About to give up on scanning

Right - I'm starting by having another go at this frame. The preview scan is very flat and green-tinted; it gives me this histogram:
2vcaopc.jpg


I went into each colour channel and did this, changing both the input and output values:
es95hg.jpg


It left me with a preview image that looked a little less flat, and more or less with no overall colour tint. I was under the impression that this should give me the greatest tonal range in my output file..?

Fiddling with the gamma at this point seems to exchange low contrast - more shadow detail - more granularity in shadows (especially in those suits) for higher contrast - less shadow detail - smoother tones.

Anyway, as a first experiment I'm scanning at Epson Scan's recommended values. Nothing else changed. I've had to then correct the colour cast in Gimp, and get something like this:
2yopa84.jpg


Which is an improvement, at least. More to come.
 
OK, this is Epson default settings but loaded as a 48 bit TIFF into RawTherapee and fiddled about with in there. My gods, that is not easy to use (by which I mean, it doesn't look like the Gimp):

2it4qrd.jpg
 
It's pretty easy to get a very respectable image from either of the last two posted with a minutes worth of post processing.

V
 
:: Mark said:
Which software are you using for the scanning?

I have been very pleased with the scan quality (35mm film) from my Epson, but the dust is completely off the scale with the new V800 perspex backed holders. Enabling ICE in either Epson Scan or Vuescan seems to miss most of the debris - and what it does not miss is turned in to a horrible smear. I usually end up tediously fixing things in PS.

For me, I tend to use Epson Scan with JPEG output and the highest possible resolution. This gives a reasonable file size and the over sampling helps compensate for the bit depth. Scanning 16 bit TIFF at a lower resolution gives more scope for editing, but I find that unless the original is badly exposed the difference is trivial (whereas the file size is not!).

-- Mark
Click to expand...

I only use Epson Scan now, the version that came with the V500. I tried Vuescan and was never happy with the results, they always appeared softer and less detailed than what Epson Scan gives me. I dont know, maybe I am just lucky with ICE but it seems to work great with my scans. Dust is not a huge problem for me to begin with, but ICE is great...not perfect but really effective. I scan as a tiff and then go to PS from there, but really what I do in PS is very minimal. Usually some added contrast, maybe a touch of sharpening, that is really it. If I have made a poor exposure I might try to save it but usually not.
 
OP, you would think 6x6 would shine.

35mm flatbed scanned film = about 3 or 4 mp with a P&S.

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

Some of my 6x6 scans are here. I don't have any 6x6 color left. They were was all lost in a flood. All I have is my early BW work. The square pix are done with a SWC. Nikon F and Leica M3 for the 35mm.

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/meet-on-the-street-shoot-at-the-home/

Yes, that old RD1 can still produce.

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/03/15/carla-and-babydoll-by-daniel-d-teoli-jr-2012/
 
+1 on Johan's comments. Lots of good points.

I particularly am a fan of lower E.I. numbers. It seems the higher the ISO, the more the manufacturers exaggerate. Whether scanned or printed, negative films, both color and black and white, do poorly when thin.

Tri-X at 250 is about right.
Kodak 3200 at 1600 is about right.
To me, almost all negative films will be underexposed at manufacturers' rating.
 
jamiewakeham said:
OK, this is Epson default settings but loaded as a 48 bit TIFF into RawTherapee and fiddled about with in there. My gods, that is not easy to use (by which I mean, it doesn't look like the Gimp):
Click to expand...

I think you should continue that path.

Scan at 48bit to TIFF (which will result in a 16bit image).

Don't use GIMP, because, as I mentioned earlier, it will convert to 8bit, and any changes will result in lost image data. If you don't believe me... look online, there are many tutorials out there explaining the difference between 16bit and 8bit, and why 16bit is better.

Open the TIFF in RawTherapee and play around. RawTherapee is a non-destructive editor, which means any changes that you make will not be written to the image. Only your settings will be saved and applied when you open the image in RawTherapee again. E.g., if you apply more contrast, you will see the results, but only the contrast setting is saved (in a .pp3 file). If you want to "get the image out", you have to export it (I believe you just do Ctrl + S for that).

When you are editing in RawTherapee, look at your histogram. You should normally never have empty spaces to the left and right of the histogram; using for example the "Exposure compensation" and "Black" slider on the top in the first module, you can fix the histogram until it is evenly spread. Then play with the Contrast, Lightness etc. Also very interesting is the "CIE Color Appearance Model 2002". After you check that, you can play with all the sliders there...

I think most people learn by just playing around, and maybe by learning a bit about what the actual modules/sliders do on the website (RawTherapee has quite a few tutorials online).

