Best Possible Scans?

[Bill Pierce]

I know a lot of you shoot film. With the supply and variety of black and white enlarging paper growing less, I’m going to assume than many of you shooting b&w are scanning your film and printing the files on inkjet printers. I was particularly interested in how you were scanning.

At this end, I’m using an Imacon scanner, always making master scans of my color slides and old black-and-white negatives at the highest resolution (6300 dpi on this scanner). Because some of my black-and-white went through labs associated with news publications, because they were always afraid that a great news shot would be underexposed, a lot of that film is overdeveloped, dense, contrasty. So even my black-and-white negatives get scanned as transparencies and then converted to black-and-white positive images in Photoshop. This seems the most efficient and effective way to scan dense, contrasty negatives rather than the scanners settings for black-and-white negative film.

So what are you doing with your film and how do you get the best possible scans?

[gilpen123]

OT, I'm also interested to get some advance process ideas. I use a 5000ED with the Nikon software scan as B&W good results but may be better.

[kzphoto]

Bill, if I know I'm scanning black and white I like to use the channel mixer in Photoshop. I'll scan the film as color negative (48-bit) and then save the file. With the channel mixer, I can choose how much information I want from each channel. It's a great way to make your 'tough' b&w negs look much prettier.

[Dwig]

Bill, if I know I'm scanning black and white I like to use the channel mixer in Photoshop. I'll scan the film as color negative (48-bit) and then save the file. With the channel mixer, I can choose how much information I want from each channel. It's a great way to make your 'tough' b&w negs look much prettier.

I've not used this technique for working with poorly exposed and/or developed negs, but have used it several times for dealing with antique negs that are stained, some unevenly. It can be effective.

I use an EPSON v700, an I normally scan my good 35mm images at 4800ppi though I usually drop down to 3200ppi when scanning 4x5 and sometimes when scanning 120.

Even when scanning antique negs from cameras with rather mediocre optics, mostly old family snaps, I generally "overscan" at a higher than necessary resolution and downsample later in PS. I have, on a few occasions, run into interference pattern issues when there is a very regular grain size that is too close to the scanning frequency. So far, I've only seen this with antique images that were very grainy, by modern standards. The solution is usually to scan at lower resolutions, although I've occasionally resorted to very high resolution 6400ppi scans and downsampled in PS.

[DNG]

Well, I just started scanning, and I use PlusTek 7300 35mm scanner. I set it at 6000dpi and my files are around 75mp-89mp in size (I save them as TIF files). I see plenty of fine detail on tiny distant objects...

Whole Image followed by a 100% crop

http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/814357/700h-%20Morrisville%20Corner%20Building%2001%2B%20188%2 0USM_tn.jpg

http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/814357/Morrisville%20Corner%20Building%2001%2B%20188%20US M-%20100-Crop.jpg

XP2 @ 400, 5cm f/1.5 Summarit @ f/8, no noise reduction was used. But I did use "Un-Sharp Mask" sharpening.

[maddoc]

I use a Nikon Coolscan4000ED now for my 135 films and Vuescan software. Only recently I have started saving the scanned files in two versions, one lower resolution JPG for web-use and a full resoultion TIF for possible printing. Vuescan also allows to save your scanned file as RAW file, the unprocessed raw-data directly from the CCD. This RAW file can be saved also as Adobe DNG file and then processed in Adobe PS.

I don`t know about the Imacon software and if the Imacons are supported by Vuescan but if yes it might be worth a try.

[filmfan]

I am interested to see what other people say. I just pop the negs in and click "scan" with my Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED. There has to be something I am not doing because I am not seeing much quality.

[digitalintrigue]

Vuescan also allows to save your scanned file as RAW file, the unprocessed raw-data directly from the CCD. This RAW file can be saved also as Adobe DNG file and then processed in Adobe PS.

I don`t know about the Imacon software and if the Imacons are supported by Vuescan but if yes it might be worth a try.

This is what I do, as I have much better knowledge of how to adjust things in Photoshop, so I just use Vuescan for the raw scan only.

