Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Your Epson Flat Bed Scanner Settings and Procedures  (Read 32034 times)
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678



WWW
« on: December 19, 2010, 05:58:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I thought it would be helpful to start a discussion regarding settings and procedures for Epson flat bed scanners.   I've scanned 120 and 135 format film both transparencies and negatives.  Certainly I've struggled to get the best out of my Epson V600 scanner and know I could be doing better but need help.   What settings and procedures do you use when scanning? Please mention the unit you use, type of film, format, etc..

My own current procedure with medium film (both negative and trans)  is to only use ICE and all other processing is done with Photoshop Elements 8 after the scan.  I'm scanning at 2400 bpi and 24 bit color.  The only change was when I scanned 35mm underwater shots which tended to be very blue due to water absorption.  I let the Epson program Color Correct before the scan and that worked pretty good. 

Let's limit this to Epson and let's not get into discussions why other manufacturers' film scanners are better or worse, or that we should switch to digital, etc.  That's for other threads.  I'd like to keep this as a "how to" for Epson users. 


Thanks  ALan.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6891


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2010, 06:06:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I thought it would be helpful to start a discussion regarding settings and procedures for Epson flat bed scanners.   I've scanned 120 and 135 format film both transparencies and negatives.  Certainly I've struggled to get the best out of my Epson V600 scanner and know I could be doing better but need help.   What settings and procedures do you use when scanning? Please mention the unit you use, type of film, format, etc..

My own current procedure with medium film (both negative and trans)  is to only use ICE and all other processing is done with Photoshop Elements 8 after the scan.  I'm scanning at 2400 bpi and 24 bit color.  The only change was when I scanned 35mm underwater shots which tended to be very blue due to water absorption.  I let the Epson program Color Correct before the scan and that worked pretty good. 

Let's limit this to Epson and let's not get into discussions why other manufacturers' film scanners are better or worse, or that we should switch to digital, etc.  That's for other threads.  I'd like to keep this as a "how to" for Epson users. 


Thanks  ALan.

In what ways do you think you could be doing better? What issues or quality gaps are you encountering? What software are you using for making the scans? Specifically what aspects of scanning do you think you need help with?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2010, 09:09:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark  Good questions.  I'm using the Epson software.  Some of the things I would like to know more about are:
1.  How do you limit the blocked up shadows areas?  When I use backlight selection, I just get a lot of red dots in the scanned photo especially in the shadow areas.
2. Which are better to scan and post process if you bracketed an exposure?  The under, over or calculated exposure shot?
3. Which pre-scan selections do you use and why?  How do you set them up?  (I don't use any except ICE and make all changes PP to speed up the scan process and reduce the overall amount of processing time I have to spend).
4. Do you handle these selections differently between 35mm and MF?
5. Which films do you find scan best with the flat bed?
6.  How do you straighten the curled negatives?
7. What non-Epson scan software do you use and where does it work best for you?

I was hoping to get a discusion started that we all could trade on our experience so we all can scan better.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6891


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2010, 10:16:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark  Good questions.  I'm using the Epson software.  Some of the things I would like to know more about are:
1.  How do you limit the blocked up shadows areas?  When I use backlight selection, I just get a lot of red dots in the scanned photo especially in the shadow areas.
2. Which are better to scan and post process if you bracketed an exposure?  The under, over or calculated exposure shot?
3. Which pre-scan selections do you use and why?  How do you set them up?  (I don't use any except ICE and make all changes PP to speed up the scan process and reduce the overall amount of processing time I have to spend).
4. Do you handle these selections differently between 35mm and MF?
5. Which films do you find scan best with the flat bed?
6.  How do you straighten the curled negatives?
7. What non-Epson scan software do you use and where does it work best for you?

I was hoping to get a discusion started that we all could trade on our experience so we all can scan better.

Epson Scan is a fairly limited application which nonetheless has the key tools needed to at least get a decent scan into Photoshop or Photoshop Elements where you can continue working on the image. You may wish to download demo versions of VueScan and SilverFast Ai6 to see whether those programs would better address your objectives.

The first thing about opening shadows is to check whether the film itself is exposed in a manner that the shadows can be opened. If you think they can be, and you are working in Epson Scan, it would be best to try doing this with the histogram and tone curve adjustments. The best exposure for scanning will be the one which doesn't clip highlights or shadows. Check the histogram in Epson Scan to determine which exposure has the most well-behaved histogram. If you must compromise, avoid exposures which clip all three channels in the highlights, because that is unrecoverable, whereas shadows which look plugged can often be opened somewhat in the software.

