Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED Scanner - First Impressions - Page 2

Pat Bennett wrote:

> Fine gets rid of the last remains of the dust in the sky, but it also removes the fine texture in
> the sky,

Yeah. It might be necessary for slides that are in a bad state, but I wouldn't want to use it for
most of them.

> so I think that it is removing noise as well as just the IR channel for removing surface
> artefacts.

I'm not sure. I think it's just removing the dust more aggressively, possible with some sort of blur
filter, which would of course blur noise as well as photo detail. GEM takes care of noise removal
and that's separate. I don't think it softens the image as much as Fine ICE.

> The result is that there is the sort of image softening which you get with Neatimage at certain
> settings.

Yeah.

> I think I would stick with ICE Normal, and use Neatimage for any further improvement, but would
> need to do some more tests to be sure.

I probably will, but GEM seems pretty good, I might be able to make some use of that and less of
Neat Image, which is a bit strong most of the time. I haven't got the hang of the subtleties of Neat
Image yet.

> You've got some work to do, I should think, before it is full steam ahead on your transparency
> backlog!

Indeed, and when I do I think I'll be selecting images very carefully.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bn8bmg$u0d$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > Well I'm impressed with all of those before and after shots, you've got yourself a beauty there!
|
| Doesn't seem to soften the image too much does it? I'll need to do some print tests to be sure.

Seemed fine to me, but you know your own images best, and the print tests will really show how
good it is.

| > Yes, certainly in all its glory, you can say that again! I thought the other picture from your
| > TR report was fine, but compared to this, I can see why you call it pathetic!
|
| I'm beginning to wonder if it will ever rain again, but living in Wales I suppose I shouldn't feel
| too pessimistic about that... ;-)

Yes, I'm sure you will be fine! )

| > Just an observation, and I know the image above is an older shot, but your digital shots seem
| > to be of a much higher quality than the film image - by quality, I mean that they generally
| > look 'better,' ie, shaper, better colours, etc. Is there a reason for this (or is it just my
| > own point of view?), or is it because you just haven't done much photoshop work on this film
| > one yet?
|
| It's a combination of reasons, I'll take them one by one, in no particular order;

Thanks for taking time to explain these reasons - but you could have got a few of your slides
scanned and retouched by the end of the post! ;o)

| 1. No Photoshop work. You're right, I haven't done any work on this in Photoshop, so that in
| itself would improve the image somewhat, in particular the colour balance. Many of my digital
| shots don't look that great before Photoshop either.

I'd be interested to see one of your good digital shots before and after your photoshop work, to see
how much difference you can make to a shot?

| 2. Narrow dynamic range. Digital cameras have a much wider dynamic range than film, which is what
| I like most about them. It gives me far greater flexibility when post processing an image, in
| particular to tone down the highlights and bring detail out of the shadows, resulting in a
| more pleasant balance of light levels within the image.
|
| Slide film is much more contrasty so the highlights are more likely to burn out and the shadows
| more likely to go black. It's much more difficult to post process a contrasty image well, so
| although my current allegiance still lies with film because of the greater resolution, rest
| assured that I'll be defecting to digital as soon as the resolution improves to high enough
| levels. Digital will be much better than film once it matures properly.

Yes, as soon as the 12 megapixel plus cameras are affordable, a lot of people will surely be
defecting.

| 3. High contrast. That particular scene had a very high contrast (although others that day had
| far more). The more water there is coming over the fall, the brighter it tends to be, so as
| you reduce the exposure to compensate, that makes the surrounding area much darker by
| comparison. As you can see, some of the water is overexposed and some of the shadows are
| underexposed, so the contrast range in the scene was too great for the film to handle. Film
| can usually handle waterfalls okay, but not when there's a lot of white stuff in the picture.
|
| I usually use a spotmeter when photographing waterfalls, and in very dry conditions I've observed
| a contrast range of as little as 3 stops. Normal falls are usually around 5 stops, but in very wet
| conditions like these it can reach 7 stops or more. I think some of the falls that day were as
| much as 9 stops. In the Sgwd Einion Gam picture I think the contrast was around 6 to 7 stops.
| Slide film usually has a dynamic range of about 5 stops, my G3 has around 10 stops.