[arseniii]

I use Nikon IV and NikonScan by Nikon. It's a quite powerful software I've got to say. It has levels and noise reduction option(which works really well in most cases)...

[filmfan]

Nikonscan has levels and noise reduction?

[arseniii]

Nikonscan has levels and noise reduction?

What I meant here was curves+Digital ICE+ Analog gain which is sufficient for me to obtain desired results in terms of contrast and grain...

[ferider]

Nikon 5000 ED with roll-film holder for quick scan and high throughput, and film holder FH-3 for selected high quality scans. I use Vuescan and leave all manipulations to color, sharpness, etc. to PS.

Most important for me is to keep the film as clean as possible between development and scanning.

Pretty good results, IMO, but likely not competitive with your Imacon, Bill.

[Gregoryniss]

I use an Epson 4490 Perfection flatbed and scan at 4800dpi for 16bit black and white and save as Jpeg. Seems to be working well for me so far on my small budget. Don't think I could justify getting a better one due to the price increase and not as substantial increase in IQ compared to say getting a new lens or something

[Steve Ash]

I use a Coolscan 5000 with Silverfast Ai and Silverfast HDRi. I scan at 4000dpi in Silverfast Ai which generates a raw file with all scanning data including the infrared channel for dust and scratch removal. This raw file get processed in Silverfast HDRi. Even the dust and scratch data can be processed on different levels later. Since I utilize Silverfast HDRi my scanning time has reduced a lot as I only do one scan with maximum data and downsize if required later. I do not know if there is a Silverfast version for the imacon though.

Regards
Steve

[JPSuisse]

Bill, thanks for starting this thread. It is very interesting to hear about the latest scanning techniques. Even here, there is advancement, I think, in the last years. I started a very similar thread and poll here. (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86815)

I also scan with a Nikon 5000 directly to RAW scans using Vuescan and then post-process with Lightroom. Many people have told me that there is no such thing as a RAW scanner file. But, I think that VueScan's is RAW in the sense that it is uninterpreted by the scanning program. Some remarks about this process:

1.) At first I had very bad experiences with Nikon's roll adapter using black and white film. The frames were all over the place! Then, when I started developing my own black and white film the problem went away magically. I realized that the contrast on the negative between the image and the negative edge has to be high enough for VueScan to find the frames! This was never an issue with color slides because slide film is, well, contrasty.

2.) A key point for this process is pointed out by ferider, it really only works with new, unscratched and clean negatives. This is because VueScan simply captures all the data and records. There is no ICE cleaning, etc. Since I now develop my own negatives I control whether they are clean or scratched. Also, I get my slide film uncut in a plastic foil.

3.) The roll film adapter from Nikon is really great, I just pop a whole roll in, quickly set up the color balance (ca. 5 minutes) and go wash the dishes! It's a completely easy process! But, it took me a long time to figure out the details. In fact, I think it was easier for me to learn how to develop black and white film than to figure process out. The details are killers. But, once you get it, it's easy as pie. Really.

What surprises me most is the number of people making 4000 dpi scans of film. Really, some where around 3000 dpi seems for me to be the limit or reasonable resolution! Unfortunately, the Nikon 5000 only supports RAW scans at 1000, 2000 or 4000 dpi. This is a "hardware supported" resolution. Any other resolutions with the Nikon 5000 will reduce quality. Anybody know what the Imacon will do here?

I live in a printer-less world. If I want prints I either go to the photo shop or to the darkroom. I've never printed any of my scans bigger than 20cm by 30cm. But, a 2000 dpi scan at this resolution from my work flow looks great. I can't ever imagine me printing anything bigger. Hell! My walls aren't big enough for anything else!!!

Best,

JP

[kzphoto]

As an aside, Digital ICE on Black and White negs destroys your contrast. You'll get posterized images. Don't do it.

