Kozhe
Well-known
Hi everybody,
so I got this old scanner from my father who bought it for general use and is not using it anymore, and besides its quality it´s my current only option to scan film if I don´t want the guys in the office to get fed up with me there (there´s a V200 so not too much better I guess anyway...)
I´m scanning some films I develop myself, Arista Premium 400 with Tmax 1:4, 6 minutes at 20ºC, quite standard process. If I scan the images with any post processing done I get usually something like this:
But if I keep the "auto exposure" set on as it is as default I get this:
Could you please explain me what´s happening here?? I don´t really think I did nothing wrong with the shot, neither with the process, the first image looks too gray, with not dark enough areas not to be enough processed or exposed. The second one looks quite more like what I think the negative looks like.
Is just the way this scanner works (like keep the auto exposure because it´s so terrible that you need it) or am I doing something really really bad??
This is crazy, it´s like I´m taking pictures but I have no real way to know if it´s properly done. And of course if I bring it to a "professional" lab they do some auto adjustments anyway so no way to test it that way...
Thanks!
so I got this old scanner from my father who bought it for general use and is not using it anymore, and besides its quality it´s my current only option to scan film if I don´t want the guys in the office to get fed up with me there (there´s a V200 so not too much better I guess anyway...)
I´m scanning some films I develop myself, Arista Premium 400 with Tmax 1:4, 6 minutes at 20ºC, quite standard process. If I scan the images with any post processing done I get usually something like this:
But if I keep the "auto exposure" set on as it is as default I get this:
Could you please explain me what´s happening here?? I don´t really think I did nothing wrong with the shot, neither with the process, the first image looks too gray, with not dark enough areas not to be enough processed or exposed. The second one looks quite more like what I think the negative looks like.
Is just the way this scanner works (like keep the auto exposure because it´s so terrible that you need it) or am I doing something really really bad??
This is crazy, it´s like I´m taking pictures but I have no real way to know if it´s properly done. And of course if I bring it to a "professional" lab they do some auto adjustments anyway so no way to test it that way...
Thanks!
Kozhe
Well-known
Update, I´m scanning some old films processed in a professional lab and they have the same problem as mines...
hks3sgte
Established
the 2nd one looks correct. Can you adjust the brightness? Maybe bring it down a bit?
mfogiel
Veteran
When you scan, just try not to clip the highlights (dense parts of negative), this most of the time will give you a flat looking scan, which is your starting point. Then you have to adjust the levels, curves, brightness, contrast, burn, dodge , sharpen and spot. Go on line and spend (less than) 100 USD and buy Vuescan, this will keep you rolling. So to sum up, both these scans are ok, but I prefer the first one, as I do not want anything "automatic" to be done to my photos.
Bassism
Well-known
Your first scan is what I ideally like to get out of the scanner. In that scan, you know that you haven't lost any information from the negative. From there, you need to open it up in a photo editor and adjust the curves/etc to get to a pleasing final result.
I use the same scanner, with Vuescan to scan to a raw file, which gives me a flat negative image. From there it's just a bit of photoshop work to get it where I want it. I've never been happy with allowing any scanning software to set things automatically.
I use the same scanner, with Vuescan to scan to a raw file, which gives me a flat negative image. From there it's just a bit of photoshop work to get it where I want it. I've never been happy with allowing any scanning software to set things automatically.