Color differences in Nikon Scan

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan
  • Start date Start date
I

Ivan

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


What about your color management?

Do you have the same color management for your Monitor, scanner and printer
using the same color space?

A lot of people use the sRGB color profile.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
Ivan wrote,on my timestamp of 19/12/2009 2:37 AM:

You have to turn on color management in Nikonscan and chose and install one of
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Alan Wrigley wrote,on my timestamp of 19/12/2009 8:20 PM:
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?
Click to expand...

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 said:
Alan Wrigley wrote,on my timestamp of 19/12/2009 8:20 PM:


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.
Click to expand...

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?

Alan
 
I said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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,on my timestamp of 20/12/2009 12:25 AM:
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.
Click to expand...


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 said:
Alan Wrigley wrote,on my timestamp of 20/12/2009 12:25 AM:
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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).

Alan
 
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 differencein
colour balance between preview and scan (but not on every scan which is the
puzzling bit).
Click to expand...

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 said:
Very interesting. Vuescan should be a little bit more "solid" in that
department. Are you on the latest version?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
Alan Wrigley wrote,on my timestamp of 21/12/2009 8:24 PM:


Ouch! Kodachrome has always been a problem with anything but the 9000...
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.

Alan
 
pip22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Alan Wrigley wrote,on my timestamp of 22/12/2009 12:23 AM:
In a word, money...
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

No problem, that's what we're all here to do: learn more.
 
Alan Wrigley wrote,on my timestamp of 22/12/2009 2:48 AM:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Back
Top