[Bill Pierce]

Many of the reasonably priced scanners mentioned in this thread have obvious limitations compared to the 10 to 20 thousand dollar scanners that see a lot of professional use. Obviously, these limitations don't apply to web images or relatively small prints. But I wonder if those limitations or the sheer pleasure of locking yourself in a dark room where nobody can disturb you have kept some folks in the wet darkroom? Any folks out there battling the tide? What are the problems of keeping a wet darkroom these days?

[Florian1234]

Well, for me it is a Coolscan V and Vuescan. I scan the b&w films in color negative film mode and put them to greyscale in LR2 after scanning as dng file.
What I notice is that I get nearly no grain using this method - with Tri-X developed in D761+1.
Would I get more grain when scanned as b&w film in Vuescan?

As for the darkroom use: That's just more time consuming for me as amateur who doesn't do projects to sell or exhibit within a certain deadline.
edito: I've got the stuff for a wet darkroom, too, overhere, but there's limited time, lack of skills somehow and well, it is just for fun when I want real photos for the wall or as a give away or so.

[lawrence]

I hope you don't mind if I ask a slightly off-topic question that's been bugging me for a while. Do the users of this hybrid process feel that the results are significantly better or different from the results that could be obtained from a purely digital process? If so, in what way?

[Harry Lime]

I have two scanners. Nikon 5000ED and 9000ED with glass holder.

I take the 5000ED on the road and the 9000ED sits at home.

Using the glass holder with the 9000ED produces significantly sharper scans than without. It's a little slow to line up every neg individually, but it's worth the effort.

For the most part I use Nikonscan. Color negative and b/w output (16bit). Usually I go for 4x oversampling, but turn it up to x8 (x12?) for a master scan. The quality of the output from the 9000ED is quite good. Apparently the 9000ED comes within spitting distance or equals the Imacon 343.

Currently I'm looking in to Silverfast HDR software. This software makes multiple passes and combines the wedged exposures in to an HDR image (high dynamic range), thus giving you scans with greater exposure range and less noise. I've seen some comparisons and it looks like the Silverfast HRD option can significantly boost the IQ of your scanner.

But I would like a Imacon...

I've also had a few drumscans done. The sharpness is unbeatable and now you can get them in 16bit. But they are expensive..

[Bingley]

I hope you don't mind if I ask a slightly off-topic question that's been bugging me for a while. Do the users of this hybrid process feel that the results are significantly better or different from the results that could be obtained from a purely digital process? If so, in what way?

I develop my own bw and scan the negs. The short answer to your question, for me, is yes. I like being able to use different film/developer combinations to achieve specific results. Not sure I could obtain the same results in digital. (Is there a digital camera with a "Tri-X in Rodinal" setting?). I'm not saying the results of this hybrid process are "better," but I do think they're different from a purely digital process. And, frankcly, I enjoy developing my own film.

I also think there's a cost factor too, but I haven't used a high-end digital camera so I don't have a solid basis to compare.

[DNG]

I hope you don't mind if I ask a slightly off-topic question that's been bugging me for a while. Do the users of this hybrid process feel that the results are significantly better or different from the results that could be obtained from a purely digital process? If so, in what way?

That's not the point...
I have both DSLR (14mp) and a M5... I enjoy both also.
The Film scans are plenty detailed too. But, when I want the grain film offers over the noise that digital offers, I shoot film. It is a different quality in the structure of the textures.

When I want High ISO w/o grain/noise (or very little)..I shoot digital. Even in Low ISO Files (DSLR), There are many times I prefer the Digital file.

It boils down to the final textures and "feel" you want in the final image. Whether you want no or marginal grain, or you want a more pronounce grain as part of the image structure.

[DNG]

Nikon 5000 ED with roll-film holder for quick scan and high throughput, and film holder FH-3 for selected high quality scans. I use Vuescan and leave all manipulations to color, sharpness, etc. to PS.

Most important for me is to keep the film as clean as possible between development and scanning.

Pretty good results, IMO, but likely not competitive with your Imacon, Bill.