I scan in 48 bit colour (this is 3 channels by 16 bit each) because this maximizes the amount of data which can be used for post-scan adjustments, and minimizes risks of banding and posterization. If Photoshop Elements cannot handle 16-bit data, that's OK, scan in 16-bit anyhow because one day you may wish to reprocess these scans with an application that is 16-bit capable. You can convert a duplicate of these scans to 8 bit for Elements, but keep the original as a 16-bit file.

In the Configuration options you should go to the Color section, select Color Sync and within that menu select the ARGB color space and the correct profile for your scanner from the drop-down list in "Scanner Source". I would recommend ProPhoto colour space, except that Epson Scan doesn't provide it.

There is no need to scan everything at 2400 PPI. It depends on the output dimensions and output PPI you will need. For example, if you scan a 35mm frame at 2400 PPI, you will have 3600 pixels on the long dimensions. If you print that at 360 PPI, you can make a print with a 10 inch long dimension. With this kind of calculation, think of the largest output size you are ever likely to make and the output resolution you will require, then scan-in at the corresponding input resolution. It may be more or less than 2400 PPI.

As for how to set-up your scans in Epson Scan, click the Help button at the lower left of the Epson Scan interface.

You raise a question about which things to do as part of the scan and afterward. The configuration options, and exposure correction are the most important to do at the scan stage, because mishaps here could be difficult to recover with decent quality afterward.

Anything suggested here is valid regardless of whether the input media is 35mm or MF.

I don't find any film scans best with a flat bed. Epson is is as good as it gets for flat-bed scanning, but a good, dedicated film scanner will deliver more detailed scans. Unfortunately the best of these scanners are either costly or hard to find or both. If you can find a decent buy of a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 original or model 2, or with more difficulty, one of the later Nikon Coolscan models, they will out-perform the flatbeds. As well, you may wish to check-out my article on the Plustek 7600iAi on this website.

Dealing with curled negatives is difficult. Ideally, if the scanner allows you to scan them on glass, you can get them held down temporarily by wetting the underside with film cleaner. If this approach can't be done with that scanner, you need a frame-holder which flattens the film. The frame holder I have for the Epson V750 isn't too bad for that, but not stellar. You may try flattening the negatives under a few heavy books for a week or so and see whether that helps, being careful that nothing transfers from the book to the negatives.

I use SilverFast Ai6 Studio for all my scanning - it is all 'round the most complete scanning solution on the market for all the scanners discussed here.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 335



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2010, 06:17:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I am concerned to scan some of my old medium format black-and-white negatives.  I have an Epson Perfection 3170 flatbed scanner, and have just ordered a BetterScanning variable height film holder.  Does it matter significantly with black-and-white scanning whether I use the native Epson scanning software, VueScan or SilverFast Ai6 Studio? 
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6891


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2010, 07:12:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I am concerned to scan some of my old medium format black-and-white negatives.  I have an Epson Perfection 3170 flatbed scanner, and have just ordered a BetterScanning variable height film holder.  Does it matter significantly with black-and-white scanning whether I use the native Epson scanning software, VueScan or SilverFast Ai6 Studio? 

They all have similar options for configuring the scan set-up. Whichever you use, the key thing is the settings, the most basic of which is whether you wish to scan the film as a grayscale image, or an RGB image - even though it is B&W. It is often recommended to scan B&W as an RGB image for two reasons: (i) you have all three colour channels available for experimenting with toning effects after scanning, and (ii) the image file contains much more data, making it more robust for post-scan image editing. The only downside of an RGB scan could be non-neutrality, but this is easily dealt-with at or after the scan stage. I would recommend that you start with Epson Scan and try the various settings options to see what works best for you. If you are satisfied that you can achieve acceptable outcomes with this software, you're done. If you aren't, download trial versions of Vuescan and SilverFast and experiment.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 335



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2010, 07:30:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark:  Great -- and welcome -- advice.  Will try when my film holder arrives (post-Christmas).  Regards, Jim
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2010, 08:02:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark:  Thanks for your in-depth response.  My original question regarding histogram and shadow areas I questioned on braketed shots.  It seems that from the standpoint of "normal" phtography, the best picture to scan would be the best exposed from a braketed set.  However, my thinking originally was that possibly because of how the scanner works, the scanner might work better by using either the over or under exposed shot.  What do you think?  Alan
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6891


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2010, 08:51:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark:  Thanks for your in-depth response.  My original question regarding histogram and shadow areas I questioned on braketed shots.  It seems that from the standpoint of "normal" phtography, the best picture to scan would be the best exposed from a braketed set.  However, my thinking originally was that possibly because of how the scanner works, the scanner might work better by using either the over or under exposed shot.  What do you think?  Alan

You'll get a better quality scan from a better quality exposure.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2010, 08:40:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan, there are two opposing camps regarding the best approach for scanning film.  I think it is fair to say that Mark is in the camp that advocates making a lot of image adjustments with scanning software.  I’m in the other camp and advocate making as few adjustments with the scanning software as reasonable and instead doing most processing with specialized image processing software (in my case Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw).

I recommend that you first make an informed decision about which camp you want to join because it will control your whole approach to scanning.

In my view, the goal of scanning is to capture as much information from your film as your scanner is capable of retrieving. (See the first part of this video which shows you a good scan: http://craftingphotographs.com/2009/11/12/examples-the-making-of-a-photograph-mono-lake-sunrise/. ) Then, save the master scan and process your photos in a nondestructive manner using Photoshop or other quality image editing software. Under my approach, you set up your scanner hardware via your scanning software to achieve the best “raw” scan.  In other words, adjust focus and exposure (and ICE).  It’s as easy as taking a good photo with a digital camera, which is redundant since your scanner is nothing more than a specialized digital camera.  Both use the same types of light sensors, e.g. CCDs.  Any non-hardware adjustments merely change the pixel data produced by your scanner’s CCD, which usually is better done in Photoshop. 

A search on the internet should provide you with a more complete discussion of these two approaches to scanning.  You can start with the links below.  To give you an example of the difference in approach, however, I’ll use Mark’s approach to scanning resolution.  He advocates setting your scan resolution to what you think you’ll need to make prints.  I say it’s better to scan at your scanner’s native resolution.  Your scanner has a physical CCD.  No matter what input resolution you set in your scanner software, the CCD has a fixed number of photo sites which your software is incapable of altering.  Apparently, however, Mark believes that your scanner software can either change the physical dimensions of you CCD or advocates using you scanning software to automatically resample the pixel information produced by your scanner. The former is possible only in science fiction and the latter, in my opinion, is an unwise choice.  Why would you want to forever throw away information that your scanner can retrieve?

Scan resolution is of course just one aspect of scanning, but what I described about it applies generally to all non-hardware image adjustments in the scanning software.  A rather poor analogy would be to buy an expensive medium format digital back and then shoot jpegs with automatic downsizing.  I just don’t understand why so many people think scanning somehow is so different that they would do things when scanning that they’d never consider with a high quality digital camera. 

I recommend that, unlike so much information on the web, you clearly distinguish and separate the scanning process from the imaging editing process.  I don’t understand why so many people intermingle and confuse these two distinct aspects.  Maybe it’s because if people really understood what their scanner was doing there would be a lot smaller market for scanning software that is usually, just to pull a number out of the air,  10% scanning software and 90% second rate imaging editing software.

Anyway, Alan, you can take or leave my suggestions.  I know that there is a good deal of disagreement on this topic, so ultimately you’ll have to decide what works best for you.

Here are some links for more discussion on this topic: 
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=33511
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=10206.msg59059#msg59059
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=21014.msg154432#msg154432
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=25850.msg200755#msg200755
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=31086#entry251635
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=21014
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00GJOo?start=10
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49494.0
Logged

Dean Erger
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6891


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2010, 11:13:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan, there are two opposing camps regarding the best approach for scanning film.  I think it is fair to say that Mark is in the camp that advocates making a lot of image adjustments with scanning software.  I’m in the other camp and advocate making as few adjustments with the scanning software as reasonable and instead doing most processing with specialized image processing software (in my case Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw).

I recommend that you first make an informed decision about which camp you want to join because it will control your whole approach to scanning.

