Adso
Member
I read somewhere that Colorperfect combined with PerfectRaw is the best way to deal with the color cast of a RAW->Tiff file of a color negative scanned with a DSLR¯o lens. What do you think? Have you ever tried that?
I'm doing some research on this and I'm getting more and more convinced that the DSLR scanning could be my budget Plustek 120 for a while (and who knows if for ever...).
DrTebi
Slide Lover
Colorperfect is definitely great for converting color negatives to "digital positives." I believe that your approach will work quite well--the people at Colorperfect actually recommend to always make the raw scan in "slide" mode, which would be the same idea when DSLR-scanning an illuminated negative. The Colorperfect interface is a bit weird... but the results are great. I generally just open the file in PS, and after cropping, I run Colorperfect, choose my film, click into the auto-color field and play with the slider if it's not looking right. Sometimes I also click into the "Black" field and lighten/darken the image a bit. After clicking OK I just save the file and edit it then in Photivo (resizing for screen viewing, sharpening, some color cast or exposure adjustments maybe).
I do however have a dedicated film scanner (Minolta Dimage Multi Pro), so I use that. I would be curious to see some of your converted photographed negatives, especially in high resolution. I don't know if it could really be as good as a scan... I also have a very discriminating monitor... an old IBM T221 with 3840x2400 pixels on 22 inches; it's absolutely fantastic to see images on it, but it also really shows any quality differences in images.
Let me know if you have any DSLR-scanned images to see, I would love to check'em out.
Adso
Member
I'm at a very early stage of the thing. I have an old Epson 3200 and since the very begining I wasn't happy at all with its results, so it has been sleeping in a cellar in Spain for 7 years now, and meanwhile I've accumulated some thousands 35 and 120 negatives, both B&W and color. Even my girlfriend has gotten used to see the holidays photos in the light table! But lately I'm burning even more film and I feel like waking up all these photos. My first thoght was buying a Plustek 8200 and maybe a V500 for medium format. But when I saw the outcomes from the new Plustek 120, which I cannot afford right now, I thoght that I don't want to be scanning several hundreds of negatives with an inferior quality than the 120. So that's how I arrived to the DSLR solution, or "Sony NEX solution" to be more precise.
I've been reading stuff in forums and webs during some weeks and I think that with this method the weak part of the chain will be the software part. With some good macro lens and negative holder (not more than $150 going with old but good manual focus lenses, if I'm not wrong) I'm pretty sure I can get raw files at least as sharp as the top dedicated film scanners. And now with the Colorperfect software you mentioned I think I'm close to solve the PP/color issue, so I think I will begin buying everything within the next weeks in order to go into action! I'll come back to you guys then with my outcomes and let's see if they stand the T221 final test!
DrTebi
Slide Lover
I've been reading stuff in forums and webs during some weeks and I think that with this method the weak part of the chain will be the software part. With some good macro lens and negative holder (not more than $150 going with old but good manual focus lenses, if I'm not wrong) I'm pretty sure I can get raw files at least as sharp as the top dedicated film scanners. And now with the Colorperfect software you mentioned I think I'm close to solve the PP/color issue, so I think I will begin buying everything within the next weeks in order to go into action! I'll come back to you guys then with my outcomes and let's see if they stand the T221 final test!
With the right amount of enthusiasm, you will get great results, I am sure. If you have a Sony NEX, you could probably save some money by buying a good used macro lens, like a manual Pentax or so, and use it with an adapter. You will most likely be manually focusing anyway.
Another thing that I find very interesting is to use a slide projector as a "negative holder" and light-source. A projector for 35mm should be easy to find; it would provide perfect illumination, and even make the setup less painless once you got the distances etc. worked out.
Check out this video for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnvhBXQrfzQ
Buena suerte, Good luck!
dasuess
Nikon Freak
I have used EpsonScan on both 10.8.2 and 10.8.3 with no issues.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
No favourites.
My experiments to avoid scanning altogether are continuing. I'm using a Tamron AD2 SP 90mm on my 5D and gradually getting the routine to the point where it is as good as I can get out of my Plustek 7200. I'm confident that I can do even better when I have a bit more time to tune it all up.
To be honest, though, I have a very long way to go before I can get scans from negatives that match the scans I've made from wet prints on my old Epson 1640.
My experiments to avoid scanning altogether are continuing. I'm using a Tamron AD2 SP 90mm on my 5D and gradually getting the routine to the point where it is as good as I can get out of my Plustek 7200. I'm confident that I can do even better when I have a bit more time to tune it all up.
To be honest, though, I have a very long way to go before I can get scans from negatives that match the scans I've made from wet prints on my old Epson 1640.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I just use what comes with the scanner.
I found that I spent more time fiddling with VueScan's settings than actually scanning. Its only feature that I liked was allowing for multiple passes. Otherwise, I felt like I needed some kind of engineering degree to operate it.
I found that I spent more time fiddling with VueScan's settings than actually scanning. Its only feature that I liked was allowing for multiple passes. Otherwise, I felt like I needed some kind of engineering degree to operate it.
I.G.I.
Member
I am using KM Scan Dual IV, and so far I get the best results with the supplied utility (I am lucky in this regard to run a legacy Mac so the software works for me). Interestingly, my experience contradicts what pass here for the accepted wisdom: I get better results by working extensively with the scanner software than producing a flat scan and hammering it after with third party software. Despite Photoshop better responsiveness and more exhaustive controls I cannot reproduce, never mind better, the results I get from the scan utility; and this is despite the fact that I have more experience with PS than with the recently acquired scanner and the associated software.
I tried CF Systems ColorNeg and found the results mediocree... besides I really wonder what is their understanding of the perception of colour since the trial version of the modules had bright neon pink and lime green dots grid... it was so distracting that after a few minutes my eyes were tired and the entire colour image started to look flat and monochrome...
Curious to explore all options in the quest to get the best of the negative with my current set up I downloaded Vuescan. It couldn't even recognise the scanner; after a few attempts I gave up. Last, and with disastrous consequences, was my try of Silverfast. Not only it crashed all the time on start, it crashed PS too (I have no recollection of PS crashing for years!). Worst of all, the nasty piece of software wreaked some havoc behind the scenes because after Silverfast I could no longer start the KM scan utility either; it started to crash perpetually too. Ensued a nightmare of restarts and drivers uninstalling-installing a new, all to no avail. Finally, after an entire evening and night wasted I managed to get the scanner working again. All in all, for 10 years of owning a Mac Silverfast was the most damaging piece of software I have ever installed (Adobe Reader, with hijacking the computer and installing a zillion of files everywhere, comes distant second).
I tried CF Systems ColorNeg and found the results mediocree... besides I really wonder what is their understanding of the perception of colour since the trial version of the modules had bright neon pink and lime green dots grid... it was so distracting that after a few minutes my eyes were tired and the entire colour image started to look flat and monochrome...
Curious to explore all options in the quest to get the best of the negative with my current set up I downloaded Vuescan. It couldn't even recognise the scanner; after a few attempts I gave up. Last, and with disastrous consequences, was my try of Silverfast. Not only it crashed all the time on start, it crashed PS too (I have no recollection of PS crashing for years!). Worst of all, the nasty piece of software wreaked some havoc behind the scenes because after Silverfast I could no longer start the KM scan utility either; it started to crash perpetually too. Ensued a nightmare of restarts and drivers uninstalling-installing a new, all to no avail. Finally, after an entire evening and night wasted I managed to get the scanner working again. All in all, for 10 years of owning a Mac Silverfast was the most damaging piece of software I have ever installed (Adobe Reader, with hijacking the computer and installing a zillion of files everywhere, comes distant second).
DrTebi
Slide Lover
I am surprised that you found the results from ColorNeg mediocre. I must assume you have just mastered the Minolta scan software settings really well. I too have used the Minolta Scanner Software for quite a while, but when I discovered ColorNeg my results got a lot better. What worked better was the overall dynamic range I was able to get from negatives--contrast was often too strong with the Minolta settings, and I often had blown out highlights, lost shadow detail, and an awkward white-balance.
I believe that the whole idea of making "raw scans" works wonders, and ColorNeg is great for converting the raw scans back to a great positive image. It can also be done by hand, but removing the orange mask is tricky.
The Minolta software does produce good results in my opinion, but I do prefer the raw scanning method (which I do with the Minolta software) and ColorNeg conversion for the reasons stated above. My procedure however is more time consuming--raw scan, colorneg, and finally some detail editing with photivo.
Here a recent shot that was scanned and edited that way:
Lake Powell, UT
Camera: Plaubel Makina 670
Film: Kodak Ektar 100
I.G.I.
Member
There is not much to master really in the Minolta utility - just a few controls, but I find them very effective (I mean mostly the Exposure sliders and Curves; I don't sharpen there, and don't use "dissolvers", "polishers", and that kind of stuff). But perhaps I should have mentioned at the very beginning that my expectations (of the final result) differ, hence my assessment of the tools might be at odds with the consensus (if there is such). I am little interested in doing photography that is kind of objective measurement of reality, and consequently strive for technical perfection; therefore I do not regard negative as sacrosanct, and deviation from accepted norms of WB/contrast/sharpness/blown-/clogged-whatever are not sacrilege in my view. I am interested in evocative imagery, but usually one don't gets there with production line tools aimed at semi-automated predictable results.