I just scanned a B&w Neg w/o any adj for the scan... and then did my post in ACDsee Pro 3, and it sharpened up just fine..
I'd thought I had to at least sharpening with the scan..But NOPE..not necessary.

Thanks for all the answers...I have grown a little in scanning work-flows...

[Ronald_H]

Many of the reasonably priced scanners mentioned in this thread have obvious limitations compared to the 10 to 20 thousand dollar scanners that see a lot of professional use. Obviously, these limitations don't apply to web images or relatively small prints. But I wonder if those limitations or the sheer pleasure of locking yourself in a dark room where nobody can disturb you have kept some folks in the wet darkroom? Any folks out there battling the tide? What are the problems of keeping a wet darkroom these days?

Hi Bill,

Maybe you can turn the question around. For guys like me, there never was a wet darkroom. I actually started out digital and because that was at the 640x480 resolution stage, I quickly went to a 35mm SLR. But I started scanning negs right away because computer manipulation and storage already felt natural to me.

But what I don't get is that people here still claim that traditional printing is better than scanning and then printing, while in practice I have never seen this for C41 negs. I have several lab prints (20x30cm) of 2800dpi scans (Minolta Scan Dual II, definitely reasonably priced) that look waaaaay better than traditional prints. So much better that I stopped having traditional prints done altogether!

The argument will probably be that these were cheap prints done by bulk labs, which is true. But still, the 'hybrid' prints are more than good enough for me.

As for the wet darkroom, never been there. I do my own development though so who knows... Maybe I will see the light when I hold up my first traditional B/W print (please not the distinction between B/W and C41 I made).

[Jamie123]

Many of the reasonably priced scanners mentioned in this thread have obvious limitations compared to the 10 to 20 thousand dollar scanners that see a lot of professional use. Obviously, these limitations don't apply to web images or relatively small prints. But I wonder if those limitations or the sheer pleasure of locking yourself in a dark room where nobody can disturb you have kept some folks in the wet darkroom? Any folks out there battling the tide? What are the problems of keeping a wet darkroom these days?

I use a Nikon 9000 as most of my film stuff is medium format. I didn't really plan on buying it but I got an offer which I couldn't refuse. Prior to that I planned on renting a Flextight X5 for a few hours every now and then to scan in my best shots. I decided to go with the Nikon as it cost less than 7 hours with the Flextight.

I shoot 90% color neg so a wet darkroom isn't really an option but even if it were I don't think I'd prefer it to scanning. I used to develop my own negs and it was fun in the beginning. However, after the novelty wore off it became just another boring, time consuming activity that has little to do with actually taking pictures.
Don't get me wrong, I hate scanning, but at least I can do other stuff at the same time. To be honest, the perfect solution for me would be to outsource everything - developing, scanning and retouching.

As for the Nikon 9000, I'm more or less happy with it. I miss Silverfast a little (used to use it with my Epson 4990 flatbed). Vuescan is terrible with the Nikon 9000 for MF. NikonScan is alright but not perfect.

[Jamie123]

Hi Bill,

Maybe you can turn the question around. For guys like me, there never was a wet darkroom. I actually started out digital and because that was at the 640x480 resolution stage, I quickly went to a 35mm SLR. But I started scanning negs right away because computer manipulation and storage already felt natural to me.

But what I don't get is that people here still claim that traditional printing is better than scanning and then printing, while in practice I have never seen this for C41 negs. I have several lab prints (20x30cm) of 2800dpi scans (Minolta Scan Dual II, definitely reasonably priced) that look waaaaay better than traditional prints. So much better that I stopped having traditional prints done altogether!

The argument will probably be that these were cheap prints done by bulk labs, which is true. But still, the 'hybrid' prints are more than good enough for me.

As for the wet darkroom, never been there. I do my own development though so who knows... Maybe I will see the light when I hold up my first traditional B/W print (please not the distinction between B/W and C41 I made).

Actually, those 'traditional' prints you had done by the lab were probably scans. Consumer labs have been doing prints from scans for ages.

