Reveal your method on scanning color negatives!

I agree with Barrett on the ease of scanning Portra film. I used a Nikon Coolscan and Nikon software until switching to a 64 bit OS. Nikon will not suport 64 bit operation, so enter Vuescan. Other than not being able to use a lot of the Coolscan's features, Vuescan works OK. My old method was to scan the film at 4000 dpi with the Nikon software and do the final adjustment/sizing as required in Photo Shop. Make an extra effort to make the film as dust free as possible (ditto for the scanner). With Vuescan the scans are OK, but I am thinking of resurrecting my old computer (with 32 bit OS) and dedicating it scanning only with the Nikon software.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Mostly I just put 24 frames (four strips of six) in my Epson - 'home mode' 'for printer', no adjustments on, then go and watch TV for an hour or so while it does the business!. Later, I will probably sharpen a bit in 'Paintshop Pro'....anything more required - I'm not pleased!🙁
4352474086_337283ae59.jpg
 
Mike, if you have not seen the ColorPerfect plug-in, give it a look (http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html). I use Vuescan (with Win7/64-bit) and was looking for something to give me more accurate Ektar 100 scans (using a Canon FS4000). This plug-in does wonders! In use, you have VueScan produce a raw file and process it with ColorPerfect. It replaces the previous group of ColorNeg/ColorPos/GamSat. They have full demo versions that can show what they do. Highly recommended.
biomed said:
I agree with Barrett on the ease of scanning Portra film. I used a Nikon Coolscan and Nikon software until switching to a 64 bit OS. Nikon will not suport 64 bit operation, so enter Vuescan. Other than not being able to use a lot of the Coolscan's features, Vuescan works OK. My old method was to scan the film at 4000 dpi with the Nikon software and do the final adjustment/sizing as required in Photo Shop. Make an extra effort to make the film as dust free as possible (ditto for the scanner). With Vuescan the scans are OK, but I am thinking of resurrecting my old computer (with 32 bit OS) and dedicating it scanning only with the Nikon software.

Mike
Click to expand...
 
r2d2 -- that is a very interesting idea. I will have to try it.

Just wanted to contribute my 2 cents to this thread: I am an avid hobbyist, I love photography (film & digital) but I don't have time to pixel-peep and fret about gamma, profiles, etc.

I try to find a balance between convenience and quality. I love the Epson v700. I think it's a fantastic machine. Hate to say it, but even the bundled Epson scanning utility is pretty decent. I manage to get decent scans with few problems. I drag and drop files to Adobe Photoshop Elements afterwards for some mild tweaking ... usually involving speck/dust removal. Occasionally I'll bump up mid-tone contrast or adjust the hue/saturation if I think the lab did a poor job on my negs.

I've used VueScan and SilverFast but found the native Epson software to be much easier to use.

I suppose it all depends on how "deep" a person wants to go with scanning, and the end results you're satisfied with.
 
plummerl said:
Mike, if you have not seen the ColorPerfect plug-in, give it a look (http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html). I use Vuescan (with Win7/64-bit) and was looking for something to give me more accurate Ektar 100 scans (using a Canon FS4000). .
Click to expand...

Larry,
I'll have to check out ColorPerfect. I used to use a FS4000, what a great scanner. Unfortunately it quit working. After trying to repair it, I ended up buying a CoolScan V. The CoolScan is faster than the Canon was, but I don't like the results as well.
Mike
 
I shoot both 160NC and 400NC and I scan them with a Nikon 8000 and a Artixscan M1 (if it ever comes back from the shop) I use Silverfast, rather than Vuescan but that is because I'm much more familiar with Silverfast and I find it works best for me.

Usually I scan as a negative and then click through the different profiles of negatives to find one that has colour that looks 'good'. Colour is alarmingly subjective, as you know, so just because it's 'correct' doesn't mean that it's 'good' or 'pleasing'. Actually, I find I use profiles that are different than the usual profile regularly. Then I scan and hope for the best.

2694079294_a5390bf305.jpg


4306672871_df0bdf8703.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom