Silverfast problem...help!

[PatrickT]

I've been having this problem for a while now and not sure if there's a fix.

As an example, I was just trying to scan a negative with the Silverfast software. Ilford Delta 3200, using the TRIX setting. The photo is certainly dark..probably no pure white values.

This is what the preview looks like:

See how the software trys to pull bright white out of the negative, even though there isn't any there? Notice the white spot on her cheek. Also notice the histogram, with the white point set at 255 (max).

When I do the same preview using the Epson scan software, I get this:

See how the Epson software doesn't try to force pure white? Also notice the histogram...the white (and black points) are free to move either direction.

What's the deal with the Silverfast software? I get the same problem, but in reverse when I have a scene with no pure blacks...it trys to force the image to have pure black and screws up the contrast considerably.

Help!

 

[PatrickT]

Anyone? Nighttime crowd? 😛

 

[Tim Gray]

I don't really know Silverfast, but:
a) Use epson scan in this case 🙂
b) In the SF screencap, you have Plus-X selected. You've also got 'Auto' selected in the same dialogue. Don't know what that does.
c) I seem to remember there being other adjustments in the main SF window that let's you tweak the clipping points, other than just the histogram window. I could be wrong, I've only player around with it a couple of times.

 

[EliasK]

That is the reason I don't like Silverfast and I use Epsonscan .
Silverfast is the kind of software that tries to impress you and do everything automatically for you. If you try some custom settings it gets extremely complicated and at next scan reverts to auto supposing you are always wrong. A real PITA.
Its film presets are useless for b&w films: development and developer combinations are countless and can alter drastically the tonality and Gamma of the film.
I just adjust the histogram (move sliders at the ends of histogram, and output to max black and white settings) in Epsonscan for each frame and then pp with curves in pshop.

Film canning is not an automatic process (whatever software you use) and will never give you optimum results without histogram adjustments and some pp.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

This is one good case of: know your tools (you shouldn't cut wire with those expensive paper scissors).

Your frame needs the "raw" treatment; meaning, you need to scan your negative "as-is" and process it with better software: scan it as a "transparency" in 48-bit. Process it with Silverfast HDR (not cheap). That's what I use for most of my scanned negatives (when I'm not in a hurry).

That's the short answer.

 

[PatrickT]

Thanks for the replies.

So what you're telling me, is that I simply cannot do this simple thing I want to do?

I generally find silverfast great when scanning color (better than Epson scan) and it normally does a good job when scanning a negative that actually has white and black values.

It's just disapointing that this little feature would be overlooked.

Oh, and since I also have a Plustek 7600i, I'm forced to use Silverfast when scanning 35mm negatives. What do I do in that case?

Thanks!

 

[Tim Gray]

I determined for my scanner (Nikon V) that Silverfast wasn't worth the money. If you have a copy of Photoshop, get the flattest, more direct-out-of-the-scanner scan you can manage and do all your work there. Most of the work will be with curves or layers. Though it seems like Epson scan does a pretty decent job from what I can tell.

For B&W negatives, post processing is pretty easy since there is only tonal information and no color information that can get screwed up in the in process. So you really can do pretty much everything you need to do with levels and curves adjustments directly. For color, it's a bit tricker in my opinion, but you can still make most of your changes with those two tools. There's just more to screw up along the way. But once you learn how to do it using these tools, 99% of the issues you see people talking about in relation to scanning color neg seem somewhat trivial.

I personally use Vuescan. It's a horrible interface, and pretty horrible for color in my opinion. However, it's very easy to setup to get 'raw' scans out of it which can then go into Photoshop. For B&W, I found that you can get a satisfactory semi-finished photo right out of Vuescan, but the color results I've gotten out of Vuescan when I try to get a 'semi-finished' photo have always looked odd to me. However, I get the best color I've ever gotten when using it to obtain linear raw scans + Photoshop post-processing.

