Scanner Nikon 8000, scan at 8 or 14 bit?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by nobody nowhere, Jul 24, 2003.

  1. Is it better to scan at 14 bit, rather than 8 bit?

    Is it better to do sharpening, curves etc. at the scanning stage, or
    afterwards, in Photoshop 7?

    Only informed comments from people with experience of the Nikon 8000
    please. Thanks in advance.

    nobody nowhere, Jul 24, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Thank you very much indeed. On the 14 bit part you seem to disagree with
    another reply to my post, and might have to "cross swards" -in the
    nicest possible way, of course- with him! Wayne Fulton, (who published
    "A few scanning tips") seem to incline in favour of 14 bit (if I
    understood him correctly). I shall go for 14 bit, at least for the
    moment. The other poster suggested that I should adjust exposure etc.,
    surely the Nikon 8000 does this automatically (after what I paid for it
    it is the least it could do for me), or is it not the case? Thanks

    nobody nowhere, Jul 24, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Thank you. On the exposure controls, surely a Nikon 8000 would do all
    this for me automatically, or would it be better to do it manually?

    nobody nowhere, Jul 24, 2003
  4. Why not simply experiment a bit. Try some well exposed slides or negative
    in all possible combinations (manual/automatic exposure, 8 or 16 bit output,
    GEM, ROC, fine or normal ICE. Analog gain, manual focus, etc.)

    Repeat the experiment with poorly exposed material.

    I don't trust NikonScan and I postprocess in PhotoShop anyhow, so for me it
    is 16-bit/ch, manual exposure control.

    Philip Homburg
    Philip Homburg, Jul 24, 2003
  5. David, you were right about the 120 holder with glass for the Nikon
    8000, I could not do without it, in particular single 6 x 6s, which seem
    to have a natural inclination to form a nice curve, which confuses the
    auto-focus. On exposure, what I do is simply look to look, and if the
    exposure does not seem quite right, I adjust it at the scanning stage
    the best I can.

    nobody nowhere, Jul 24, 2003
  6. Thank you. To my credit, or in my defence :) I do this already
    instinctively, which is due mainly to the Nikon 8000, who makes this so

    nobody nowhere, Jul 24, 2003
  7. nobody nowhere

    Rafe B. Guest

    When I first got the scanner I was very impressed at its
    ability to auto-expose negatives.

    But after a while I realized (or perhaps came to accept)
    that it was doing something wrong. Specifically, with
    negatives, the histogram tends to "bunch up" at the
    low end (shadow region) and typically has no content
    to speak of below around 30.

    I lived with that for quite some time, and had what I
    considered a good and simple workaround, but was
    then shown a better but more complicated workaround:
    specifically, scan the negative as a postive and
    invert it within NikonScan.

    Anyway, when I use the latter approach, I find I need
    to mess with the exposure controls. This was not
    the case when I was scanning negs as negs and
    letting NS do the exposure for me.

    With my older film scanners (Polaroid, Microtek)
    the exposure controls were critical.

    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Jul 25, 2003
  8. Thank you very much, this is very helpful. I take it that all your
    corrections, sharpening etc. are done in Photoshop, presumably, 7. I too
    use a light table before scanning. I am still learning how to use
    curves, but so far without much success, levels seem easier, although it
    seems clear that curves is worth learning, because it might be a better
    tool. You must have a lot of RAM to do all these things. I already
    have 768MB RAm, which is not sufficient to handle a 6 x 6 or 6 x 9
    slide, it is like watching paint dry. Two more questions, if I may: the
    scanner seems to be on practically the whole day, presumably this is a
    bad policy, should I make sure that it is switched off whenever it is
    not in actual use? Secondly, my printer is Epson 1290, and am happy with
    it, but our Bill and others keep pointing out to the archival qualities
    of the 2200, and I wander whether my pictures will fade within two
    years. Are you happy with your 2200 (apart from the increased costs)?
    nobody nowhere, Jul 25, 2003
  9. nobody nowhere

    Rafe B. Guest

    Consider that this scanner - LS-8000 - most likely costs far
    more than the computer it's attached to.

    Memory costs peanuts these days and if you have a 4000
    dpi medium format film scanner, it's foolish to not buy
    a LOT of memory. Similarly for processing power. CPUs
    are topping out at around 3 GHz these days, so a CPU
    of half that (say 1.6GHz) is extremely reasonable in cost.

    Print longevity? Personally I don't sweat it too much. Make
    sure your scans and Photoshop edits are well preserved
    and archived. Five, ten or fifty years from now (with luck)
    you'll be able to reprint your images on whatever the
    latest and greatest printing technology is at the time.

    The 2200 serie is a fine printer, but pigment inks have their
    own set of issues. Conventional dye inks are much easier
    to deal with and generally give more pleasing prints.

    rafe b
    Rafe B., Jul 25, 2003
  10. SNIP
    Scanning as a negative increases the exposure time for green and blue, which
    improves signal to noise ratios for those channels. It also makes correcting
    out the base+mask color more accurate and easy. Since that leads to correct
    shadow colors, color balancing becomes much easier.

    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 25, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.