I've been using the FS2710 scanner for some time. I don't experience any
difficulty in getting images I like and that seem true to the subject
with it. However, there are differences in the process for slides vs. negs.
Although I've looked back and see your post about the problem that led
to the CLA and the problem with saving images, which seems to be
resolved, I don't know what scanning software you use. I use VueScan and
know nothing about the CanoScan software. This doesn't matter in the
broadest sense, but may make detail less clear.
Slide and color neg images present the scanner and software with quite
different images on film with which to deal. Slides contain a relatively
narrow range of scene brightness spread over almost all the density
range of the film from fully clear to fully opaque. The images are also
rather contrasty. Neg film captures a considerably broader range of
subject brightness, but does so within a much narrower range of film
densities, as a result of the orange mask. Also, the image generally is
less contrasty on film than it is slide film, although there are
considerable differences between neg films.
So the image on a neg is inherently quite 'flat'. Now we don't tend to
think of it that way because we are used to chemical printing processes
that compensate for that to give prints with enough 'snap' and apparent
sharpness to please the average person who has their film developed and
printed. What average means varies by user and processors do things
differently depending on their target audience. I once did a test,
taking 1 roll to a drugstore for Kodak Picture Processing when I had
been having most of my film processed through a full scale camera shop
with Kodak Master somethingorother processing. The difference with the
same film was astonishing. The saturation and contrast in the drug store
prints practically jumped off the page and mugged me. On the other hand,
there were no shadow details left and the skys were mostly white, rather
than blue, because the highlights were blown out. Another sort of
processor/printer is one that caters to the pro portrait/wedding trade,
giving yet different style prints.
Thus the scanner software has a dilemma. What sort of image does the
user want? Does it spread the whole range of image densities (after
compensating for the orange mask) evenly over the brightness range of
the color space it is working in, throw away some highlights and shadows
to emulate common printing practice, apply an S curve to retain most of
the image densities while giving a steep enough curve in the middle
brightnesses to give some snap and compress the ends. What to do, what
to do, oh my.
And then some of us make it worse by using low contrast films like the
Portra NC I often use.
What good software does is give the user the choice. I don't know much
about what other software does, although I think some of the stuff that
comes with scanners goes at least part way toward compensating toward
snappy looking, at least in default or non-pro modes. What VueScan does
is give great control over how the film densities are mapped across the
output levels linearly and how much of each end is lost into full black
or white. It doesn't provide curve adjustments. What I used to do is to
adjust the black and white points to preserve all the important
brightness range, using the preview histogram, and output a 16 bit file
to retain as much luminosity detail as possible. The resulting image
often looks quite flat, but that's fine, as I like to adjust in PS,
rather than the scanner software. As long as I keep the original scan, I
haven't lost anything in any processing I do. With the recent intro of
RAW output files in VueScan, I'm starting to save a RAW file and another
TIFF or JPEG that's been messed with a bit more at the same time.
In any case, when I open the image up in PS, it generally looks pretty
flat, sometimes really flat, but with 14 or 16 real bits of luminosity
info, I've got lots of room for adjustment. I generally do a standard
local contrast enhancement, then Levels and or Curve adjustment. I
usually don't have to do color balance correction, but sometimes it's
needed too. Most images, but by no means all, benefit also from some
sharpening. I mostly use FM Intellisharpen in the mode that leaves a
separate layer with the sharpened image on top. Then I can adjust the
layer transparency to the magic point where the image is sharper, but
not starting to look funny.
And suddenly.... A nice image appears, one that comes fairly close to
what my eyes and/or head saw when I took the picture. Now that can be a
fairly lengthy work flow, but I take relatively few images and only wish
to give the full treatment to even fewer, so I'm happy with it. One can,
of course, automate the process for similar images, which makes it a lot
faster.
There are actually quite a few examples of the beginning and end in this
gallery <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Garden04/index.htm>. There is
a down arrow for each individual image that goes to the original scan.
Another example is one of the first times I consciously took a few shots
that I knew would look poor with the intent of reviving them in
processing. I was in Yosemite, directly below Half Dome, but the clouds
were so low and thick that one couldn't tell it was up there. And here
were these lovely images of rock reflected in water with the occasional
ripple from rain drops, but with verry soft light, no contrast, and I
was using Portra NC. The resultant print was so flat I wasn't sure at
first what the shot was, just useless. Later when I got the 2710, the
scan was pretty bad too, but the result is one of my favorite images.
Original scan and final* image is here
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/02043022BaA.jpg>. Who would have guessed
there was all that subtle color and brightness detail in the film? And I
think this was before I went beyond 8 bit scanning and/or processing,
with a PS upgrade, can't remember just now, so there is likely yet more
there.
So, if you want to just scan and publish/print negs, you need to find
software or a way to use the software you have that takes the same
shortcuts the automated printing processes use. I can't help there, as
I'm happy with what I use. In the end, I don't feel my results are
inherently any better or worse from slides or negs.
Moose
*Well not really, it's going in the FS4000 one of these days.
John Hudson wrote:
>I am presently scanning 100 ISO Provia slides shot with my 35/80 /f2.8 zoom
>and Fuji NPS 160 negatives shot with my 24 / f2.8 MC Zuiko.The slides and
>negatives are properly exposed and are in focus. The scanner is a recently
>CLA'ed Canon CanoScan FS2710.
>
>Both slides and negatives were taken on low contrast cloudy days in mid to
>late afternoon. I was using circular polarizers .... 49mm B+W for the wide
>angle and 62mm Hoya on the zoom.
>
>To my eyes there is a noticeable difference in the clarity and on screen
>sharpness between the slide and negative scans. Without exception the slide
>scans are superior to the negative scans.
>
>To what extent is this noticeable difference attributable to differences in
>the optical quality and characteristics of each lens and the nature of the
>two films?
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