This dynamic range is something that I would never even think about, but I respect that film
photographers really have to know their stuff as there's no LCD screen to see the shots, so you've
got to get it right 'blindly.'

| 4. Crap film. I tried using Fujichrome 400 on that day, primarily to try to freeze the water with
| fast shutter speeds, but I discovered that the film was crap (for my purposes anyway). Aside
| from the horrendous grain, the colours weren't very good at all, there seemed to be a bluish
| cast on the film, and it had none of the rich greens that I used to get with Fujichrome 50. So
| although I can now alter the colour balance in Photoshop, the shots I took on this particular
| film never looked very good compared to my other waterfall shots. (I did experiment with a
| variety of film types in my early days, before settling on my favourite - Fujichrome 50, later
| superceded by Velvia).

Using a 'crap film' must have been even more annoying to you than using jpeg mode instead of raw
mode with your earliest digital shots! But saying that, if you don't experiment, you won't know...

| 5. One more thing, *SPRAY!* Although a still camera has a habit of making action scenes like this
| look pretty placid, you have to bear in mind that there were thousands of gallons of water
| literally thundering over that fall. Have you ever *heard* a big waterfall in full spate? It's
| really very loud, and more importantly, it throws off a tremendous amount of spray. You can
| get drenched from 50 yards away, even if it's not raining. This creates two photographic
| problems;

I understand what you mean about the spray, but again, I've never really been to a *big* waterfall,
so this is also something that I wouldn't have thought about with your photo. Regarding noise, even
the small waterfalls I've been to have been noisy enough, so I'd hate to hear how loud the Niagara
Falls are! :-o

| 5a. A haze in the air. Although you can't actually see the spray in the photograph, it manifests
| itself as a watery haze. You said that it doesn't look as sharp, that's because of the haze. The
| background of the shot looks slightly out of focus, but it isn't. As you can see from the motion
| blur on the water, this was taken on a tripod with a small aperture. It's the spray that ruined
| the sharpness.

When I went to Chatsworth House at the weekend, there was a big fountain that shot water about 30
metres into the air, and the spray and haze from this went whevever the wind blew it! I think some
people must have been getting soaked when the wind changed! But shooting into the light, it did
create some nice photos, almost like mist.

| 5b. A watery film on the lens. Because of the spray, the lens can get soaked in a second or two.
| Because of this it's necessary to try to protect the camera as much as possible, repeatedly wiping
| the water of the front of the lens, while composing the shot. Before taking the shot I clean the
| front of the lens as best I can, then hold something in front of it to protect it from spray while
| I get behind the camera. Then I take hold of the cable release, reveal the lens and take the shot
| instantly, before it gets soaked again. A further problem is that after taking a lot of such
| shots, all my cleaning cloths get soaked so I've got nothing dry left to clean the lens with, so
| it ends up with a permanent watery film on it even after cleaning, giving a "soft-focus" effect to
| every shot.

I've had the same problem with wet cloths when playing golf in the rain. In the end, as my club
handle just wasn't drying, and I couldn't get a proper grip of the club, I just went home early in
anger! I guess that extra cloths are a good tip for the kit bag.

| Some falls are more difficult to photograph than others, depending on the distance from the fall
| and the direction of the spray coming off the fall. Close up full frontal shots are very
| difficult, so a side view is usually preferable. This one wasn't so bad, being a reasonable
| distance from the main fall.

I've never been to a really big waterfall - interestingly, the biggest waterfall I've seen is
Janet's Foss in Malham! ...and that was a pathetic trickle today! (similar to what you noticed
in Wales recently) Waterfalls are a good subject though, so I'd like to get some nice ones
under my belt.

| The bottom line is that full spate waterfalls are very difficult to photograph, probably one of
| the most difficult landscape subjects of all, in my opinion. Even if you have a brolly pod to
| protect the camera from the torrential rain above, that won't protect it from the spray.

After being rained off for ten minutes in my walk today (with no photos), I'm interested in this
'brolly pod' you talk about. Do you have a website link that shows more information about this?

| It will be very interesting to see how my digital copes with such conditions when they
| finally arrive.

It will be, and don't forget the plastic bag! Or even better, get one of these:
http://www.ikelite.com/web_pages/5can_g3big.html But it still won't stop the spray and haze, so take
the extra dry clothes too! )

| Paul

Ste

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bn6kvv$5sq$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > That's some improvement! Also, I'm suprised at how many scratches and marks are on a
| > transparency (my first look at a scan of one though, as I'm 100% digital).
|
| Well that's not typical, it's a particularly bad example, which was why I chose it. Without ICE it
| would be so much hassle to get rid of all those marks it would hardly be worth bothering.

I understand this was a bad example, so that made the ICE even more impressive!

| Having said that, even brand new slides have a surprising number of tiny little marks on them,
| which can still take some time to remove by hand. Trying to clean the dust off beforehand only
| seems to make the problem worse, and many of the tiny marks can't be blown off, they're fixed on
| the film, perhaps tiny particles of dust that fall on the film during development?

I wouldn't know about dust falling on the film during development, but I'm assuming your using all
the 'air blowers' and 'special pens' to clean them properly first? Anway, if the ICE can deal with
as bad slide as above, then these tiny marks you mention should be eaten for breakfast! ;o)

| I'll scan a brand new slide to show you.

Thanks, if you get the time, then that would be interesting to see.

| As for the older slides, I have many in that sort of condition, so this scanner is a life-saver.
| It would be a criminal waste if I couldn't recover them, there's a lot of good shots amongst those
| old slides.

Yes, it would be such a waste to not recover them, so good luck with the scanning!

| > Can the software be used on normal images?
|
| No, it's not actually software, it's hardware.
|
| "It works by shining an infrared light through the film's emulsion, using the resulting scan
| information to create a "defect channel" showing where the dust and scratches are located. The
| infrared light passes right through the layers of most color print or slide film, but is blocked
| by dust or scratches."

I see, it's clever the way it works though, and I always wondered how things like this could do such
a good job of getting rid of scratches etc, without actually ruining the shot itself - as some kind
of artificial intelligence going on!

| That's how it can tell the difference between marks "on the film" and marks "in the picture". I've
| got a great technique for getting rid of marks in Photoshop, but it can get rid of real detail in
| the photo too if you aren't careful. I was once removing all the light marks from a picture until
| I suddenly realised that I was removing all the sheep from the hillside! :-)

I cloned out a few sheep myself after my visit to Chatsworth House at the weekend, they're so
inconsiderate the way they walk around the fields ruining my compositions! )

| > It looks like it reduces noise,
|
| The ICE Fine setting looks to me as though it's using a slight blur filter, but I can't be sure of
| that. The scanner does have a grain reduction feature though - GEM. I haven't experimented much
| with this yet, but it seems to work quite well, although that softens the image too. Using a small
| amount might be practical.
|
| If you want to get rid of noise, download the Neat Image Demo NOW!
| http://www.neatimage.com/download.html
|
| Although it's called a demo, it's actually a fully working program with no timeout. It does have
| some limitations compared to the versions that you pay for, basically it only works with jpegs and
| doesn't work as a Photoshop plugin. Apart from that it's fully functional. Give it a try.
|
| Be warned though, that the default settings are a bit on the strong side, and can soften image
| detail quite a lot. There are loads of settings you can tweak though, so you can get very good
| results if you spend a little time playing with it and figuring out how to get the best out of it.
| I haven't mastered it yet though, so you can explain it to me when you've got it sussed! :-)

I will download and try it out before the weekend, along with that focusfixer/focusmagic program
that you recommended in another post, and also genuine fractals, and the other program that I read
about. I've been meaning to download these for a while, but I keep getting sidelines with other
things... :-(

| Paul

Ste

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bn7357$itd$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

> > That's the bit i was wondering about - I thought I detected some unsharp masking.
>
> It wasn't Unsharp Mask, it was Focus Magic.

