So you want to scan some Ektar, eh?

[jbielikowski]

Hello RFF, this week I switched from flatbed Canon 9000F to Minolta Dual III and now trying to optimize workflow for Ektar. Scan Utility is rubbish with negatives (more noise and less shadow detail than SilverFast) but colors turn out great. SF is better in everything but scanning Ektar... I'm out of ideas, please help.

 

[Mackinaw]

Yep, scanning Ektar can be a chore. Silverfast can get me in the ballpark, but I do final adjustments in Photoshop. It's taken me awhile, but I've leaned how to read the individual RGB curves. By moving the sliders to the proper position, I consistently get good results with Ektar. I wish I could give you a pat formula to follow, but this is something you have to learn by trial and error. Once you do learn it though, getting good scans is easy.

Jim B.

 

[Michalm]

Here is the thread http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125316

 

[dufffader]

I'd go with ColorPerfect too. It's about the only way I could get nice looking pictures out of negative scans. I don't recall having issues with EKTAR. Requires Photoshop though.

 

[lynnb]

I've had good results scanning Ektar on a V700 with Epson's scan utility, with minimal LR processing required afterwards. Interesting that the Dual III is so much different. The main thing I find needs doing is reducing the highlights a bit.
I still use RGB curves in photoshop for fine tuning colour, but mostly I find I can get the same result more quickly using the white balance temp and tint sliders in LR. CS4 curves come into their own if I need to make local adjustments to colour, using layer masks.
Can you describe the problem, or post a sample? Is the problem DR, colour temp, saturation? If it's consistent you could record an action in CS to batch process your scans.

 

[jbielikowski]

Accidentally I found that NegaFix profile for Fuji NPH 400 6x6 works great, just set brightness in PS to -75 and its nearly done.

Minolta use different source of light than modern flatbeds and probably thats the reason of the problems.

 

[lynnb]

Glad you got it sorted

 

[kanzlr]

calibrating goes a long way, too.
and I second the ColorPerfect suggestion.

but whatever works for you 🙂

 

[k__43]

I use Vuescan but the results are often not quite where I want them. So I use PS to correct this. I often have to do the opposite in the shadows of what I do to the highlights (The shadows being too blue while the sky has too much yellow).

 

[jbielikowski]

I tried ColorPerfect yesterday after first suggestions, and after some tweaking I managed to have nice results. Truth is I dont like the interface of it, and the basic version of SilverFast is bit cheaper.

 

[kanzlr]

Vuescan mates nicely with ColorPerfect 🙂
This combination really took the frustration out of scanning for me.

 

[kmallick]

Thanks for starting this thread. I was having a terrible luck in scanning Ektar as well. I almost gave up on scanning it. All the suggestions here as well as the link to the tread suggested by Michalm helped a lot. I will give Colorperfect a shot.

 

[Photo_Smith]

This was done on the minolta software:

Never found it that hard to scan just slapping on a flatbed on auto:

It would be good to see a poor scan so i suggest some solutions.

 

[jbielikowski]

for pixel peepers only, small comparision between Scan Utility and SilverFast, with B&W film but same thing is visible on color negatives (feat. my ugly face).

Scan Utility, 16bit greyscale

SilverFast, NegaFix set to proper profile for Ilford Delta 100

crops:

SU

SF

 

[Photo_Smith]

I've peeped at your pixels, and your face is far from ugly. What I see is (or similar to) posterization-not to be confused with what they do to milk.

Never seen it in any of my scan utility shots, some of which I've blown up to A3+ like this one:

It's just possible you have your black and white points set wrongly crushing the mid tones, one shows more grain 'aliasing' try scanning as colour slide and inverting.

 

[DrTebi]

Vuescan mates nicely with ColorPerfect 🙂
This combination really took the frustration out of scanning for me.

How do you mean? This combination requires photoshop as well, or am I missing something?

I suppose you do...
- Raw scan with Vuescan
- Open in photoshop, Filters->CF Systems->ColorPerfect
- Save, done.

 

[kanzlr]

correct.


.

 

[v3cron]

Or you can try locking the film base color in Vuescan using a blank frame.

 

[joeswe]

Thanks for starting this thread. I was having a terrible luck in scanning Ektar as well. I almost gave up on scanning it. All the suggestions here as well as the link to the tread suggested by Michalm helped a lot. I will give Colorperfect a shot.

You don't mention what Scanner and software you are using.
For me Ektar is one of the films that scans really, really well with Silverfast, at least on my dedicated film scanner (Reflecta ProScan 7200). It seems to be one of the profiles that actually work. Highlights and deep shadows turn out really clean compared to some other negative films (especially Fuji consumer grade). Some people don't realize there is a profile for Ektar in SF, it is a bit hidden away in the film type selection menu, you have to look under "Kodak"->"others"->"Ektar".

 

[Ronald_H]

Hmm, I find Ektar finicky because color balance tends to deviate quite a bit with lighting conditions and exposure. But in my experience scanning it is easy. Below a 120 scan from my humble Epson V500 (native software). When scanning 35mm Ektar on my Nikon Coolscan V software (either native or Vuescan) doesn't make a great deal of difference either.


Evelien - cello by Ronald_H, on Flickr