It might seem like a bit of extra work, but I don't really find that it is now that I've put in the time to learning what I'm doing and have come up with this process. Also, if you don't have Photoshop, that can pose some problems. Lightroom doesn't cut it. You can actually automate a bunch of the steps with ImageMagick, which is free, but you have to be comfortable with the command line...

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Thanks for the replies.

So what you're telling me, is that I simply cannot do this simple thing I want to do?

I generally find silverfast great when scanning color (better than Epson scan) and it normally does a good job when scanning a negative that actually has white and black values.

It's just disapointing that this little feature would be overlooked.

Oh, and since I also have a Plustek 7600i, I'm forced to use Silverfast when scanning 35mm negatives. What do I do in that case?

Thanks!

Silverfast has various flavors, and the SE flavor is the "entry-level" one. You can scan in what they call "HDR" mode (it is available from the "Scan Type" menu, if you select "Transparency" in the previous tab).

If you scan this way and then process it with Silverfast HDR (or if you have Silverfast Ai, you can do all of that in there...unless they've changed their lineup since I last bought a license). You get to edit a 48-bit (or 64-bit, as they claim, if you use the infrared channel also) "RAW" image and then work from that file as if it were the actual scan. If you work with color negatives, this is the best choice, instead of doing crude a Photoshop Invert, because doing that does not take into account the orange mask (and every film has a different mask, which is why they have film "profiles" in SilverFast).

If, on the other hand, you use VueScan (which you can use with your scanner), and your negative is "true B&W" (meaning, not C-41 or E-6 process) you can more easily process the "RAW" scan in Photoshop (w/Invert and what-not), but mind you, adjusting the curves requires you to understand Linear vs. Nonlinear RAW imaging/conversion.

Another thing to check, before you drop the towel, is whether you have the correct Color Profile and Gamma set for SilverFast; this is a common pitfall. I set my Color Profile in there for "Wide Gamut" (select Adobe RGB if you don't have Wide Gamut or similar available), and the Gamma for 2.0 (*not* 2.2 or 1.8, and much less 1.0, as that renders the conversion linear and extremely flat). Don't forget to set your Photoshop settings to prompt for Color Space Conversion instead of ignoring it. When you jump many color profiling steps, you are bound to clip your highlights and/or shadows. If you try this at least, you'll see an improvement; maybe not one that will 100% salvage this particular negative scan, but you'll see it nonetheless.

There is no magic bullet.

And also, this is why Professional Photo Labs were paid big bucks: to look at all of this for you. Now in this digital age, one is the Lab Technician; and many on the intertoobes are too quick to blame the software without having understood or investigating why.

Good luck!

 

[Tim Gray]

If you work with color negatives, this is the best choice, instead of doing crude a Photoshop Invert, because doing that does not take into account the orange mask (and every film has a different mask, which is why they have film "profiles" in SilverFast).

I think you give a lot of good advice in your reply, but I have to disagree with this. It's pretty easy to deal with the orange mask. There's WAY too much disinformation on the internet about this.

The short version:
- invert your negative
- make a curves layer
- click on the red channel in the curves dialogue
- move the black point of the red curve to the left side of the histogram
- repeat for the blue and green channels

You've now compensated for the orange mask. Of course this is a simplified version of the process, because you might find best color balance by moving the black points further into or away from the left edge of the histogram, and you also will probably want to adjust the white point of each channel too. You can actually automate this too. Open up curves, click on the black dropper, and click on the inverted orange mask.

But the point is that it is NOT magic. Think about how these negatives where meant to be printed - shine a white light through a colored filter that cancels out the orange mask. You change the color of the filter to balance out different masks. That's your starting point. For tweaking the color balance, you tweak your filter back until you get your final color. These tweaks might lead you to having a slightly over or under compensated color mask but thats just fine; as long as you like the image color, you are good.

You can replicate this process with curves and levels. Moving the black and white points of your individual RGB channels is the way.

 

[lewis44]

Just a shot in the dark, but:
Do you have the infared/dust/spot removal on? If you do, with B&W film, it will really screw up the scan.

 

[Keith]

I find the Epson software will do much the same if the auto exposure is cranked to maximum in settings.