Hmmm, I hadn't heard of that one. Just looked as the web site though, and it looks pretty good.

Do you use this instead of unsharp mask?

Shaun.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:15:03 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
<pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>
>That's how it can tell the difference between marks "on the film" and marks "in the picture". I've
>got a great technique for getting rid of marks in Photoshop, but it can get rid of real detail in
>the photo too if you aren't careful. I was once removing all the light marks from a picture until I
>suddenly realised that I was removing all the sheep from the hillside! :-)

I'm so glad it's not just me who has done that!
--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other 42% are made up later on. In Warwick -
looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.

Code Developer wrote:

>> It wasn't Unsharp Mask, it was Focus Magic.
>
> Hmmm, I hadn't heard of that one. Just looked as the web site though, and it looks pretty good.
>
> Do you use this instead of unsharp mask?

I do now. Because of the way it works it sharpens the image without degrading it [1], unlike Unsharp
Mask, which doesn't really sharpen at all, in increases edge contrast, thus damaging the image.

I have however found another use for Unsharp Mask, which I thought I'd never use again, to increase
"local contrast" in a picture. This is a rather clever technique where you use a massive radius of
250 and a tiny percentage, like 10-20%. Because the radius is so large it doesn't actually sharpen
the picture, instead it improves the contrast, but in a "local" way, which is different to
increasing the contrast by using other methods (which can make light parts of the picture too light
and dark parts too dark). It's really very good and superior to using my old favourite Curves.

[1] Focus Magic can degrade the image if you use the wrong settings. You have to find the correct
radius, if you choose one too large it degrades the image in much the same way as conventional
sharpening. Same happens if you use more than 100% strength. Unlike sharpening, you shouldn't
"sharpen more" with Focus Magic.

The effect of Focus Magic is more subtle than sharpening, but that's because it doesn't degrade the
image. I find it best to use the Unsharp Mask technique above to increase local contrast to give the
image a bit more punch.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

ste © wrote:

> I wouldn't know about dust falling on the film during development, but I'm assuming your using all
> the 'air blowers' and 'special pens' to clean them properly first?

Straight out of the box they shouldn't need any cleaning, but after using an air blower on them
there always seems to be more dust than there was to begin with.

> Anway, if the ICE can deal with as bad slide as above, then these tiny marks you mention should be
> eaten for breakfast! ;o)

Yep, not to mention pepper grain!

> I cloned out a few sheep myself after my visit to Chatsworth House at the weekend, they're so
> inconsiderate the way they walk around the fields ruining my compositions! )

Yes, sheep are a nuisance, they always seem to be standing at the wrong angles.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bn8cnq$f3t$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > I wouldn't know about dust falling on the film during development, but I'm assuming your using
| > all the 'air blowers' and 'special pens' to clean them properly first?
|
| Straight out of the box they shouldn't need any cleaning, but after using an air blower on them
| there always seems to be more dust than there was to begin with.

So you should get a better air blower, or if that fails, just don't blow them at all! )

| > Anway, if the ICE can deal with as bad slide as above, then these tiny marks you mention should
| > be eaten for breakfast! ;o)
|
| Yep, not to mention pepper grain!
|
| > I cloned out a few sheep myself after my visit to Chatsworth House at the weekend, they're so
| > inconsiderate the way they walk around the fields ruining my compositions! )
|
| Yes, sheep are a nuisance, they always seem to be standing at the wrong angles.

)

| Paul

Ste

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bn88s6$4ft$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
|
| I have however found another use for Unsharp Mask, which I thought I'd never use again, to
| increase "local contrast" in a picture. This is a rather clever technique where you use a massive
| radius of 250 and a tiny percentage, like 10-20%. Because the radius is so large it doesn't
| actually sharpen the picture, instead it improves the contrast, but in a "local" way, which is
| different to increasing the contrast by using other methods (which can make light parts of the
| picture too light and dark parts too dark). It's really very good and superior to using my old
| favourite Curves.
|
| Paul

Hi Paul, what Threshold do you use with this technique? I've just had a go on one of my images and
it certainly seems to work well, and it didn't over sharpen the image as I would have expected! In
fact, it worked similar to Auto Levels (not that I use that of course ;o))

Ste

ste © wrote:

> So you should get a better air blower,

Sounds easy in theory, doesn't it? Dust seems to have a mind of it's own though.