In my view, the goal of scanning is to capture as much information from your film as your scanner is capable of retrieving. (See the first part of this video which shows you a good scan: http://craftingphotographs.com/2009/11/12/examples-the-making-of-a-photograph-mono-lake-sunrise/. ) Then, save the master scan and process your photos in a nondestructive manner using Photoshop or other quality image editing software. Under my approach, you set up your scanner hardware via your scanning software to achieve the best “raw” scan.  In other words, adjust focus and exposure (and ICE).  It’s as easy as taking a good photo with a digital camera, which is redundant since your scanner is nothing more than a specialized digital camera.  Both use the same types of light sensors, e.g. CCDs.  Any non-hardware adjustments merely change the pixel data produced by your scanner’s CCD, which usually is better done in Photoshop. 

A search on the internet should provide you with a more complete discussion of these two approaches to scanning.  You can start with the links below.  To give you an example of the difference in approach, however, I’ll use Mark’s approach to scanning resolution.  He advocates setting your scan resolution to what you think you’ll need to make prints.  I say it’s better to scan at your scanner’s native resolution.  Your scanner has a physical CCD.  No matter what input resolution you set in your scanner software, the CCD has a fixed number of photo sites which your software is incapable of altering.  Apparently, however, Mark believes that your scanner software can either change the physical dimensions of you CCD or advocates using you scanning software to automatically resample the pixel information produced by your scanner. The former is possible only in science fiction and the latter, in my opinion, is an unwise choice.  Why would you want to forever throw away information that your scanner can retrieve?

Scan resolution is of course just one aspect of scanning, but what I described about it applies generally to all non-hardware image adjustments in the scanning software.  A rather poor analogy would be to buy an expensive medium format digital back and then shoot jpegs with automatic downsizing.  I just don’t understand why so many people think scanning somehow is so different that they would do things when scanning that they’d never consider with a high quality digital camera. 

I recommend that, unlike so much information on the web, you clearly distinguish and separate the scanning process from the imaging editing process.  I don’t understand why so many people intermingle and confuse these two distinct aspects.  Maybe it’s because if people really understood what their scanner was doing there would be a lot smaller market for scanning software that is usually, just to pull a number out of the air,  10% scanning software and 90% second rate imaging editing software.

Anyway, Alan, you can take or leave my suggestions.  I know that there is a good deal of disagreement on this topic, so ultimately you’ll have to decide what works best for you.

Here are some links for more discussion on this topic: 
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=33511
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=10206.msg59059#msg59059
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=21014.msg154432#msg154432
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=25850.msg200755#msg200755
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=31086#entry251635
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=21014
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00GJOo?start=10
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49494.0


There are a number of misperceptions here which I only have time to deal with in a very summary fashion - I've already written extensively about much of this stuff.

Firstly, there are no "camps". Some things are technically better to do in the scanner software, other things are not, and the remainder is completely optional, depending on what you find works best for you. One simply needs to be pragmatic about this, doing your own testing and making your own decisions - but there are no "camps" to join. One of key tenets of digital imaging I try to emphasize is the importance of understanding the technicalities involved and from that point - pragmatism.

Secondly, there is no such thing as a scanner's "native resolution". There are many native resolutions of all the scanners I've ever tested. Scan resolution is normally set in discrete steps from lower to higher, not a continuum, and in SilverFast you can easily detect what these discrete steps are. As long as you scan at a discrete resolution step, you know exactly what you are getting. If you select an intermediate resolution, under the hood the scanner reverts to the closest discrete step relative to your selection.

Thirdly, let us deal with this sentence from Dean: <Apparently, however, Mark believes that your scanner software can either change the physical dimensions of you CCD or advocates using you scanning software to automatically resample the pixel information produced by your scanner. The former is possible only in science fiction and the latter, in my opinion, is an unwise choice.  Why would you want to forever throw away information that your scanner can retrieve?> I have never ever anywhere said or implied this "science fiction". The CCD and the maximum optical resolution of the CCD are fixed. The choice of a scanning resolution below the maximum optical resolution of the scanner producers smaller than maximum file size and therefore resamples the scan data The whole of the CCD is used to capture all the data the scanner can reproduce, but it is then resampled to fit the dimensions and PPI you selected. I have tested - extensively - the alternatives of scanning at maximum optical resolution, then resizing or resampling in Photoshop, versus scanning at my target dimensions and PPI and doing no resizing or resampling in Photoshop. I have then made large prints of the results from both approaches and frankly I couldn't tell which was which. I did this using SilverFast. Results may differ with other software - that I don't know because I haven't made these tests with software other than SilverFast and Photoshop. I agree with Dean - to the extent file size is no issue for you - there is at least no harm scanning at maximum optical resolution and retaining all the data without resampling. I do not agree that this is necessarily superior to the other approach - that depends on whether you know what your maximum dimensions will need to be for now and forever, and on the quality of the software you are using. As is often the case in digital imaging, the expression "it depends" is rather crucial.