[januaryman]

Using a Nikon Coolscan V, Vuescan and patience, I get unprocessed jpeg files that I save to disk. In Lightroom I import, evaluate, delete losers, fix mistakes and try to crop to either 2x3 or 4x5 (mostly 2x3, because it's the way I frame it and the way I want it printed or displayed). After the fixing, usually with a trip also through PS, I save as a psd file with layers, or a tiff file if there are no layers.

Just got an Epson R2880 printer and the results are quite good with some Moab Lasel paper I got cheap. But I have three packs of sample papers that I will be testing to see what the best is for me. Mostly BW, but still quite a good portion of color lately. My BW stuff gets juried into shows more often than my color.

[Frank Petronio]

My thinking going forward is that shooting 35mm film is for a special effect, and it is not a "way of life", since my digital camera files are going to be technically "better" and, frankly, easier to handle. So I'm actually less concerned about getting a "perfect" scan and more looking to emphasize the characteristics that only film has... I'll crank the contrast and try to hold a lot of highlight detail at the expense of the shadows, and I actually like it when the scanner emphasizes the film grain. And other than legacy film, I won't torture myself trying to scan 35mm color.

So a cheap Konica-Minolta DualScan IV with Vue Scan is fine for me. I have free access to my friend's Imacon and have never bothered to scan 35mm with it (I do use it for larger film). And in the 90s, when I did shoot a lot of slides for corporate jobs, I was unimpressed with the printer's drum scans from my Kodachromes and E6 slides -- I actually thought my Coolscan and Leaf 45 desktop scans were better. But that was probably because the scanner operators hated 35mm and never really tested or optimized their scanning for it. I understand that the better drum scanners had variable apertures and sometimes the aperture setting would resonate with the film grain and make a very grainy scan, and other settings would produce a lovely smooth scan.

The one scanner I never really used was the Creo-Kodak-Eversmart line of high-end flatbeds. If funds were unlimited I think I'd be really happy with one of their later models. But as with the drum scanners, you'd want to buy two model (one for parts) and maintain a legacy mac system since eventually the OS and interfaces will be unsupported. The good news is that $80K scanners are selling for peanuts, in the $5K range.

[Bike Tourist]

I scan the old transparencies (something on the order of 30,000 available, but most not scanned) and my present B+W negs with a little Nikon V ED. I don't make too many demands on it, maybe a half dozen scans at 4000 dpi at one sitting. If I get too aggressive or demanding with it, it starts acting up by either quitting mid scan or putting lots of vertical white stripes (in landscape mode) on the image. I'm not saying the white stripes are altogether unattractive or that they don't improve the image — it's just that I'd rather be in control than being manipulated by a recalcitrant scanner.

For black and white work these days, I use Kodak BW400CN, and that scans well and makes me happy enough to not miss the old darkroom days. The old darkroom days in my case were the 60's in my converted latrine in the old SS barracks in Augsburg, Germany. After that, I was mostly an amateur, a part-time magazine contributor and shooting strictly slides until the dawn of the digital age.

Shooting C41 film is like being on vacation compared to transparency film.

So, a little digital, a little film scanning — a nice balance, I think.

[lawrence]

I'm not saying the results of this hybrid process are "better," but I do think they're different from a purely digital process. And, frankcly, I enjoy developing my own film.

I agree on both counts. Just wanted to get a feel for what motivates others to indulge in a relatively time-consuming and complicated process.

[lawrence]

It boils down to the final textures and "feel" you want in the final image.

I agree, the texture is different. In particular, even with little grain the micro-contrast appears to be higher with film -- digital b&w looks too smooth by comparison. I do find the scanning process something of a chore -- I enjoy developing film -- but it seems I'm not alone in this ;)

[sper]

Epson V700 for medium and large format and Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm. I use the Nikon and Epson software and get great results. Vuescan and Silverfast seem sometimes a bit 'user friendly' in a bad way/ If you know what you're doing the Nikon and Epson software will get you where you need to be. I just wish I could get better holders for the Coolscan V. The frame selection process in the Nikon sucks.

If I were a smart person I would just use the Epson for everything and then when I wanted to make a big print, either get a drum scan or rent and X5. But I'm me, so I bought the Nikon.

[gdmcclintock]

I am finally learning how to use Vuescan with a Nikon V ED and scanning color slides and both black and white and color negatives. So far I am happy with the results. The attached image started out as a color slide (Provia X 400). -George

[lawrence]

Epson V700 for medium and large format and Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm. I use the Nikon and Epson software and get great results. Vuescan and Silverfast seem sometimes a bit 'user friendly' in a bad way/ If you know what you're doing the Nikon and Epson software will get you where you need to be. I just wish I could get better holders for the Coolscan V. The frame selection process in the Nikon sucks.

I have a Nikon Coolscan IV that I used to use but when I bought a V750 I switched over completely. For traditional mono negs I think the V750 is kinder than the Nikon due to the diffused light source.

The 35mm holders on the V750 suck just as much as the Nikon ones IMHO because the film isn't held completely flat. The only solution I've found is to use the glass inserts from betterscanning.com (http://www.betterscanning.com) but this slows you down because there are now two additional surfaces to clean! My solution is to scan contact sheets of everything and then re-scan the best shots with the inserts in place. Not very satisfactory.

Another thing about the Epson is that I always manually select the frame area otherwise if you choose the thumbnail option you find part of the frame has been trimmed off. Apart from the diffused light source and general quality of the scans, I do like the ability to scan four strips of film at once rather than feeding one strip at a time into the Nikon.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Fro me the wet darkroom is no longer an option. Don't have the time, or the space. I did have one, once, but it's been gone for over ten years. If I want to work quickly (event or sports) I use an M9 and spend quite enough time with C1 in editing and output. To see things differently, I use an Xpan, Hassy SWC or plain old 500C/M, each of them affordable now (but they weren't back then). Do my own B/W developing, local pro lab for E6 and C41. So far I am scanning with an Epson V500 and Epson software, since the steps up to V700, Nikon 9000 or Imacon look small and each is relatively expensive. Will have to move soon to Vuescan from the free Epson software to handle color negative.

scott

edit: another vote for betterscanning.com's glass inserts and 120 film holder.

[Ronald M]

I would and do scan swice, once to get the shadows correct, once to get the highlights correct. Layer in photoshop dark on top, apply a luminosity mask to the top.
Apply a bit of blur to the mask.

To get perfect register, change to difference mode and us arrow keys.

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/tutorials-video.htm

Tutorial on how to do with a digital file, but works as well with film. See the one on blended exposures.

This works for me. but overdeveloped negs are death on scanning. It just may not punch thru the highlights no matter what.

Let me know how this goes for you.

[Ronald M]

one I merged yesterday

[ReeRay]

Minolta Dimage Multi Pro and Scanhancer inserts. Dimage Utility software. Tried Vuescan and Silverfast but not to my liking.

I also use the expander modification that is available with this set-up.

MF at 2400 dpi and 35mm at 4800 dpi.

I scan B+W as a colour neg or positive and make the relevant adjustments in CS3. This enables me to use ICE without which I wouldn't bother to scan!

I scan as "flat" as possible i.e. extract maximum range without clipping at either end. No sharpening, curves, adjustments in the scanner.

All adjustments and tweaks in CS3.

This works well for me.

[robert blu]

As amateur, I use Nikon 5000 ed with nikon software, scanning B&W films at highest resolution 16 bit. It s an 110/130 M files which I later work out in CS3 (or LR ). Printing later on HP9180B. After more than one year of learning I'm satisfied. two reason for not having a wet darkroom:


space, living in an apartement is not easy to have a proper darkroom and I do not like to assemble and disassemble each time.


family/social: I'm now retired since a few month, but untill last year I was travelling a lot because of my job. I did not find acceptable to go out of home on monday morning, coming back on friday noght and close my self in a darkroom. Our living room and my studio are an open space. I can confortably sit in front of the computer, my wife look at television not far from me, we can chat and the work on images is done. Even scanning becomes not so much boring.

robert
PS sometimes I feel "nostalgia" of the darkroom I had when I was younger, but times dictate their reasons...

[Ronald M]

One more suggestion came to mind is that negatives can be reduced if over developed.

If have just used Farmers, but there are optimal reducers for contrast reduction without lowering shadow density, ie super proportional reducers and sub proportional ones, can`t remember which for you. you will need a scale and chemicals.

Then proceed with the two scan procedure I previously suggested which I do all the time.

You are looking for a super proportional reducer

http://books.google.com/books?id=3ZN5sEjAWDEC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=super+proportional+film+reducers&source=bl&ots=yzDgF3z2Rp&sig=-t5jsUXfP1QqofjQiwRZ3YB-dYU&hl=en&ei=GwKdS6DpD4rENoDL8eYN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=super%20proportional%20film%20reducers&f=false

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I am interested to see what other people say. I just pop the negs in and click "scan" with my Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED. There has to be something I am not doing because I am not seeing much quality.

There's a lot you're not doing. First, the negative carriers for this scanner are less than completely worthless. The standard carriers simply will not keep film flat. The 120 never will and the 35mm one will only if the film is 100% totally flat before you put it in the carrier. You MUST have one of the glass carriers, no exceptions, non-negotiable, if you want good scans.

Second, Negs scanned with a film scanner produce very flat low contrast scans with no visible tonal differenciation. You MUST edit these scans in Photoshop. They'll require pretty strong curves and levels adjustments to bring out the full tonal range.

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/family-snapshots/scanning/neopan-1600-raw.jpg
The scan straight from the scanner. Like bill, I scan as a transparency when doing black and white.

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/family-snapshots/scanning/neopan-1600-raw2.jpg
Inverted in Photoshop to produce a positive. See how flat and lacking in tonality it is? THIS is what most people accept from their scans, and why so many say that scanning cannot give good quality compared to the darkroom. Scanning's not the problem; people just don't know that you have to edit the scans.

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/family-snapshots/scanning/neopan-1600-1.jpg
Look at that! A gorgeous Black and White image with full tone range. This took three curves adjustment layers to bring the contrast up to near normal then fine tune the tonality to exactly what I wanted.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Some more examples:

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/family-snapshots/scanning/mack-raw.jpg

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/family-snapshots/scanning/mack-done.jpg

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/family-snapshots/scanning/dolls-raw.jpg

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/family-snapshots/scanning/dolls-done.jpg

[bwcolor]

Vuescan is terrible with the Nikon 9000 for MF.

What are your issues with Vuescan and the Nikon 9000 for MF?

[Ronald M]

I tried scanning a a transparency and it did nothing to help. You may be different.

Definately highlight and shadow scans combined in photoshop will work.

[Thisisaline]

Does anybody have anything to say about color accuracy and how to best get it when it comes to scanning color negs or slides?

[bwcolor]

I don't know about best, but this is what I have been doing:

http://benneh.net/blog/index.php/2008/04/21/better-colour-neg-scanning-with-vuescan/

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Does anybody have anything to say about color accuracy and how to best get it when it comes to scanning color negs or slides?

Slides scan best for me with Nikon Scan, black and white best with Viewscan. I've never had good luck with color negs, unfortunately. Best I got was scanning in viewscan using the 'generic color neg' setting, rather than the film-specific settings. Even then it was not that great.

[DNG]

snip....

I scan as "flat" as possible i.e. extract maximum range without clipping at either end. No sharpening, curves, adjustments in the scanner.

All adjustments and tweaks in CS3.

This works well for me.

I have found this scanning technique the way to go., But, I'd rather do a few minutes of spotting, than use the "Anti-Dust" software. I do use a last second film cleaner (Edwal's) and a quick canned air squirt before I place the Negative carrier in the scanner. I'd rather not have any finer detail destroyed with Anti-Dust software.