Dust is the bane of my photographic life (along with grain and haze). Consider yourself lucky you're
a digital photographer, but just wait until you get an SLR with interchangeable lenses... :-(

> or if that fails, just don't blow them at all! )

That technique usually works better in fact.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

ste © wrote:

> Hi Paul, what Threshold do you use with this technique?

Zero.

> I've just had a go on one of my images and it certainly seems to work well, and it didn't over
> sharpen the image as I would have expected!

It doesn't sharpen it at all with that radius. In fact, Unsharp Mask doesn't sharpen an image
(there's a hint in the word "unsharp"), instead it increases edge contrast, which creates the
illusion of sharpening. With a huge radius, the edge contrast is spread over such a wide area that
there's no sharpening illusion, just an overall contrast boost, and the amount is very small anyway.
It can be useful for getting rid of the "grey haze" that seems to cover many images that come out of
digital cameras.

> In fact, it worked similar to Auto Levels (not that I use that of course ;o))

Glad to hear it. :-)

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bn9okb$s2r$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > Hi Paul, what Threshold do you use with this technique?
|
| Zero.

Okay, thanks.

|
| > I've just had a go on one of my images and it certainly seems to work well, and it didn't over
| > sharpen the image as I would have expected!
|
| It doesn't sharpen it at all with that radius. In fact, Unsharp Mask doesn't sharpen an image
| (there's a hint in the word "unsharp"), instead it increases edge contrast, which creates the
| illusion of sharpening. With a huge radius, the edge contrast is spread over such a wide area that
| there's no sharpening illusion, just an overall contrast boost, and the amount is very small
| anyway. It can be useful for getting rid of the "grey haze" that seems to cover many images that
| come out of digital cameras.

I know it doesn't sharpen it, but with those settings, I *was* expecting it to. Just another trick
to try in photoshop then... )

| > In fact, it worked similar to Auto Levels (not that I use that of course ;o))
|
| Glad to hear it. :-)

Well, not when you're about anyway, I wouldn't dare! ;o)

| Paul

Ste

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bn9okb$s2r$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

> > Hi Paul, what Threshold do you use with this technique?
>
> Zero.

> It doesn't sharpen it at all with that radius. In fact, Unsharp Mask doesn't sharpen an image
> (there's a hint in the word "unsharp"), instead it increases edge contrast, which creates the
> illusion of sharpening. With a huge radius, the edge contrast is spread over such a wide area that
> there's no sharpening illusion, just an overall contrast boost, and the amount is very small
> anyway. It can be useful for getting rid of the "grey haze" that seems to cover many images that
> come out of digital cameras.

Cheers for the tip. I'll have to try this one.

Regards, Shaun.

In article <bpmd8u$9ov$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Paul Saunders <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>If you use the histogram after taking a photo then you *are* thinking about dynamic range, because
>that's what the histogram shows - the distribution of light values from white to black.

Just had a look at Luminous Landscape web-site and checked out the page on understanding histograms.
I like the basic principle of bunching your exposure to the "right" without blowing the highlights.

A visit to the site is well worth it.
--
Bill Grey http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <bpr2m3$8n8$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Paul Saunders <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Yes, but if you read my digital test you'll know that I determined that the most sensitive part of
>the histogram is actually 2/3rds of the way to the right, not fully to the right, so the advice in
>Luminous Landscape is wrong according to my tests. His theoretical logic about each stop having
>only half the brightness values of the previous stop is not borne out by my tests, so bunching to
>the right is *not* the best option IMO, it's best to bunch the exposure values 2/3rds to the right,
>at least according to my G3. Maybe other digital cameras differ, I don't know.

So far I've only had a cursory glance at the article/feature. I've saved it and shall read it more
carefully later.

Thanks for the tip regarding the Ultra W/A lens.
--
Bill Grey http://www.billboy.co.uk