Configuration->Thumbnail Cropping Area-> Large

I'm thinking this is a feature for users who want to scan full frame, i.e. don't want the software to automatically crop to the image area. In other words, not a bug, functions as designed. Check the manual.

If a shot is correctly exposed and average, e.g. no bright lights and deep shadows, the scanner in quite a few times will produce a nice jpg without any "auto color" histograms or work in PS.

If you get a scan that needs zero adjustments, it is a fluke. I would expect adjustments are necessary even if your monitor and scanner are calibrated.
Auto corrections anywhere in the workflow may get you closer but will almost always need tweaking. All scans are going to benefit from some sharpening anyway, so might as well just make most of your adjustments in Photoshop. That said, if you are happy with your scans, you have no
worries. :D




***so there was a hidden assumption ... nowhere do you say you moved OS which is 100% a critical factor.
its always easier to give help with more information than "I've got a problem"**

erm no I didn't change the OS but at a last resort tried the scanner on my 2nd computer and did say in #16:- "Oh well, I can move the scanner to my second computer and try that or re-install the software...if I find out what was the problem will post.......Thanks all for your interest".

***(said in case you ever ask anything again ... our time is given freely based on our interest in helping fellow travellers ... we don't get paid and we don't have to do it)***

Well if someone with a V750 had selected "large thumbnails" they could have solved the problem after #1, maybe you get the same result with the 4990 and so on, going back....... :-)

***I recommend you do yourself a favour and at least ONCE try scanning the entire plattern and looking around. Try doing it as positive not negative and see what you get ... the results will be educational I'm sure.***

Well tried scanning as a positive neg and inverting, cropping a scanned plattern and so on, but why do you hate thumbnails?

If a shot is correctly exposed and average, e.g. no bright lights and deep shadows, the scanner in quite a few times will produce a nice jpg without any "auto color" histograms or work in PS.
Ok if what I have just written is rubbish and not the pro's way, then what is wrong in selecting crop on the thumbnail, then applying as per link for the histogram colours, then final scan, then finally adjust in PS?
What I didn't understand in the link was:- cropping in the plattern view, adjusting histogram and so on, then the link say use "auto color" in PS if required, well wouldn't that ruin all the work done with histograms etc?

***That said, if you are happy with your scans, you have no worries.***

Well yes you should be pleased in a hobby, but it's a bonus if other people like my scans as well and not a case of "the emperors clothes"

Hi


***so there was a hidden assumption ... nowhere do you say you moved OS which is 100% a critical factor.
its always easier to give help with more information than "I've got a problem"**

erm no I didn't change the OS but at a last resort tried the scanner on my 2nd computer and did say in #16:- "Oh well, I can move the scanner to


it would be nice if you could click on the quote button rather than insert these *** things which are real hard to follow

also, its been rather an uphill fight asking for information to help you with your questions ...



***I recommend you do yourself a favour and at least ONCE try scanning the entire plattern and looking around. Try doing it as positive not negative and see what you get ... the results will be educational I'm sure.***

Well tried scanning as a positive neg and inverting, cropping a scanned plattern and so on, but why do you hate thumbnails?


without going back and reading all of what I wrote I thought I'd said that it has to do with the machine cropping (if you don't understand what this means please ask)

also they do not work reliably (as your finding) in all cases (expecially dark frames) especially when scanning negative as positive (which I routinely do)




If a shot is correctly exposed and average, e.g. no bright lights and deep shadows, the scanner in quite a few times will produce a nice jpg without any "auto color" histograms or work in PS.


that is quite an incorrect assumption about "correct exposure"

not every scene will fit into that desciption. Further negative responds quite differently to slide with density ... how dark something is and how clear something is




Ok if what I have just written is rubbish and not the pro's way, then what is wrong in selecting crop on the thumbnail, then applying as per link for the histogram colours, then final scan, then finally adjust in PS?
What I didn't understand in the link was:- cropping in the plattern view, adjusting histogram and so on, then the link say use "auto color" in PS if required, well wouldn't that ruin all the work done with histograms etc?

if you say so

Dear excalibur2

I realize that I have brough my own assumptions to the table, that is; that you were interested in learning and understanding about what it was that you did, and that you were wanting to develop your skills.

that was wrong of me.