Fourthly, there is no such thing as a raw scan. The film already has an embedded gamma which is non-linear, so this cannot be compared with what a digital camera's raw image opened in Camera Raw at zero'd parameters gives you. The spectral response of the scanner CCD may also not be exactly what you like, nor is it colour managed all on its own, nor is it necessarily stable and exactly repeatable even from one sensor to the next in the same model - it depends on the manufacturing quality, hence we profile the scanners to get them into a known state for producing consistent colour in a colour-managed workflow. If by "raw" scan Dean simply means a scan that has had no other adjustments apart from those produced by the scanner profile, exposure, focus and ICE, OK - I would call that a minimally adjusted scan, and as I said above, one can do this and complete the editing in another application. It is of course possible to retain this minimally adjusted scan in its original state in one of two ways: (i) use SilverFast HDR, which produces a scan with no adjustments apart from the selection of a gamma greater than one (if you wish); you can then make as many adjustments as you like in SilverFast HDR, then export the resulting file to your hard disk for whatever else you wish to do with it. But you can always revert back to the pre-adjusted state of the image in SilverFast HDR. (ii) The other approach is to always save your minimally adjusted scan as a master file on your hard drive, and make all your adjustments in PS or LR on a separate copy. Again, largely optional, depending for many of the adjustments where you prefer to make them and what process comes out best for you, which could vary from imaging situation to another.

Finally, I refer you to my various articles on this website where I have gone to some length explaining the strengths and limitations of the various approaches to image adjustment as between the scanning software (in my case using SilverFast) versus LR or PS. I generally conclude, and still maintain, that every application does things a bit differently, producing variations in results. Some are better in some respects than others, so it is good to have it all at one's disposition to experiment and adopt as appropriate. To say that imaging editing is generally "second rate" in all scanning software really over simplifies a much more nuanced reality. No one piece of software has a monopoly on preferred outcomes in every circumstance every time.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678



WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2010, 10:40:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Lots of different opinions, experiences and suggestions as I expected.  Maybe there's more than one good way to get to the same results?   I did watch the YouTube and the one thing he mentioned about scanning was to get the lightest part at around 230, no more, and then let the rest fall where they may.  My own technique was to only use ICE and then PP afterwards in Elements only to save time and energy.  Frankly using two different processors, before and after the scans, are too much for me.  I'm still trying to learn Elements.  And I was pretty gratified seeing how quickly adjusting levels in Elements quickly brought back the reasonably good lighting and color even on scans that looked drab.

Maybe if you can tell me what's wrong and right with my photos, that would help in trying to better the scan process.  Not the composition, (I'm not looking  for a critique), but the lighting and colors whether they look correct or not in the final image.  Obviously my original scans looked nothing like the final posted images after PP with Elements.  But isn't that the point?  I really don't care how I get there.  There could be many different but acceptable ways.

Here's a link to the scans PP'd.  If you would, please pick one or two by name and tell me what's right and wrong with the colors and lighting.  And how in the pre or post scan process they can be improved.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/sets/
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6891


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2010, 09:31:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan, to the extent one can judge web-version JPEGs on a colour-managed display I think on the whole you are doing very well with this. I have only three comments: (1) in several images the skin tones look slightly over-saturated, but hard to say because I don't know the complexion of the individual or the lighting conditions, (2) in several images the skies are a bit purple. If they should be more blue, you can fix this by removing some magenta from blue. (3) In several images you seem a shade closer to the highlight clipping point than I would be comfortable with, fixable by readjusting the highlights a bit. Keep up the good work!
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2010, 12:37:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow, I’ve never seen so many straw men and semantic quibbles in such a small space.  Mark, I commend you on your creativity.  Wink

However, when you criticize my use of five words, “second rate imaging editing software”, as over simplifying a much more nuanced reality, you surely go beyond the pale.  I can only respond by recalling the scene from Casablanca where Captain Renault orders Rick to close his café.

