How do you scan color?

[Pete B]

It's not expired by any chance? It just doesn't quite look like the results I get from Portra 160. To muted, dated looking.
.

Actually, It was a bit of rib-tickling because it wasn't relevant to the issue. It's actually some in date but not ideally stored AgfaVistaPlus200. I say it's not relevant because what ever film used, the V700 can't come up with the reds, whereas the Plustek does in the above scans.
Well spotted.
Pete

 

[edge100]

It sounds like you're taking umbrage?
Pete

No. Not in the least.

My method works. It has worked on thousands of frames of Portra 160/400, Superia 400, Ektar, 400H, CineStill, and Kodak Gold. It has worked on frames featuring predominant reds, greens, and blues.

You're more than welcome to disregard it, or to disregard me. I take no offence at all.

 

[Photo_Smith]

AFAIK Kodak never said that (how it's supposed to look like) for Ektar 100 and every negative film released after that. At least not beyond descriptive terms like ultra-vivid, natural-skin-tones etc... But I would love to be proven wrong. Photo_Smith?

Kodak engineered the new Portra to sit between the saturation of the old NC and VC. The old VC was 15% higher saturation than NC.

Ektar on the other hand was given a new red dye coupler (so I'm told) one that allows for vivid reds without to much red in skin tones, dye scavengers also help.
It has also a very vivid colour more so than VC with a tilt to cyan when the colour temperature is over 6500°K all that is referenced to sea level, you'll need a warm up filter in the mountains or with snow (so I'm told)

The actual tests were done in house though, with both subjective (people) and objective standards-I really cant tell you how those went.
One thing that has been confirmed is in bright light it's vivid much more so than any negative film out there, strangely in dull light it behaves more gently-almost like Portra...

 

[edge100]

Actually, It was a bit of rib-tickling because it wasn't relevant to the issue. It's actually some in date but not ideally stored AgfaVistaPlus200. I say it's not relevant because what ever film used, the V700 can't come up with the reds, whereas the Plustek does in the above scans.
Well spotted.
Pete

But it DOES matter for the CP profile.

And once again we're back to this: the V700 is simply not a very good film scanner.

 

[Pete B]

You're more than welcome to disregard it, or to disregard me. I take no offence at all.

I don't disregard it at all. It's the workflow I've been using for a couple of years now, except I deal a little more in ColorPerfect before taking it back into Photoshop. For me, there's no new information there, but it's good that some sort of a workflow has been put into a video to save newcomers the journey I've been through. I thank you for that as will hundreds of others. Like you, I've never had a problem with the Plustek scans, but the Epson scans have caused me a lot of heartache, and only from Photo Smiths latest post have I got a possible explanation.
Pete

 

[Pete B]

But it DOES matter for the CP profile.

Well, it doesn't really. Whether you use the built in profiles or create your own using CP's powerful "Film Type" and "Sub type" tools, the result is the same regarding the reds conundrum.
Pete

 

[Wburgess]

But it DOES matter for the CP profile.

And once again we're back to this: the V700 is simply not a very good film scanner.

Remember that the CP profiles are also quite old. Film emulsions rarely stay exactly the same over the course of production.

Also, this thing is, we can clearly see good colour from photo_smiths scans, so the V series must be capable to a certain extent.

PeteB, have a look at Edge's gallery and see if maybe the Plustek would be more to your liking, along with his method. (EDIT: Actually it seems you already have the plustek, my mistake)

 

[brbo]

k scans, but the Epson scans have caused me a lot of heartache, and only from Photo Smiths latest post have I got a possible explanation.

Except that your both files ARE in the same color space (Adobe RGB). Right?

 

[Photo_Smith]

The thing is Pete if it is consistently brighter in the red you could have issues with the red gamut, the red channel or a host of other things in your workflow. You asked me to share with you my 'magic sauce' and I'm not sure what to tell you.
If you lived down the road we could spend a social hour examining your workflow from monitor profile though to scan targets-you could create your own profiles or buy a number 13 Kodak target (£15) and try to get things closer from input to output.

From what you've shown I've seen worse and some from people who consider themselves scan gurus (which I'm certainly not)

 

[Photo_Smith]

Except that your both files ARE in the same color space (Adobe RGB). Right?

The outputs may be in the same space but the devices might not, if the originator (scanner) can't record the tone it will be perceptually mapped to one it can and if the device space of the Epson is smaller its like pouring a litre in a pint glass-you're going to lose something.

 

[Wburgess]

The outputs may be in the same space but the devices might not, if the originator (scanner) can't record the tone it will be perceptually mapped to one it can and if the device space of the Epson is smaller its like pouring a litre in a pint glass-you're going to lose something.

Do you use a custom profile for your v500?

 

[Photo_Smith]

Do you use a custom profile for your v500?

Not for negatives because they don't make one. I do however use IT8 for flat artwork and slides. What I do for negatives is use the same colour standard patches I do in the darkroom, I then save defaults for different lighting conditions.

I'm not really good at scanning I'm a Lab guy....

Here's my daughter on Portra 400NC, Leica M4P and I think Vuescan...

 

[Pete B]

If you lived down the road we could spend a social hour examining your workflow from monitor profile though to scan targets-you could create your own profiles or buy a number 13 Kodak target (£15) and try to get things closer from input to output.

I might well take you up on that, thanks.
Pete

 

[Photo_Smith]

I might well take you up on that, thanks.
Pete

You an East Anglian? One little bit of advice is to go to colour confidence and get some aims:
http://shop.colourconfidence.com/section.php/10384/1/colour-charts

I like the Kodak number 13 at £14.50 not too many patches but it will help you if you place one under each different lighting on each differnt film and make a preset. Its very yellow here in the UK at the moment colour can be tricky...

 

[Ranchu]

I think that the default settings in Epson scan seem to clip highlight information and compress shadow detail somewhat.
I'm not sure the Epson scan software allows for a change in Gamma all I have read suggests that it is set at 1 normally which is either 1.8 or 2.2 depending on which OS you use.

It only clips when autoexposure in configuration is turned to anything other than the lowest leftmost setting, which won't then add an s curve. I believe it's always 2.2 because it outputs to srgb and that's what that is, but you can manipulate it in the levels palette...

 

[Pete B]

Opposite end of the country (Cumbria), but I often catch a ferry to play in the Alps so perhaps we could arrange something to break our journey up one day.
I'll check out those colour charts, thanks.
Pete

 

[Photo_Smith]

It would be far better if I saw your set up than you seeing mine, I guess the colour patches will help input-—-output to measure.

 

[brbo]

Not for negatives because they don't make one. I do however use IT8 for flat artwork and slides. What I do for negatives is use the same colour standard patches I do in the darkroom, I then save defaults for different lighting conditions.

Funny, because every single scanner I've tried so far came with default profiles. Some with separate, slide and negative profiles. You can use them or not. You can edit them or not. Maybe that is what he was asking...

 

[Pete B]

It would be far better if I saw your set up than you seeing mine, I guess the colour patches will help input-—-output to measure.

I was thinking I'd pile everything into my van and bring it down. If we can't get it sorted I could dump it in the channel 😀
Pete

 

[Photo_Smith]

It only clips when autoexposure in configuration is turned to anything other than the lowest leftmost setting, which won't then add an s curve. I believe it's always 2.2 because it outputs to srgb and that's what that is, but you can manipulate it in the levels palette...

That's quite interesting, because the scanners characterised profile is way bigger than sRGB and depending on how they shrink the colour numbers could clip some information. Does it clip it if you import it to PS with a device independent or Profoto workspace working on a Mac with a 1.8 gamma monitor profile? obviously that might be a CMM 'bridge too far' to fit those numbers in the such a small profile with an assumed 2.2 gamma?

I've set my Mac to 2,2 anyhow but it makes you think...