Initially you asked if something was a sign of a problem and after some time we get to the bottom of it and find that it was not.

To answer clearly your initial question (knowing what I know now) I do not believe that there is any problem with your scanner and that what you are seeing is not a sign of further issues. Rest at ease.

I'm sorry to have made assumptions that you were trying to learn the things which I think are important.

since you say:


Well yes you should be pleased in a hobby, but it's a bonus if other people like my scans as well and not a case of "the emperors clothes"

I will add that if you're happy with the look then that's all that matters.

If you are interested in the answers to any of the other questions you have raised in this thread please by all means ask them again and as I have time I will try to answer them.

excalibur2

I had a moment, so I thought I would load some of your images and point out a few things ...


Firstly the stuff that you are seeing after the black border here is most likely the edge of the "black thing which holds the film"

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/4168895626_322d03bfac_o.jpg

its appearance here is of no consequence, but simply suggests that the software is making a mistake in judging where the edges are ... this is why many people (usually experienced people who are particular about things) don't like using the thumbnails view.

In this segment you can see both the edge of the area of film exposed by the camera (not all of it gets light on it) and also the film edge

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2691/4168133273_a45d3410c0_o.jpg

A is an area of reflection (probably from the back of the film holder)
B is the edge of the negative
C is the edge of exposure on the film

I had said that I did not expect to see that edge B because normally it is not visible. To see it means to me the strip of film was short and did not fill the holder (which is also a mask to cover up the sprocket holes)

Now I normally like to understand what I'm doing, but I realise that others (probably the vast majority of others) have no such interest.

Below is a segment of 35mm negative film. It was scanned by simply laying it on the glass and scanning as positive

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2620/4168151537_137e566ce7_o.jpg

From this you can see the areas of the film which the camera has exposed and the areas which are left between during film advance. These are important to see (if you want to do things well) as this is your film base. This represents the least dense (thinnest) area of your image and sets your lowest level of image ... you will notice that this is substantially darker than nothing ... meaning that even with NO LIGHT reaching the film, the scanner will see quite some density.

Unlike slide film the area with no exposure is "clear" (discounting the base density shown above) and the area with brightness is darkest (also called densest)

Now "proper" exposure is getting useful amounts of your image between these two regions.

For example this represents what you will see looking at the histograms of:
-fully exposed negative
-totally unexposed negative
-well exposed image

all overlaid and made clear.

http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/photography/film/usefullRange.gif

You want to get the subject you are exposing within that .. preferably in the middle of it where its linear in responce

You may wish to read this page (http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/photography/film/digiExposure.html) of mine. Sure its main thrust is about using a digital camera to determine exposure, but I'm sure there are some good points in there for understanding what exposure is, and how it relates to what is on film and what can be scanned from it. I say this because your previous description of exposure led me to believe you have some areas of unclarity. Perhaps this will help, as I believe that you can't understand exposure with film untill you understand the relationship between light in and the density obtained.


you can learn lots from looking at film this way and you can learn more about your scanning (and get better results) by using your scanner in positive at all times and doing things post processing later. you will never get to know about this using the 'negative' setting and thumbnails.

Thank you very much for your help Pellicle and others, I'll have to spend some time digesting that link...and I could have been scanning for about a year and never got the best from my negs. Well I've already implemented the three colour histogram adjustment (from link) and made sure its 0-255, so that should be a good start.

regards

Below is a segment of 35mm negative film. It was scanned by simply laying it on the glass and scanning as positive

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2620/4168151537_137e566ce7_o.jpg



Hmmm, notched film. I've not seen any of that in years. :)

Don

Hi Don


Hmmm, notched film. I've not seen any of that in years. :)


well spotted

the joys of scanners ... you can see the old again as new (because its digital)