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

Or perhaps I could play the role of Ed McMahon to your Johnny Carson in one of their recurring skits, where Ed, as the quintessential straight man, comments on a small pamphlet that Johnny is holding:

Me, as Ed: “You know, it’s amazing, truly amazing, that everything you’d ever want to know about [ X ], absolutely everything, is contained in that one small pamphlet.” 

To which you could reply ala Johnny Carson, and in recognition to your Canadian heritage, “Wrong, Moose Breath!” 


To all those too young to know what I’m talking about, I beg your indulgence for my attempt at humor.  I should probably stop now, but I can’t resist one more attempt inspired by Mark’s reply. 

A quote from the great character actor, Warren Oats, from the film “Stripes”, where Warren plays Sergeant Hulka:

Psycho: The name's Francis Soyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis, and I'll kill you.
Leon: Ooooooh.
Psycho: You just made the list, buddy. And I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat-hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you. Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you homos touch me, and I'll kill you.
Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.
Logged

Dean Erger
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2010, 05:07:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark:  Thanks for your review of my photos.  1. A couple of the people shots were with Velvia 50.  I really stuggled to adjust the red but wasn't too successful. I hope the others were OK regarding complxion as they were shot with a negative low sat film.  2.  Would you mind naming the phto(s) that have the magenta?  I don't know which ones. 3.  Would I adjust the highlight clipping point in the scan process or is it best afterwards in Elements?  If so how?
Tks. Alan
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6891


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2010, 11:04:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark:  Thanks for your review of my photos.  1. A couple of the people shots were with Velvia 50.  I really stuggled to adjust the red but wasn't too successful. I hope the others were OK regarding complxion as they were shot with a negative low sat film.  2.  Would you mind naming the phto(s) that have the magenta?  I don't know which ones. 3.  Would I adjust the highlight clipping point in the scan process or is it best afterwards in Elements?  If so how?
Tks. Alan

Alan, unless Janet was really of this complexion, the following struck me as a tad over-saturated: Janet Portrait, Janet Fence and Janet in Car. Highlights could be toned down especially in Al Roker Drops In and Janet and Julie Sunning - you've got really bright reflections of strong sunlight to deal with there, so I can see the problem. It is best addressed at the scan stage by reducing exposure a bit. The possible issues with the sky show in Sky Branch (perhaps a bit too magenta), Portland Maine Lighthouse (same) and Branch (a bit too much Cyan). But for these, your toning may not be too far off depending on the time of day it was etc. These are hard to judge in terms of accuracy, so just my impressions knowing nothing about the capture conditions. Hope this helps.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678



WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2010, 03:42:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark:  That's very good news.  It seems like the scfanning process I'm following did not create any big problems and I seem to be able to deal with the images that the flat bed scanner is giving me.

The problems you flagged for 1 and 2 were because the films were Velvia 50 so the reds and magentas have to be adjusted and can be in PP with Elements.  The highlights are a bigger problem.  How do you reduce that?  That's in the original film.  Adjust during scanning or in PP with Elements?  And how do you adjust it?  Thanks Alan.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6891


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 24, 2010, 08:22:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark:  That's very good news.  It seems like the scfanning process I'm following did not create any big problems and I seem to be able to deal with the images that the flat bed scanner is giving me.

The problems you flagged for 1 and 2 were because the films were Velvia 50 so the reds and magentas have to be adjusted and can be in PP with Elements.  The highlights are a bigger problem.  How do you reduce that?  That's in the original film.  Adjust during scanning or in PP with Elements?  And how do you adjust it?  Thanks Alan.

Alan, the highlight problem cannot be dealt with totally satisfactorily in scanning software or in Elements - and depending on how bad it is, it may be non-recoverable at all. As you mention, the key is what's in the film. At the scan stage, the best you can do is to make sure that you are protecting whatever amount of highlight information does reside in the film. You do this in Epson scan (or other scan software) by reducing exposure, or by pulling down the highlight portion of the tone curve a bit, or in the histogram tool, if it has tone adjustors - making sure that the right side of the histogram is not clipped. Different approaches depending on the software, but all have the common objective of moving the extreme highlights to the left of the clipping point. To do much more beyond that, if there were any real pixel data in the highlights, the best application for rebuilding it is Lightroom. You can import TIFFs into Lightroom and try its exposure control tools - in particular for this situation the Recovery Tool. Can work wonders if there were at least one channel with real data. You can download a trial of Lightroom and experiment - see if it helps - only costs you a bit of time unless you decide to purchase it.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #18 on: December 24, 2010, 04:38:11 PM »
ReplyReply

