When i scan slides with my Nikon Coolscan V ED, there are often noticeable differences in color and tonality between Nikon Scan's preview window and its display of the completed scan. Any idea how to fix this? I'm using a PC with XP Pro and nVidia Quadro NVS 290 graphics card.
Ivan <ibp...@verizon.net> wrote in news:4bcc5c23-425c-4b22-814c- b142bacd3...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> When i scan slides with my Nikon Coolscan V ED, there are often > noticeable differences in color and tonality between Nikon Scan's > preview window and its display of the completed scan. Any idea how to > fix this? I'm using a PC with XP Pro and nVidia Quadro NVS 290 > graphics card.
What about your color management?
Do you have the same color management for your Monitor, scanner and printer using the same color space?
> When i scan slides with my Nikon Coolscan V ED, there are often > noticeable differences in color and tonality between Nikon Scan's > preview window and its display of the completed scan. Any idea how to > fix this? I'm using a PC with XP Pro and nVidia Quadro NVS 290 > graphics card.
You have to turn on color management in Nikonscan and chose and install one of the many profiles available. You'll need to let Nikonscan use the same profile for display and scanning and also install the same profile in your Windows screen settings. Ideally they should all match, but of course you can incur the overhead of on-the-fly profile matching.
Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Ivan wrote,on my timestamp of 19/12/2009 2:37 AM: > > When i scan slides with my Nikon Coolscan V ED, there are often > > noticeable differences in color and tonality between Nikon Scan's > > preview window and its display of the completed scan. Any idea how to > > fix this? I'm using a PC with XP Pro and nVidia Quadro NVS 290 > > graphics card.
> You have to turn on color management in Nikonscan and chose and install one of > the many profiles available. You'll need to let Nikonscan use the same profile > for display and scanning and also install the same profile in your Windows > screen settings. Ideally they should all match, but of course you can incur the > overhead of on-the-fly profile matching.
But surely the question is: since the preview and the full scan are both coming from the same scanner and being displayed on the same screen by the same piece of software, at which point in the chain is a different colour profile being used and why?
Alan Wrigley wrote,on my timestamp of 19/12/2009 8:20 PM:
>> You have to turn on color management in Nikonscan and chose and install one of
>> the many profiles available. You'll need to let Nikonscan use the same > profile >> for display and scanning and also install the same profile in your Windows >> screen settings. Ideally they should all match, but of course you can incur > the >> overhead of on-the-fly profile matching.
> But surely the question is: since the preview and the full scan are both coming > from the same scanner and being displayed on the same screen by the same piece > of software, at which point in the chain is a different colour profile being > used and why?
And surely the answer is: if you don't tell Nikonscan which color profile to scan with and Windows which color profile to display with, you are in a mess. Nikonscan displays nothing, Windows does. Read on the subject, it's worth it.
Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Alan Wrigley wrote,on my timestamp of 19/12/2009 8:20 PM:
> >> You have to turn on color management in Nikonscan and chose and install one of
> >> the many profiles available. You'll need to let Nikonscan use the same > > profile > >> for display and scanning and also install the same profile in your Windows > >> screen settings. Ideally they should all match, but of course you can incur > > the > >> overhead of on-the-fly profile matching.
> > But surely the question is: since the preview and the full scan are both coming > > from the same scanner and being displayed on the same screen by the same piece > > of software, at which point in the chain is a different colour profile being > > used and why?
> And surely the answer is: if you don't tell Nikonscan which color profile to > scan with and Windows which color profile to display with, you are in a mess. > Nikonscan displays nothing, Windows does. Read on the subject, it's worth it.
Are you deliberately missing my point? BOTH scans, the preview and the full, are produced by NikonScan and displayed by Windows. So both should be subject to the same colour profiles at every step. So why are they different?
> BOTH scans, the preview and the full, are produced by NikonScan and displayed > by Windows. So both should be subject to the same colour profiles at every > step. So why are they different?
Sorry, that was worded a little sloppily. What I meant was that both images are produced and displayed by the same software (NikonScan) using the same Windows display system on the same monitor.
There is a set of checkboxes somewhere to turn on which final scan features will be effective for the preview scan. Many times, the only purpose of the preview scan is to set crop areas, so people prefer to turn off digital ICE, auto-exposure and even auto focus to make the preview scan go faster (it is a very big difference, it can be a minute or more).
Alan Wrigley wrote: > I myself personally speaking wrote:
>> BOTH scans, the preview and the full, are produced by NikonScan and displayed >> by Windows. So both should be subject to the same colour profiles at every >> step. So why are they different?
> Sorry, that was worded a little sloppily. What I meant was that both images are > produced and displayed by the same software (NikonScan) using the same Windows > display system on the same monitor.
Alan Wrigley wrote,on my timestamp of 20/12/2009 12:25 AM:
>> BOTH scans, the preview and the full, are produced by NikonScan and displayed >> by Windows. So both should be subject to the same colour profiles at every >> step. So why are they different?
> Sorry, that was worded a little sloppily. What I meant was that both images are > produced and displayed by the same software (NikonScan) using the same Windows > display system on the same monitor.
When Nikonscan displays the preview, it displays it using the scanner's profile, if you have no colour profiling. The final scan file will be displayed using whatever default Windows uses (sRGB IIRC?).
Let me make this perfectly clear: *in the absence of any colour profiling set in Nikonscan*, the default scanner hardware and OS profiles will be assumed by Nikonscan. They are different for preview and final scan display. Hence the difference. It's not major, but it's there.
Turn on colour profiling, set it and watch the difference. Or rather: the similarity, between preview and full scan.
I'm of course assuming the OP previewed just before scanning. It's only too easy to do for example an auto-exposure as a default operation before each full scan - and change the entire resulting image compared to the preview!
There is a Nikonscan property that forces an auto-exposure before each full scan. A preview does not do an auto-exposure before each preview. Right there is the potential for *big* differences. Worth checking if set, just in case.
Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Alan Wrigley wrote,on my timestamp of 20/12/2009 12:25 AM:
> >> BOTH scans, the preview and the full, are produced by NikonScan and displayed > >> by Windows. So both should be subject to the same colour profiles at every > >> step. So why are they different?
> > Sorry, that was worded a little sloppily. What I meant was that both images are > > produced and displayed by the same software (NikonScan) using the same Windows > > display system on the same monitor. > Let me make this perfectly clear: *in the absence of any colour profiling set in > Nikonscan*, the default scanner hardware and OS profiles will be assumed by > Nikonscan. They are different for preview and final scan display. Hence the > difference. It's not major, but it's there.
Thanks for that explanation. It makes it much clearer, because I assumed that NikonScan would use the same profile for any image it displays. After all, the whole point of a preview is to see what the finished product will look like.
Although I didn't ask the original question, I was interested because I see the same thing with VueScan and the Nikon 5000 - a very noticeable difference in colour balance between preview and scan (but not on every scan which is the puzzling bit).
<spamha...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote: > Although I didn't ask the original question, I was interested because I see the > same thing with VueScan and the Nikon 5000 - a very noticeable difference in > colour balance between preview and scan (but not on every scan which is the > puzzling bit).
Very interesting. Vuescan should be a little bit more "solid" in that department. Are you on the latest version? I haven't used vuescan much of late with the nikon scanners but it works almost without a fault with the 4990 Epson. I wonder if it is a bug^H^H^Hfeature? Another question: do you see this with colour negative or slide film?
Noons <wizofo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 21, 5:09 am, Alan Wrigley > <spamha...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote:
> > Although I didn't ask the original question, I was interested because I see the > > same thing with VueScan and the Nikon 5000 - a very noticeable difference in > > colour balance between preview and scan (but not on every scan which is the > > puzzling bit).
> Very interesting. Vuescan should be a little bit more "solid" in that > department. Are you on the latest version?
Possibly not. Mine will be a few months old and I haven't checked for updates recently.
> Another question: do you see this with colour negative or slide film?
I've never tried scanning negative film. I used it for some months scanning mostly Ektachromes and some Kodachromes (with pretty horrible results for the latter) and only noticed the difference between the two views after getting a Kodachrome IT8 target and calibrating it. I get much better scans of Kodachrome now but then I started noticing the difference between preview and full scan. I was going to drop Ed Hamrick an email about it but I've been very busy and I want to be sure that it's not something I'm doing wrong first.
Alan Wrigley wrote,on my timestamp of 21/12/2009 8:24 PM:
>> Another question: do you see this with colour negative or slide film?
> I've never tried scanning negative film. I used it for some months scanning > mostly Ektachromes and some Kodachromes (with pretty horrible results for the > latter) and only noticed the difference between the two views after getting a > Kodachrome IT8 target and calibrating it. I get much better scans of Kodachrome > now but then I started noticing the difference between preview and full scan. I > was going to drop Ed Hamrick an email about it but I've been very busy and I > want to be sure that it's not something I'm doing wrong first.
Ouch! Kodachrome has always been a problem with anything but the 9000... You might get better results with it with Nikonscan: I don't think vuescan is aware of all the corrections Nikon added to the latest firmware and software to allow use of Ice with most 'chromes as well as fixing the annoying cyan colour cast.
Having said that, I'd definitely recommend you get in touch with Ed: my experience with him has been always excellent with quick and concise replies. He doesn't mess around: if something can't be done with vuescan, he'll spell it out clearly. Saves heaps of time!
Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Alan Wrigley wrote,on my timestamp of 21/12/2009 8:24 PM:
> > I've never tried scanning negative film. I used it for some months scanning > > mostly Ektachromes and some Kodachromes (with pretty horrible results for the > > latter) and only noticed the difference between the two views after getting a > > Kodachrome IT8 target and calibrating it. I get much better scans of Kodachrome > > now but then I started noticing the difference between preview and full scan. I > > was going to drop Ed Hamrick an email about it but I've been very busy and I > > want to be sure that it's not something I'm doing wrong first.
> Ouch! Kodachrome has always been a problem with anything but the 9000...
In a word, money...
> You might get better results with it with Nikonscan: I don't think vuescan is > aware of all the corrections Nikon added to the latest firmware and software > to allow use of Ice with most 'chromes as well as fixing the annoying cyan > colour cast.
Are you saying that ICE can be used on Kodachromes with the 5000 with the right upgrades? I thought it was only the 9000 that could do that. Also I don't think you can calibrate NikonScan with an IT8 target, can you? I've been getting significantly better results since I did this for VueScan. The cyan cast is still there but it's not as instrusive and it's much more easily corrected in Photoshop. Colours generally are brighter and truer than before (though greens need some serious hue adjustment to make them look natural).
You've been very helpful - thanks. Sorry I was a bit offhand with you earlier in the thread but I couldn't understand why NikonScan would use different profiles for different stages of the process.
I can't see why you should worry about the color quality of a preview scan. It's mainly their so you can check the area being scanned and re-size the scan area if necessary. It's the final scan where color quality is important since that's the image your going to edit and eventually print, not the preview.
pip22 <pip22.43j...@no.email.invalid> wrote: > It's the final scan where color quality is important since that's the > image your going to edit and eventually print, not the preview.
If a preview just did a raw scan then you would have a point. But since it provides colour controls then it's reasonable to expect the preview to be exactly what it says on the tin. I don't want to wait several minutes to find out the the scan I've just done looks nothing like the preview image that I carefully set up before scanning.
Alan Wrigley wrote,on my timestamp of 22/12/2009 12:23 AM:
>> Ouch! Kodachrome has always been a problem with anything but the 9000...
> In a word, money...
Aye, very true! I'm glad I got the 9000 a few years ago when it was easier to find and slightly less expensive. It still cost me a small fortune though...
> Are you saying that ICE can be used on Kodachromes with the 5000 with the right > upgrades? I thought it was only the 9000 that could do that.
I've heard folks claim so. I use a V and a 9000, so I can't really claim otherwise. Most of my Kodachrome so far has been on the 9000, I use a V for colour negative and Astia almost exclusively. But Nikonscan preserves the "Kodachrome" option even with the V, although I use the 9000 for most of my Ks.
> Also I don't think > you can calibrate NikonScan with an IT8 target, can you? I've been getting > significantly better results since I did this for VueScan. The cyan cast is > still there but it's not as instrusive and it's much more easily corrected in > Photoshop. Colours generally are brighter and truer than before (though greens > need some serious hue adjustment to make them look natural).
Indeed. I must admit I haven't had problems with K when using the "Kodachrome" setting in Nikonscan. I'm not sure it applies a specific IT8-based set of curves, but it definitely does get rid of the color casts at scan time.
In all likelyhood Nikon is applying a specific colour balance correction even though in typical fashion they call it their own name instead of using the same term everyone else uses! :)
Someone a while ago in another newsgroup mentioned that Kodachrome varies in colour balance along the years with the earlier emulsions being harder to scan than the latest ones. I must admit I never hit this but then again, my earliest K is from late 50s so I can't claim to go all the way back.
> You've been very helpful - thanks. Sorry I was a bit offhand with you earlier in > the thread but I couldn't understand why NikonScan would use different profiles > for different stages of the process.
No problem, that's what we're all here to do: learn more.
>> It's the final scan where color quality is important since that's the >> image your going to edit and eventually print, not the preview.
> If a preview just did a raw scan then you would have a point. But since it > provides colour controls then it's reasonable to expect the preview to be > exactly what it says on the tin. I don't want to wait several minutes to find > out the the scan I've just done looks nothing like the preview image that I > carefully set up before scanning.
As well, I find it useful with Nikonscan to do most colour corrections at scan time. This I do by balancing the colour amplifiers first and then applying curves as necessary. Mostly because I don't have a 16-bit photo editor and Nikonscan works in 16-bit where these things are a lot safer to do. I only use Gimp in the final stages for minor final corrections and cropping/cleanup, whenever that is the case. This is where a reliable preview at scan time becomes very important.
|