I am sure you will quickly find your favorite settings, and get results quickly. For a free RAW editor, RawTherapee has quite a lot to offer ;)
 
crsantin said:
I only use Epson Scan now, the version that came with the V500. I tried Vuescan and was never happy with the results, they always appeared softer and less detailed than what Epson Scan gives me. I dont know, maybe I am just lucky with ICE but it seems to work great with my scans. Dust is not a huge problem for me to begin with, but ICE is great...not perfect but really effective. I scan as a tiff and then go to PS from there, but really what I do in PS is very minimal. Usually some added contrast, maybe a touch of sharpening, that is really it. If I have made a poor exposure I might try to save it but usually not.
Click to expand...


I too use the Epson software which came with the V500.
This thread has been very useful .
 
Thanks, all.

Colton - I'd read your method, and it was pretty much next on my list to try! I'll give it a go.

I have to admit, though, that I'm just not enjoying this. Now I have an M8 I'm not really shooting any 35mm any more, and the scanner is mostly for my MF. The idea of selling the MF rig and scanner and bying a Pentax DSLR that will play nicely with my old M42 glass is tempting, having seen just how cheap something like a used K5 can be had.

Dunno. I'm still sure I will lose something in the exchange, not least the handling of a big waist-level finder SLR. But this is supposed to be fun, and maybe all-digital is the way I might get back to that.
 
An 8-bit image editor? Lose Gimp. Yeah, it's cheap. Now you know why.

Forget ICE for now. That's to help your workflow by reducing the need for spotting, but at the cost of slightly reducing image quality. You don't need that loss until you've got everything else sorted.

A commercial scan might provide a wonderfully enlightening reference point vis-a-vis what is possible with a scan. But only if the shop is using high-end equipment and an operator who knows what s/he is doing. You'll get a hint by the price. If it's really cheap, they may be using much the same equipment/workflow as you. If it's really expensive they're probably doing it right. If it's somewhere in the middle... well, it's anyone's guess. Getting one image, done once, by a good shop, is probably worth it simply for the education.

Good scans are not hard. They are, in fact, quite straightforward. But they require good equipment and knowledgeable technique.

The biggest challenge with consumer flatbed scanners is their difficulty in achieving good focus. Manufacturing tolerances and relatively simple technology mean that, while all units in a scanner production run might be "in spec," there will nevertheless be great variation. Some focus really crappy. Some focus really well. And a bunch focus moderately okay. And no way for a potential purchaser to know in advance what they're getting.

Film scanning today is an anguish. Fiddly film holders. Slow, time-intensive process. Dust spotting hell. Lack of equipment choice. A couple choices on the low end. A couple of choices on the high end. Not much otherwise. And no R&D to speak of by manufacturers.

Still, for those of us who still shoot film, it's usually a necessity. There is a solution, a place where it all comes together, where most the misery associated with scanning falls away. But that's another question altogether!

Good luck getting your scans sorted. A good scan of a good medium format negative will rock your world.
 
I end up with this.
Click to expand...
I've had very similar results with a flatbed scanner and I'm sure that in many instances it was not an issue of underexposure. In any case, I've given up after having found a boutique studio which does the scanning at a small cost.
 
I agree with Ned. Let the camera do the scanning.
I take a few rolls of film each year - but only for fun and not very often.
I develop and scan C41 myself but I prefer not to go through the work flow very often.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
It looks like your film was underexposed. Scanning is not at fault here. Color Negative film gets grainy and muddy when underexposed even a little bit.
Click to expand...

Well Chris was ahead of me. Underexposed. Lack of detail in the darks and grainy are the keys.

Since people no longer have darkrooms, these conclusions are hard.

I would suggest a roll devoted to an expose test at half stop intervals.

You can also set the scanner to have the dark blue uniform well above the black point. If this does not fix, there is an exposure problem, meter , or shutter, or technique. Metering is almost always done best with an incident meter or meter the palm of your hand and add one stop.
 
jtullar said:
This is a great method to scan color film. It requires some investment in software though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pfQ61WTbug
Click to expand...

Yes.

My method is very similar. There are a few points that I disagree on though, or do different:

-> I don't think that locking down the film exposure really helps much. I haven't seen any significant improvements.
-> In the video Michael edits the original, "because I can always rescan the film...". I strongly disagree. Keep your original RAW scan, edit a copy, because no matter how well you store your negatives/positives, they will show some kind of deterioration when you rescan them.
-> I don't do any image editing in ColorPerfect, I only use it to do the conversion. I find the interface far from user-friendly. The ColorPerfect plugin also works with PhotoLine, which is a great alternative to Photoshop if you are on a budget.
-> At the final stage, I use LightZone. Fantastic program that costs nothing, runs on Windows, Mac, Linux. Especially great for sharpening, as you can do selective sharpening based on color and luminosity with just a couple of clicks. No more grainy sky from sharpening. It also has other neat and easy to use editing modules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom