to say is that RAW scanning
> > lets you confine all your processing to Photoshop, where you're
> > happiest working. Keep it simple, etc. Is that it? Or do you think RAW
> > inherently leads to better results than TIFF? 
> > 
> > Perhaps RAW isn't as useful in scanning as in digital photography? 
> > 
> > I've not seriously played with digital camera output (just a p&s) but
> > what I've read suggests camera RAW has little advantage over TIFF...
> > primarily just as a way to bypass the camera's own internal noise
> > reduction (Vs TIFF or JPEG)...but I don't think scanners have internal
> > noise reduction systems, though they are available in scanner
> > applications.
> > 
> > Scanners do (I think) have capabilities that Photoshop doesn't. Multi
> > pass is one, though I've never seen a convincing case for bothering. I
> >  also think (don't know) extreme film profiles would be harder to
> > impliment after scanning.  
> > 
> > Guess I'll have to scan RAW Vs TIFF and see for myself. 
> > 
> > Djon

On 5/24/05 7:01 AM, "Djon" <westsidemaurice@...> typed:

> Mark...uh...I think what you're trying to say is that RAW scanning
> lets you confine all your processing to Photoshop, where you're
> happiest working. Keep it simple, etc. Is that it? Or do you think RAW
> inherently leads to better results than TIFF?
> 
> Perhaps RAW isn't as useful in scanning as in digital photography?
> 
> I've not seriously played with digital camera output (just a p&s) but
> what I've read suggests camera RAW has little advantage over TIFF...
> primarily just as a way to bypass the camera's own internal noise
> reduction (Vs TIFF or JPEG)...but I don't think scanners have internal
> noise reduction systems, though they are available in scanner
> applications.
> 
> Scanners do (I think) have capabilities that Photoshop doesn't. Multi
> pass is one, though I've never seen a convincing case for bothering. I
>  also think (don't know) extreme film profiles would be harder to
> impliment after scanning.
> 
> Guess I'll have to scan RAW Vs TIFF and see for myself.
> 
> Djon


Try RAW and you¹ll never go back to charred animal flesh again!
Raw has huge advantages over tiff even 16 bit tiff. It¹s almost like a
second chance at getting the shot.
And makes for a much smaller file by the way than even 8 bit tiff.
I hear its been greatly expanded in the cs2 I¹m not there till maybe next
week.

Check this out
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture
.pdf
³When you shoot raw, the only on-camera settings that have an effect on the
captured pixels are the ISO speed, the shutter speed, and the aperture
setting. Everything else is under your control when you convert the raw
file‹you can reinterpret the white balance, the colorimetric rendering, the
tonal response, and the detail rendition (sharpening and noise reduction)
with a great deal of freedom. Within limits (which vary from one raw
converter to another), you can even reinterpret the exposure compensation.²

I¹d not get any digital camera again P&S or DSLR which did not support raw
and I doubt they¹ll try to tempt me too as its getting to be any digital
camera worth its digital salt at this point supports it.
I love that ³support² verb on this whole computer thing².

I don¹t as I said feel that RAW scanning is in the same league as RAW
capturing was would be logically obvious.
The metadata in a raw scan can be telling you what your global positioning
is and what the roses smelt like.
In the next update...
In a neg you¹ve already lost that information by a long shot.

 A scan is a copy.
I've not run into noise issues and am not understanding what you are talking
about in reference to them.
I love multipass and am glad it is not mutually exclusive thing from raw
scanning.

Speaking of multipass:
Heres this in a sense on the capturing end:

INCREASED DYNAMIC RANGE FROM RAW
http://www.phaseone.com/Content/Software/TipsTricks/IncreasedDynamic.aspx

³One of the major limitations of most DSLR's is the blowing out of highlight
details in high contrast situations. The solution to the problem in a film
workflow was to shoot two frames, one exposed for highlights and one for
shadows. By combining them after scanning, the best possible result could be
achieved although with the associated risks of image mis-registration.
RAW offers the ability to achieve the same result by simply outputting two
versions of the same file with exposure compensation or curves applied to
the second output to give a darker image. ³




Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]