Thanks to all of you for the advice . There's a lot to try but that
will have to what a few days.
As for tonight I just spent a couple of hours siting back with my tablet pc
and using Photoshop's spot healing brush. The result was better than I thought
it would be but it took waaaaaay tooooo long.
I've played around with a few settings during the scan but I haven't tried
ICE yet (it said it wouldn't work).
I scanned only 10 frames out of many but I've already seen some wonderful
shots - even one of my father, Pfc. Silver 102nd infantry, in a jeep.
Thanks again.
Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
S Revlis wrote:
> I've got a pile of never printed B&W negatives from my father's time with the
> US Army in Europe in WWII.
>
> I'd like to scan the whole bunch. What can be done about the fact that many
> of them are scratched?
>
I believe there are rinses that can make scratches less visible, but the
darkroom hounds will have to weigh in on whether they actually work and
what they may be called - if this isn't my imagination, rather than
memory. ;-)
>
> Is there a software alternative to DIGITAL ICE4 that will work on Black and
> White film.
>
I've never heard of one that works. How is it to tell the difference
between a feature of the subject and a scratch? Victor at i-photo tested
the one that came with an Epson scanner and both declared and showed
examples that it is worse than useless.
Have you actually tried ICE4? The problem IR based dust/scratch tools
have is that the IR doesn't go through the silver particles, so it can't
distinguish between dust/scratches and silver. So it will tend to work
fairly well in the less dense parts of the neg.
Try scanning with the negs pointing in different directions as they go
through and with sides reversed as to whether the emulsion side is
toward or away from the lens. You can easily correct orientation later,
but the reaction of the scanner light with the scratches may be different.
I've never used a CoolScan, but they do have a rep for showing up
scratches more than other brands/types because of their point light
source(s?). That is, in fact, one of several factors that went into my
decision to go with a Canon FS4000, with its diffuse light source,
instead of a Nikon. Example scans posted on the web showed there really
was a difference. This was before your model, so I don't know if it's
still the case.
I've seen aftermarket diffusers for other scanners. Perhaps there is one
for yours. My experience with old negs is that the films had big grain
and poor resolution (Or maybe that was the lens on my dad's camera.),
compared to more recent films, so diffusion may not actually lose you
anything but a little grain definition, which may be a good thing.
I think the flatbed scanners also tend to not show up scratches as much,
but I don't know where I got that idea.
>
> Any other advice on scanning B&W would also be appreciated since this is my
> first attempt.
>
Try scanning in color mode, then look at the different channels to see
if the scratches are better in one than the others.
Try different degrees of ICE, if possible. Try the dust removal in
VueScan. I have no idea if it is better or worse for this purpose, but
it is different and you can try it free.
Once you have scanned some, you could choose one with problems and of
minor importance to you after being scanned (in case it should be lost
or damaged in the mail) and send it to me or others for alternative
methods. I'd be happy to try it on the FS4000 and a flatbed, so you
could see if it helps.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
---------------------------------
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|