But all this is more about mindset, and I shouldn't hijack the thread. Suffice to say that I have no favourite scanning software: from the extremely limited choices only the Minolta Scan utility works (knock on wood!) in my set up.
But all this is more about mindset, and I shouldn't hijack the thread. Suffice to say that I have no favourite scanning software: from the extremely limited choices only the Minolta Scan utility works (knock on wood!) in my set up.
kowen
Member
Scan Wizard Pro by Microtek. Epson is ok, also. I liked Nikon's when I still had my Coolscan, liked the multisample and I believe Digital Ice.
Looked at Silverfast 8Ai via you-tube, it seems like it might be ok.
Looking at Artixscan M2 ($$$) or Plustek 8200ai ($$) for down the road. I'd hope the Microtek M2 would finally have consistant quality control, they SEEM to want to stay in the game. With the Plustek at half the price, it tempts. Then I read one or two bad reviews, and wonder why I want to play this game.
Looked at Silverfast 8Ai via you-tube, it seems like it might be ok.
Looking at Artixscan M2 ($$$) or Plustek 8200ai ($$) for down the road. I'd hope the Microtek M2 would finally have consistant quality control, they SEEM to want to stay in the game. With the Plustek at half the price, it tempts. Then I read one or two bad reviews, and wonder why I want to play this game.
JohnP1
Newbie
I voted "other". If there had been an option to vote "none" I would have chosen that. We can argue forever which software & technique produces the best scan, however from a usability point of view, especially for batch scans, they are all awfull.
I have a V750. Epson Scan looks and behaves like something from the early '90's. Vuescan: life is too short. I have never ever managed to get it to reliably and consistently batch scan. Silverfast: probably the best of a bad bunch. Had it not been bundled with the scanner I doubt I would have paid that much for a piece of software that is tied to one piece of hardware. As for their upgrage policy...
These days I use a Nikon DSLR, a macro lens, a slide holder and a light source. Much better, much, much faster and no clunky software
John
I have a V750. Epson Scan looks and behaves like something from the early '90's. Vuescan: life is too short. I have never ever managed to get it to reliably and consistently batch scan. Silverfast: probably the best of a bad bunch. Had it not been bundled with the scanner I doubt I would have paid that much for a piece of software that is tied to one piece of hardware. As for their upgrage policy...
These days I use a Nikon DSLR, a macro lens, a slide holder and a light source. Much better, much, much faster and no clunky software
John
Snowbuzz
Well-known
I used to be a Silverfast user. After Apple moved to Lion, Silverfast was rendered incompatible. Even after all the updates it continued to be unstable, so I switched to Vuescan, which I continue to use after moving back to Windows from OS X. I don't like it, but at least it doesn't crash every minute.
45tim
Member
I get the best results using Silverfast with my V700. However i find the EpsonScan workflow aswell as speed alot better. Unfortunately i get a lot less sharpness with EpsonScan. (I do not use any sharpening within either Scansoftware.) Id love to use EpsonScan so maybe someone has an idea as of what i am doing wrong.
Robin P
Well-known
Whatever comes with the scanner
Whatever comes with the scanner
I've tried Vuescan and Silverfast but always found that whatever software the scanner manufacturer supplies is easier and quicker to get good results (includes HP, Epson and Minolta).
Whatever comes with the scanner
I've tried Vuescan and Silverfast but always found that whatever software the scanner manufacturer supplies is easier and quicker to get good results (includes HP, Epson and Minolta).
45tim
Member
gnuyork
Well-known
I have Epson Scan, Vue scan and a version of Silverfast that came with my Epson. Of the three I prefer Silverfast, but it's so expensive to add a license to my 2nd scanner. I bought Vuescan that now works on both... Vuescan was a little tricky at first, but I have made it work.
gnuyork
Well-known
This is interesting.
My main goal is to get my slides to match what they look like on a slide table...which I usually have a small portable one set up next to my scanner and monitor to make adjustments on the fly. I usually do RAW scan then adjust in Lightroom. I go back and fourth with tweaking a lot, and it can be tedious. In the end I'm not even sure that I nailed it. It's amazing how just a bit of white balance adjustment can change the colors, particularly skin tone.
Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
You could set a white background, or draw a white box on your monitor, and use that instead of the lightbox. That way you cancel out color balance differences between the monitor and the lightbox.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Vuescan is affordable and transferable, unlike silver fast which has a slightly questionable Pricing structure. Vue scan also works on 64 bit machines, unlike Nikon scan.