Top Tips for Vuescan & scanning in general

[Shac]

Simon - You asked about settings in Photoshop - I'd highly recommend buying
Adobe Photoshop CS2 for Photographers: A professional image editor's guide to the creative use of Photoshop for the Macintosh and PC by Martin Evening & not just for the colour settings
David

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Gabriel: Your comments are very timely - I've been wondering about proper gray profiles lately, and can't find any definitive opinions. I've used g2.2 for a long time now, but in my opinion it looks waaay too dark with compressed shadows. My equipment is pretty well-calibrated (in my understanding), so I don't know if this is actually a bad thing. Lately, I've considered both sGray and even simple sRGB for grayscale images. Do you have any particular perspective you can sweep my way?

Sorry for hijacking the thread a bit. Tangier: post some scanning results when you get them...

Hmm, I don't know why you'd be having problems, except that maybe you also need to calibrate/profile your monitor. And lookout for "double profiling", where your monitor is set to use one profile and actually screws up the way you see the colors/tone/tonality in the very-profile-aware Photoshop application.

A lot of my woes were alleviated once I "invested" in an EyeOne monitor calibration thingy (whatever they're called). Got one off ePrey.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

No, settings like 'brightness' are ignored. You have to select 'raw' as your output option.

Controls which continue to make a difference include autofocus and the number of samples.

No, you're confusing Scanning Mode with Output File Type. There is no "raw" in VueScan.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Sorry for hijacking the thread a bit. Tangier: post some scanning results when you get them...


Cheers,
--joe.

No problem, its an open discussion and I'm grateful for everyone's thoughts and input.

I made the "mistake" of processing some Delta 400 rolls in Rodinol and I'm looking forward to seeing if I can improve my scans with what I'm learning here...I'll post a before and after if it looks signifcantly different.

David - I'll have a look at that book, thanks for the heads up.

I may also make the wise investment in a monitor calibration eye thingmebob too!

 

[planetjoe]

A lot of my woes were alleviated once I "invested" in an EyeOne monitor calibration thingy (whatever they're called). Got one off ePrey.

I totally agree, and second the recommendation - I got one from KEH last year and have been using it on a regular basis - this is why I know I'm calibrated, at least to the best of my knowledge. I'll have to check on that "double profiling" bit, though; never heard of that.

I guess my question was a bit obtuse...the grayscale images converted to the g2.2 profile aren't wrong, per se; rather, they become darker on-screen than I thought they should. Perhaps that's okay - in fact, I'm probably using g2.2 without really thinking about why, or for what end-use. Probably not a good idea.

If I come across any interesting info in my research, I'll be sure to post it here. Thanks, and keep scanning!


Cheers,
--joe.

 

[cjago]

eh?

eh?

No, you're confusing Scanning Mode with Output File Type. There is no "raw" in VueScan.

Maybe we are at cross purposes, but -

See the first line of VueScan's feature comparison chart:

http://www.hamrick.com/abo.html#features

And see the C F Systems help page about how to get 16 bit linear files (aka 'raw'):

http://www.c-f-systems.com/Scanners.html

I'm talking about files output in either DNG form, or 16 bit linear tiff form, that need to be inverted, gamma corrected, placed in a colour space, and stretched across the histogram.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Spot the difference

Spot the difference

My first attempt with the new scanning regime. Let me know if you think its better than the first or if you prefer the original scan.

The old scan is the darker one and the new scan slightly lighter

 

[john neal]

Simon,

I'm following this in a very interested way - I just bought Vuescan!

From the two shots above, on my laptop, I don't see a whole lot of difference, but just prefer the tonality of the second (I think).

I'm hoping to get some time to get my scanning sorted out soon.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Simon,

I'm following this in a very interested way - I just bought Vuescan!

From the two shots above, on my laptop, I don't see a whole lot of difference, but just prefer the tonality of the second (I think).

I'm hoping to get some time to get my scanning sorted out soon.

There isn't that much difference in all honesty but it does have a better range of tones with more detail in some of the shadow areas and, to me, doesn't look quite so heavy.

Vuescan is alot better than the Nikon scan system I had bundled with my scanner. I think though that it will take me a while to make the most of my scanner/neg combinations....I suppose its just like being in the darkroom in that way.

I want to get a book printed, via Blurb, which means I want to rescan all of the images on my shortlist - a daunting task and hence getting as much advice as possible!

Good luck with yours John, post some here if you get some done

 

[john neal]

I want to get a book printed, via Blurb, which means I want to rescan all of the images on my shortlist - a daunting task and hence getting as much advice as possible!

Ahh - interesting. Would you say that Blurb is better than Lulu? I have been asked to produce a book for my daughter and we had thought we would go through Lulu.

Sorry, a bit OT, but of great interest to me at the moment1

 

[kipkeston]

Hi guys. Bringing back this thread because I have a bunch of questions. I've just acquired a PC and I'm using a 64bit os, so I can't use nikonscan with my V. I've been messing with vuescan but I can't say the scans look as contrasty as they did coming out of the mac with nikonscan. The other issue is that when I import to Lightroom, the curve isn't the same, the shadows are clipped when they are not clipped in vuescan. After reading this thread it seems I probably have Pro color space in LR and sRGB from vuescan which could be doing this.

Does anyone work with LR from vuescan? I scan mostly tri-x, apx400 and apx100. Settings for tri-x would be most appreciated. I'm also considering scanning a raw file, opening in photoshop, inverting, saving then importing to LR but it's another manual step i'm trying to avoid.

 

[john neal]

Does anyone work with LR from vuescan? I scan mostly tri-x, apx400 and apx100. Settings for tri-x would be most appreciated. I'm also considering scanning a raw file, opening in photoshop, inverting, saving then importing to LR but it's another manual step i'm trying to avoid.

I don'y use LR (don't like it), but found the best way with Tri-X was to make my own profile, then scan in raw from vuescan and use Photoshop to manipulate the resulting file.

With APX400, I have tried the same route, but just don't get a good result. I don't know if it's my processing, but I can never get rid of the blue cast, and always seem to get grain like golf-balls. I probably need to change developer, as the APX does not seem to suit the T-Max dev i normally use.

I had a crash on my system last weekend, but if I can find the Tri-X .ini file, I will let you have the details.

 

[eric]

I had a crash on my system last weekend, but if I can find the Tri-X .ini file, I will let you have the details.

Please let use know. I am terrible at scanning and Vuescan. I would love to see an tri-x .ini file. I'm guessing it'll be close to neopan 400 as well.

 

[kipkeston]

I've been playing around and this is what I've been doing and I will mention what I plan on trying next.

for b/w film:
The latest thing I've done is to lock exposure, scan an empty part of the negative, examine the curve and adjust the RGB exposure lock to be such that the black almost clips. This is what the guide said on the first page. That seems to be handy in making sure blacks don't clip.

My settings for processing in vuescan are the following:
B/W film, 48Bit RGB, locked exposure

Under the color tab is where I become rather uncertain.
Color balance has been set to None. If I set the color balance to anything but none, I get clipping.

Ilford XP2 or tmax d76 cl.55 both give a very centered histogram usually. I've been having trouble making the file look good with curves and levels when I scan that way. I've not been able to make nice contrast without clipping with this setting.

tmax with tmax c.70 seems to be giving me the best processing options in photoshop or LR. This is because it moves the histogram to the left so I get a darker TIFF file. In LR I move the Lights slider far to the right and I get a pretty good contrast then. The guide on the first page seems to think this is a good idea but they used the Levels tool in PS. I don't think LR has a levels tool so I've been using the curves box.

My next idea is to start scanning to raw and then processing that file somehow. My goal is to have the absolute best shadow detail with the nicest contrast and tonal range possible. And to be honest, I was quite happy with whatever nikonscan was doing but I can't seem imitate the look of nikonscan with vuescan. And obviously I can't use nikonscan on windows 64bit.

 

[Dektol Dan]

There are so many variables in scanning.

For me, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT thing, no matter what program or file type or whatever you use, is to get a scan with no clipping at either end (i.e., the original scan will have NO complete blacks or complete whites).

This way you have as much information as you can get out of the negative or slide. The original scan WILL LOOK BAD. But, in a program such as photoshop you can use Curves to then get the nice distribution of tones that you want, almost certainly with some clipping.

Good luck, AND PRACTICE AND PLAY ALOT - getting good at scanning doesn't happen overnight.

I do it differently.

First, decide what the scan is for, print or the web.
Both will have to be compressed to to meet the inadequacies of the medium. Print needs less, jpeg needs more compression and contrast the smaller the file desired.

Second, start from the blue curve and defeat the darker values just enough to make the contrast snap without an obvious change in color. Forget the histogram! If you trim the flat lines you will never achieve the goal of a Ansel style Zone.

Third, do the same thing with the green curve. Because you are working with harmonics green will be the middle value and may not need any clipping at all.

Third clip the the red curve (again from the dark side only) until the contrast pops to the maximum.

Fourth fine tune: go back to the blue and see if any more contrast can be nudged by slight adjustment. If you are lucky enough to have some blue sky in the shot tweak until the sky strobes. If you must, make adjustments to the red again. Look for the strobe that I'm talking about, that means your riding the harmonics (you are creating white by a RGB balance).

Fifth, go the the RGB histogram curve and trim the contrast for the desired out put; for print use very little contrast adjustment, for jpeg darken excessively until the detail is just lost in the shadows (maybe even more!). Try a making a jpeg of different quality and size to see how much it lightens the image in compression.

You're done!

 

[remegius]

Vuescan raw output

Vuescan raw output

I just upgraded to the Professionial edition of Vuescan which allows you to scan to a raw file. I tried that out, saving as a .dng file, and then opening the file in Photoshop. Naturally, the file opened in the raw converter, but it opened as a negative image. Is there a way to invert from the raw converter? I simply made some adjustments in the raw converter while watching the histogram, and then opened the image in PS, inverting at that point. I'm a little unsure of myself using this workflow, and would appreciate any comments.

Cheers...

 

[kipkeston]

I'm curious about the RAW DNG to PS workflow too...

 

[infrequent]

@remegius - could the raw files be saved as TIFFs? then invert in Photoshop and save it as DNG.

 

[remegius]

@remegius - could the raw files be saved as TIFFs? then invert in Photoshop and save it as DNG.

Well...I wanted them to be saved as a raw file. Once they come out of the raw converter they do as as a TIFF. I was just surprised to see the .dng file displayed as a negative in the raw converter. I'm still playing with this, and have a file I'm working on. I'll report back.

Cheers...

 

[infrequent]

@remegius - i think matt alofs does something similar as well.

http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/oh-so-thats-what-they-mean/

save the "raw" scans as a tiff, invert in photoshop, save as DNG and make further adjustments in cameraRaw.