Vuescan and LS-5000 workflow (for slides); and a question about Nikon Scan

[Tijmendal]

Hi,

I recently got an LS-5000 as a means to get better scans than my Pakon can give me and to scan chromes.
I 'hacked' the SA-21 film adapter to work as an SA-30, which is absolutely great! I used the little 'wire trick'; no fancy soldering for me.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out what the best workflow is in regards to sides (B/W and print film I'll figure out at a later stage). I came home last month from a trip to Sri Lanka where I shot 15 rolls of Velvia 100 (unmounted).

I was wondering what the best way is to go about scanning. I've done some tests in Vuescan with different outputs: JPEG, RAW, RAW-DNG, TIFF, TIFF-DNG. The JPEG output is pretty bad, especially in tricky lighting situations it gives bad results.

I've read up on the difference between the 4 different uncompressed outputs and while most of the information out on the web is lost to me, I've got a general of idea what each is.
- The plain (non-DNG) RAW file gives me the best result (I think), but it's VERY dark (due to Gamma 1.0, right?); about 2-2.5-3 stops of exposure and a bunch of highlight compensation (think -75) gives me good results with the most pleasing colors and best highlight retention.


- The TIFF output files are very bland, lack contrast and (more often than not) give wonky colors.


- Both different DNG files are very similar. The TIFF-DNG just has a little more punch.
RAW-DNG:


TIFF-DNG:



I tried using Nikon Scan (through a virtual Windows XP with VMWare; I'm on Mac) but can't figure out the software. When I do a preview it eats the whole roll, spits it out again and then only shows me the very first frame. Same goes with scanning. I've tried everything but it just keeps only looking at the first frame. However, that frame does look really good and I'd really like comparing Nikon Scan with Vuescan, but like this that won't work.

Lastly, I've heard many great things about ColorPerfect's ColorNeg/ColorPos. I've used the trial with Portra and got ok/good results, but decided to stick with ImageMagick/Negfix because that was working for me too (and at that time didn't feel I could warrant the purchase of the software). Has anyone got experience with ColorPos? I tried the trial version, but didn't see any film emulsions in the list like with ColorNeg, where there's basically any emulsion out there.

I use Lightroom btw.

Please share what works for you! Any information is much appreciated!

 

[Timmyjoe]

Not sure if this will be helpful as I am Mac based and it sounds like you may be running Windows.

I use a LS-9000 these days, but my workflow is the same as when I had an LS-5000. For B&W, I always use VueScan, as it handles the gradations of grey, from black to white, better than Nikon Scan did for me. But for anything color, I always used Nikon Scan. I have an old Power Mac G4 tower whose sole purpose in life these days is to do my scanning, and Nikon Scan 4 is the version I use. I'm sure you can download a Nikon Scan PDF manual online from the Nikon web site that will give you more information on how your version works with your computer operating system.

Best,
-Tim

 

[brbo]

My Vuescan workflow for slide film:

1. Establish proper exposure for the film (preview of the clear part of the film, let Vuescan guesstimate the exposure by clicking 'Lock exposure')
2. Scan IT8 target at this exposure as RAW
3. Create color profile from the scan of IT8 target
4. Scan the film at this exposure as RAW
5. Apply color profile to the RAW files
6. This is my base for further adjustments in Lightroom (I almost never have to touch individual color curves or hue/saturation/luminance or split toning tools in LR)


Provia 100F, Epson V4990:

 

[arseniii]

It's a bit tricky to get the colors right with VueScan, you pretty much has to do adjustments to every image you scan, o.w. It will be a lot of work in PS or lightroom later on. NikonScan gives more consistent output but still requires some post precessing in the image editing software of your choice

 

[Robert Lai]

I use the same technique as brbo, using Vuescan.

Once you have the color profiles made for your film (Fuji, Kodak, Agfa, or Kodachrome), you apply (NOT convert) the profile to your RAW scan. You will instantly have all the colors be exactly the same as your slide!

Of course, your monitor should also be profiled for this to happen.

IT-8 targets are available from various sources. The most expensive are the ones made by Silverfast. I think B&H still have the Kodachrome reference IT8 slides.

 

[Tijmendal]

Thanks for the help guys! I'm going to have to look into IT8 targets. I always use lock exposure with C41 because it's needed for Negfix, but didn't know it's also a 'thing' with slide film.

EDIT: So from what I understand IT8 are like color tables that you use to calibrate your scanner and use as a reference?

 

[Robert Lai]

IT8 slides photograph color palettes with known RGB values. For example, a certain red color could be R20 G0 B0.

On Fuji Astia, the color may be rendered (I'm guessing, not actual)
R22 G2 B1. The maker of the IT8 slide will give you a file with all of the actual measured RGB values for each of the colors.

You then scan the slide on the LS5000, using VueScan, with RAW output. You then have VueScan calibrate the scan based on the file associated with that slide. Your scanner may render this color as R25 G10 B6. By going through all the colors in the palette, you generate curves for R, G, and B for the response of YOUR scanner and computer to the reference IT8 slide. This is your color compensation profile.

Now, when you scan a Fuji slide roll in RAW, use VueScan in batch processing mode to ASSIGN the Fuji compensation profile to EVERY ONE of your scans. You will automatically correct the color of EVERY PIXEL of EVERY slide that you scanned.

Put the final output as a TIFF file (non-lossy) with an editing profile like Prophoto. The editing profile covers such a huge gamut that you are unlikely to lose any colors by clipping - if the color exceeds the "universe" of your color profile. Now, you can use Photoshop, or whatever it is that you use for editing, and edit the slide like any other digital image file. Save the final file in Adobe RGB or sRGB profiles for maximum compatibility.

 

[Robert Lai]

Relatively inexpensive (but good) IT8 targets are provided by a German maker at http://www.colorreference.de/targets/index.html

I bought the far more expensive and extensive Hutch HCT slides. I think they were $200 at the time. The results don't look much better than the results from the IT8 targets, so I would stick with the far more affordable IT8 targets.

 

[Tijmendal]

Thanks for the clear explanation; very clear. Di I have to buy an IT8 target for every stock I plan on scanning though? I went to Wolf Faust's site there's a ton of different IT8 targets, which each target covering only a few stocks.

 

[Robert Lai]

Just buy the IT8 for whatever film company you buy film for, or have slides for. All Fuji emulsions are essentially the same, all Kodak are the same (except Kodachrome), all Agfa etc.
Rationally, you'll need to get a Fuji IT8 slide and maybe a Kodak Ektachrome IT8 slide.

 

[Tijmendal]

Just buy the IT8 for whatever film company you buy film for, or have slides for. All Fuji emulsions are essentially the same, all Kodak are the same (except Kodachrome), all Agfa etc.
Rationally, you'll need to get a Fuji IT8 slide and maybe a Kodak Ektachrome IT8 slide.

Ok, perfect. I don't shoot Ektachrome though.

Another question: I've scanned three rolls now and outputted them as RAW non-DNG files. All images on those three rolls are exactly 140.9MB. I'm VERY pleased with the results. Nice, contrasty, good colors.
I did a little test with some options to see if it would make a difference. But now my scans look very weird in Finder (OS X): extremely flat, grainy, dusty. Just bad. But when I import them into Lightroom, the colors are good and they're nice and contrasty.
The three rolls I scanned earlier looked the same in Finder as they do in Lightroom. How come it's different now? The learning curve is pretty insane when it comes to scanning :bang:

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Some of the definitions in VueScan are confusing. They confused me.

I believe the VueScan option to scan to RAW file is not for you to use that output file anywhere else. It's only, as I understand it, so that you can have VueScan work from that saved file to try different VueScan settings without having to re-scan the film.

I believe the VueScan RAW file is gamma=1. That makes it muddy. Try running one of your RAW files thru VueScan; you'll have to find how to set the source to the RAW file instead of the scanner.

Hope this is helpful. Sorry, I don't have the exact settings and commands handy.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

@brbo, that image looks very good. Thanks for posting.

 

[Tijmendal]

Some of the definitions in VueScan are confusing. They confused me.

I believe the VueScan option to scan to RAW file is not for you to use that output file anywhere else. It's only, as I understand it, so that you can have VueScan work from that saved file to try different VueScan settings without having to re-scan the film.

I believe the VueScan RAW file is gamma=1. That makes it muddy. Try running one of your RAW files thru VueScan; you'll have to find how to set the source to the RAW file instead of the scanner.

Hope this is helpful. Sorry, I don't have the exact settings and commands handy.

Yeah. That's true. I've done tests.

What I just don't get is how before the files looked great/the same in Finder as in Lightroom, whereas now they look so bad in Finder, but good in Lightroom. I'm afraid I changed some settings and won't be getting the same good results as before 😱

EDIT: Found the 'solution', see the post below.

 

[Robert Lai]

As the Colonel says, VueScan RAW is truly RAW - the bits and bytes as they come straight out of the scanner. It will look flat and muddy. You need to batch process in Vuescan to ASSIGN a profile (i.e. your color correction profile), and the final profile that you want to SAVE the file in (e.g. Adobe RGB).

Lightroom (I don't have it, so I'm guessing) may be automatically assigning a default profile (often just sRGB) to a file that doesn't seem to have a profile attached to it.

 

[Tijmendal]

Lightroom (I don't have it, so I'm guessing) may be automatically assigning a default profile (often just sRGB) to a file that doesn't seem to have a profile attached to it.

That sounds about right.

 

[Robert Lai]

If your RAW scans are coming out dusty, then you need to enable the IR cleaning, or when saving the RAW file select to include the IR channel. Then, when you batch process you can enable the IR cleaning.

 

[Tijmendal]

If your RAW scans are coming out dusty, then you need to enable the IR cleaning, or when saving the RAW file select to include the IR channel. Then, when you batch process you can enable the IR cleaning.

I did an IR test, but it didn't really do anything in Vuescan. The slides I scanned I had fiddled around with too long. The rolls after that went straight from the wrapper into the scanner and are fine 🙂

Oh, and I figured out where the difference came from: because I didn't know what was happening, I restored to default settings and went from there, thinking that'd be the better solution. I just forgot to put the Raw output from Auto to 48rgb 🙄

 

[brbo]

Oh, and I figured out where the difference came from: because I didn't know what was happening, I restored to default settings and went from there, thinking that'd be the better solution. I just forgot to put the Raw output from Auto to 48rgb 🙄

With 48rgb output you are effectively throwing away IR channel. If you want Vuescan to do IR cleaning to your RAW files you must enable it in 'Filter' tab and in 'Output' tab 'Raw output with' = 'Save'. Then you can use 48bit for saving of RAW.

But saving your IR chanel in the 64bit file is better IMHO as it enables you to use Photoshop to do the cleaning (it does a MUCH better job than any scanning software). But doing everything in Vuescan is faster...

 

[Tijmendal]

With 48rgb output you are effectively throwing away IR channel. If you want Vuescan to do IR cleaning to your RAW files you must enable it in 'Filter' tab and in 'Output' tab 'Raw output with' = 'Save'. Then you can use 48bit for saving of RAW.

But saving your IR chanel in the 64bit file is better IMHO as it enables you to use Photoshop to do the cleaning (it does a MUCH better job than any scanning software). But doing everything in Vuescan is faster...

So instead of 'raw output with scan' (like I have now) you choose 'raw output with save'? Or do you mean 'raw file type' and set that from 48rgb to 64rgbi?

I'll go do some tests now.

EDIT: Did the tests and you were right. Just 'raw output with save' is enough. 64rgbi seems to be redundant from what I can tell. If only I would've known before... Does that mean that any of the infrared cleaning I applied prior to changing the raw output are lost? That kinda blows haha. Part of the learning process I guess.