The film already has an embedded gamma

Thanks for the tip, Mark, ‘cause I thought it was just me.  I mean, everywhere I look I see gamma embedded images.  I mean everywhere.  I tried looking out of the corner of my eye. Gamma embedded.  I tried pretending I was asleep, but really keeping my eyes open just enough to peak through my eyelashes.  Still gamma embedded.  So, I tried jumping out from behind buildings to see if I could surprise this gamma embedding monster.  Still gamma embedded, although one time a little old lady did kick me in the …  well let’s just say that for awhile I didn’t see things with embedded gamma.  After my vision cleared up, and I managed to crawl to my car, I figured I’d better go to the pros to solve this gamma problem.

So, I went to see five different ophthalmologists and optometrists.  After carefully explaining my gamma nightmare, every one of them guys threw me out of their office. Three told me to never come back.  One guy went so far as to threaten to call the police.  Then it hit me!  These guys were part of a conspiracy.  In fact, I bet every ophthalmologist and optometrist is in on it.  Boy this is big!

So, as any red blooded patriot would do, I immediately called the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA and the FBI.  I explained to them that I had uncovered the mother of all conspiracies.  And worst of all, these terrorists all looked just like you and me. Something had to be done immediately.

Well, later that day, a nice young FBI agent came to my house to get more information about this terrorist conspiracy.  Boy, was he interested.  Astonished may be a better description.  Anyway, after I told him what I had discovered, he became worried for my safety.  He asked me if I had any guns in the house.  I assured him that I was more than capable of protecting myself.  Somehow, this didn’t seem to satisfy the nice young man, so I let him search my house, although I told him he wouldn’t find any terrorist ophthalmologists or optometrists in my house.

Such a nice young man.  Not only was he concerned for my safety, he was also concerned about my health.  I guess he wanted to be sure I was healthy enough to provide assistance in busting up this terrorist conspiracy.  He asked all about my medical history and wanted to know about my medications.  For example, he asked me “Are you on drugs?’’.  You don’t see this kind of concern every day.

Anyway, we had a nice chat, and even though I assured him that I could take care of myself, as he was leaving, that nice young man said that they’d be watching over me, or maybe he said that they’d be watching me.  I’m not sure, but he sure was a nice young man.

But Mark, I’m not the kind of guy to not give credit where credit is due, so I also told that nice young FBI agent all about you and that you were the one that led me to uncovering this vast ophthalmologists and optometrists terrorist conspiracy.  So, don’t be surprised or alarmed if some nice young FBI agent knocks on your door.
Logged

Dean Erger
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 24, 2010, 09:44:59 PM »
ReplyReply

It seems that I re-started on-going "discussion" between Mark and Dean when I started this topic.  I didn't realize there's such a basic disagreement of whether to process before or after the scans.   I'm glad I've given you all another chance to take some pot shots at each other.

My own very limited experience is that on a couple of scans where I tried setting before and comparing with scanning flat and adjusting PP in Eements was that I couldn't tell the difference with the final results.    I found that if I didn't get the prescan adjustments right, I would have to rescan the same shots a very long procedure.  Plus, with adjusting before the scan, that doubles the processing when you include PP and I have to spend even more time tweeking, nudging, etc.  Enough already!  So I decided to scan flat except for ICE and do processing with Elements.

However, I will agree that it is possible that my Epson V600 flat bed is possibly changing the light during the scan - don't know for sure.  It certainly is scanning twice for ICE so it's possible.  I just don't see it in the final results and while the scans can look pretty flat, just a small adjustment to levels in PP gets the contrast and colors back to what appears to be normal.  Since you Mark had no comments on my final images other than those problems caused on shots taken with Velvia or over exposing the original exposure, my procedure seems to be working - for me anyway.  I welcome other to look at my pictures and tell me where the color and exposures can be done better.  That's the whole point of this post.

However, Dean you said focus and exposure as well as ICE can be adjusted during the scan.  Can you explain how to do that?  Isn't that part of the softward processing the scanner is doing to the scanned image and not effecting the scan process directly?

As an aside, I'm using the Epson program and there were no settings I made for type of film especially negative type which seems actually to do the best. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad