Welp ... finally reach my weekend (woohoo...3 days for freedom from work) and decided to really start seeing what the scanner can do (or rather, if I can learn to control the scanning so it does what I think it is capable of doing). Huh? I'm sure that makes sense somewhere. :) Anyway, I was going to keep working on the "Fire Dancer" photo and upload the final when it was done, but I thought it might be a better learning experience (especially for me) if I sort of posted as I went along. You'll have to excuse the different sizes/croppings as I go..I tend to see things differently as I work on them so the format changes slightly. I'd be very interested to hear from you guys if you think a step I've taken has started to go wrong or just not in a good direction. Who knows, maybe when it's all done we'll have our own "How to scan negatives with a film scanner" type tutorial that is more specific to the way the guys/gals on here think. -=>Donald

Ok...here is the first scan. Done moments after the scanner was up and running without me opening the manual to see what the heck I was doing. :) Amazingly, it's far better than anything I could have done with the print. -=>Donald

Ok...here, I'm begun to apply what I know about film with a little reading of the manual. Used multiple scanning passes to pull more detail out of the negative. Gives it a much smoother look too me. However, background grain/noise looks to have increased (especially in the black background). That is where I am headed next, trying to reduce that noise and give a smoother background. -=>Donald

Sigh..."I'm begun" and to think, English is my first language. "I've begun..." -=>Donald

Ok...little more work in noise reduction. Slightly different crop...doing without borders. Wonder if I can find the happy medium between noise reduction, image detail and image brightness. -=>Donald

hmm... this is from a negative? Need to know the whole process! I'm guessing you are scanning with some sort of "negative" mode in the scanner? I'd not be concerned about "noise" yet. The scanning software, likely has a way to adjust "white point" and "blackpoint"? This may be automatic, or it may have little eyedropper thingies. Perhaps it displays a histogram of levels? Basically what you want to do initially is adjust the black point and white point to get as many different levels as possible, without them bunching up at completely white or completely black. [Don't be TOO concerned if the raw scan looks bad; as long as you catch as many different levels as possible you can adjust things in photoshop.] We'll then think about using "curves." [Multiple pass scanning to reduce CCD noise will be one of the last things you want to do. BTW, this type of noise shows up in the darkest areas scanned, not the lightest. So, if you are scanning a negative, this would be noise in the fire, not in the shadows!. Lets' get the blackpoint and whitepoint set first...]

Misha - Scanned using Minolta Dimage Scan Speed film scanner. Brought raw scan into Photoshop for all work. Black and white points were set. Histogram of raw scan data shows ok distribution in highlights and shadows. Not too much in mids, but not missing data there either (probably to be expected because of the faintness of the image). Didn't have to pull highs and lows in too much (went manually as I don't often agree with where the auto settings move things). Slight adjustment of gamma slider under levels to bring a bit more of the mids out as well as a some slight movement in midtones under curves. Maybe I misunderstand the proper setting of the black/white points. What do you look for? I would say that much of the "noise" in this image is not due to CCD scanner noise. This was a shot taken at night from around 15-20 feet away using Ilfrod Delta 3200 pushed to EI 6400 with the only light falling on her being the flames she has at the ends of her claws. That in itself is going to put a fair amount of grain/noise into my image. Multiple scan passes was to pull more out of face and clothing. -=>Donald

watching and learning . I played with your photo some. The fire part is well defined and almost crystal clear , but how much of the back ground and girl are you hopeing to get out of it ? I really like her facial experession and the way she is looking at you and it would be nice to see more of the claw thingys but i couldnt get much definition out of them . Sorry if i jumped to far ahead .

Tas - no apologies necessary whatsoever! It's all a learning process and I will happily take any help I can get. Really, I like the way she is almost entirely in shadow. I think it works with the mood of this photo. I really don't want any of the background and I probably have as much of her as I'm going to get, but again I think it works with this photo. I think from this point on I'll be concentrating on getting the grain right about where it is in the last photo (maybe a little less in the black background) while pulling the midtones up just a bit in her face. I may just settle for brighting her right eye (our left) just a bit more. Any thoughts out there? As for the facial expression and looking at me. That's what surprised me. There is really no way she could see me, from her vantage point I had to be in complete darkness (I had a concrete bridge pylon at my back so not even a silhoutte). I zoomed in on her while she was dancing and anticipated she'd freeze for an instant (along with the music). Imagine my happiness when she did and turned her head looking in my direction, almost staring down my lens. Even though my exposure was a little off the fact that the Ilford Delta 3200 actually got this shot as crisp as it did is one of the reasons it became my film of choice for night street photography. -=>Donald

I think you are on the right track, but not exactly sure. Are you setting the white and black points with the scanner software, or afterwords using photoshop "Levels"? By "raw" scan, are you bringing 8 bits/channel into photoshop, or are you bringing in the full (12 bits/channel?) of your scanner? If the noise (graininess, whatever) is present on the negative, multiple scanner passes likely will not help. [Now we are back to the topic of "grain aliasing," and indeed there may be some theoretical benefit to multiple passes, but that is beyond a short answer.] #5 above looks quite nice BTW.

Misha - I really appreciate your comments and help with this. Thank you. :) I do almost everything, including setting black and white points in Photoshop. Actually, that was a question I had and forgot to ask yesterday when I responded to you. Is there a difference between doing it in the scanner and in PS afterwards? By "raw" scan, I mean 12 bits/pixel (so it's 16bits/channel in Photoshop). I actually tried out that program that someone mentioned here last week or so, Neat Image. That thing is incredible. Works extremely well. Think I'm gonna have to shell out the $59 for the Pro version of that (would get the Home version, but it doesn't have 16bit image support). -=>Donald

OK. Most likely if you are importing the full 12 bits/channel into photoshop, and doing the level adjustments while still in 16 bit/channel mode, you are doing the correct thing. This should be more or less equivalent to setting the points in the scanner. [Some folks scan, import 8 bits/channel, and then adjust levels; this can greatly increase the quantization noise.] Sounds like your method should work well. It sounds like you perhaps heve two additional issues: The image dynamic range is very high. You may need to try a technique where you mask off the flames and the dancer separately, and apply different level settings to each. If you are lucky, you may be able to do this in photoshop from your single raw scan. If not so lucky, you may need to make two scans, this time using the scanner white/black adjustments. One scan for the dancer, (the flames will look crappy. And one scan for the flames, (the dancer will look crappy. The second issue appears that with areas of the negative being somewhat underexposed the grain may be emphasized more than usual. I don't remember from your original post, but was this using conventional B&W film, or was it using the C-41 process B&W stuff? The C-41 stuff does get considerably more grainy if underexposed. I suspect, once you get all your level adjusted, you can then convert to 8 bit/channel mode, and use the Home version...

Misha - It's from conventional b&w (hand processed at a lab). Those are great suggestions above. From what I have been trying and what you are saying, I think I am getting a handle on this image. Can't wait to experiment with it some more later tonight. Thank you! -=>Donald