As of PL 5.2, when I open a scan of a 35mm transparency done with my Nikon Coolscan V ED, in the 'Color Rendering section, the ‘Rendering’ is shown as:
DxO camera profile (Nikon COOLSCAN V ED)
That implies PL supports this scanner. Yet I can see no difference in the displayed image when I toggle the ‘Color Rendering’ section on and off, even when viewing at 1:1. Further, the scan being a TIFF, in the Details pane there is no ‘Lens sharpness’ section so I can’t manually apply any corrections that are implied as being available.
Please can anyone ( @Marie? @sgospodarenko? ) explain why PL appears to support this scanner yet doesn’t actually do anything to the image?
Perhaps I need to rescan an image and save it in the scanner’s RAW format? I will try that but I know form previous experience that the format of such files is NOT in the regular Nikon NEF format. It is a ‘unique to the Coolscan’ format and can only be interpreted by the scanner. I’ve mentioned this before: https://forum.dxo.com/t/black-and-white-photography/17293/31
Edited to add: Also, there is no COOLSCAN entry in the list of available DxO Optics Modules.
Well, you see the scan name because the application reads this data from the image but it does not mean you have the module for it. “Lens sharpness” appears only when an appropriate module is downloaded which is not the case here. You can use “Unsharp Mask” for the images with non-available modules.
Nope, it does not help. We do not provide scanners with the modules.
Maybe you can give vuescan by ed Hamrick a chance, because it supports the Nikon scanner with Raw format and produces all TIFF/DNG and so on. But I’m not sure if DXO kann read the DNG. There is a trial, take a look at https://www.hamrick.com
I know of Vuescan but I’ve never tried it. I might give the trial a go but as I can already produce a TIFF that PL can read using the scanner’s native Nikon Scan 4 software**, which is free, I’m not sure that it will be of much benefit to me, certainly not to my wallet
As I said, I know of Vuescan but see no benefit is spending money when I can just as easily get a TIFF from the native CoolScan software, which despite it being ancient, works just fine on my Win 10 machine.
Those links don’t work, they say:
“Oops! That page doesn’t exist or is private.”
So unless I misunderstand, because I don’t have LR, there is no advantage in buying Vuescan since like the native CoolScan software the only output from it that is PL compatible is a TIFF. However, if I did have LR I could try Vuescan’s DNG output and that may / may not be ‘better’.
Thanks again but I’m not convinced I need Vuescan.
The “raw”-output from VueScan is saved as DNG and not usable in PL – only when saved as TIFF. So, stay with what you have / are used to.
[ To ‘copy’ colour slides, I use my cam and save them as true RAW, which then allows easier colour corrections. Otherwise there is no advantage over a TIFF. ]
When I moved from my PPC MAC to the Intel Mac there was no Nikon Cool Scan Sw for the Intel MAC. The responce from the Nikon Professional User Support was that they recommended VueScan. The Nikon Scan SW is not supported ny Nikon and hasn’t been for some years. Nikon recommends VueScan. The single payment gets you use on 4 computers and a lifetime of updates.
The olther problem is Nikon never moved to 64bit for their SW the Nikon Scan is only 32bit and may not run on all 64bit systems.
I use vuescan since 2004 where I’v bought my CoolscanV, and used it also with an old Microtek flatbed scanner.
At the moment I use vuescan, without any cost since 2004 with my Epson BX635 and my Plustek OpticFilm.
Other advantages are the OCR part, which I don’t use very often but it works, and other functions like multipass scans, colour restoration, ICE dust removal if the scanner supports this, pDF Export and so on.
I would suggest to test it and check what functions are important for you. The Hamricks have a really great product that deserves support in buying a license
I admire your persistence and strong advocacy of Vuescan but I remain unconvinced that I need to spend money when the no-cost software that I already have does the job for me.
Meanwhile back at the original point of this topic, the second post in this thread by Svetlana fully answered my question.
