Colour Negative Scanning, Vuescan and ColorPerfect

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is it better to scan the print?

[erl]

Scanning colour film is not difficult. A prerequisite is properly exposed and processed film of course. With VueScan, do not use film profiles. Opt for Generic. Then set the BP & WP as wide as the histogram.

 

Under colour you may adjust the separate colour channels for brightness, along with the overall brightness, but you may prefer to do this in PS.

 

Finally adjust levels and other parameters in PS. Job done.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[erl]

Is it better to scan the print?

NO!

The print is alway but a poor copy of the negative, which is a poor copy of the original subject. The dynamic range becomes too limited going down that path.

[Stealth3kpl]

Scanning colour film is not difficult. .

 

Ha!

[plasticman]

I agree with Erl - I think many of the difficulties arise from over-complicating the process and allowing the scanning software to intervene in the process in ways that make it less predictable. As far as I'm concerned, the scanning software is never going to be as good at color or image manipulation as Photoshop - so I simply don't allow it to do anything.

 

The way I use Vuescan is to capture a linear negative scan with no clipping, no color profiles, no dust reduction, not even multi-passes to reduce noise. What comes out is as good and straight a scan as I can get from my scanner, in my opinion. Photoshop (or Photoline for plug-ins that don't support 64-bit yet), are much better at everything after that first capture than scanning software can ever be - especially now that ColorPerfect has been updated so that black clipping no longer occurs.

 

Admittedly there are rare times when Vuescan doesn't seem to handle even the linear scan as effectively as my demo version of Silverfast (I mailed Ed Hamrick about this, but got one of his traditionally rude replies), but I refuse to pay the extortionate amount that Lasersoft want to charge for the Nikon LS9000 version of Silverfast. Their pricing policy - which is basically increase the cost depending on the price of the scanner hardware - strikes me as cynical gouging. But that's another discussion...

[CalArts 99]

As far as I'm concerned, the scanning software is never going to be as good at color or image manipulation as Photoshop - so I simply don't allow it to do anything.

 

The way I use Vuescan is to capture a linear negative scan with no clipping, no color profiles, no dust reduction, not even multi-passes to reduce noise. What comes out is as good and straight a scan as I can get from my scanner, in my opinion. Photoshop (or Photoline for plug-ins that don't support 64-bit yet), are much better at everything after that first capture than scanning software can ever be.

 

Admittedly there are rare times when Vuescan doesn't seem to handle even the linear scan as effectively as my demo version of Silverfast (I mailed Ed Hamrick about this, but got one of his traditionally rude replies), but I refuse to pay the extortionate amount that Lasersoft want to charge for the Nikon LS9000 version of Silverfast. Their pricing policy - which is basically increase the cost depending on the price of the scanner hardware - strikes me as cynical gouging. But that's another discussion...

 

That's really the best way to do color (and B+W, too.) Scan flat and edit in PS. PS is fully capable to do all that one needs to get the best files for printing.

 

I also feel that Silverfast is more robust and with better tools but totally agree about their pricing structure.

 

Don't give up on color film. Film has the potential to produce excellent color without a lot of fussing around. No color fringing and other weird non-human-like aberrations.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Stealth3kpl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The way I use Vuescan is to capture a linear negative scan with no clipping, no color profiles, no dust reduction, not even multi-passes to reduce noise. What comes out is as good and straight a scan as I can get from my scanner, in my opinion. Photoshop (or Photoline for plug-ins that don't support 64-bit yet), are much better at everything after that first capture than scanning software can ever be .

 

Is this referring to a linear scan that is inverted or a scan that gives a positive image?

I would find that a neagtive scanned with no inversion but inverted in later in photoshop wouldn't yield reds. Are you letting vuescan invert the image?

Pete

[Stealth3kpl]

That's really the best way to do color (and B+W, too.) Scan flat and edit in PS. PS is fully capable to do all that one needs to get the best files for printing.

 

I also feel that Silverfast is more robust and with better tools but totally agree about their pricing structure.

 

Don't give up on color film. Film has the potential to produce excellent color without a lot of fussing around. No color fringing and other weird non-human-like aberrations.

That's a lovely conversion. Is this colour negative? C41?

Pete

[plasticman]

Is this referring to a linear scan that is inverted or a scan that gives a positive image?

I would find that a neagtive scanned with no inversion but inverted in later in photoshop wouldn't yield reds. Are you letting vuescan invert the image?

Pete

 

Just a straight, non-inverted scan of the negative image, exactly the way it's described on these help pages that you referred to before.

 

I don't even do the four-pass thing, as I found the minimal noise from the LS9000 sensor didn't trouble me. And I also make sure I choose 'Raw output with: Scan' and not 'Save' so that Vuescan doesn't even rotate the scan, let alone do any post-processing to the file, such as initial dust removal.

 

I save a 48-bit RGB tiff file (ie: 16 bits per channel) - and don't tick the Raw DNG box, as it doesn't give a true DNG file in any case.

 

That's it. The results after ColorPerfect has converted the file sometimes leave me amazed at how life-like they are, though I'll admit there are certain sorts of exposures which never work so well.

[Broadside]

Does ColorPerfect integrate with Lightroom or do you need Photoshop?

[Stealth3kpl]

as I found the minimal noise from the LS9000 sensor didn't trouble me. And I also make sure I choose 'Raw output with: Scan' and not 'Save' so that Vuescan doesn't even rotate the scan, let alone do any post-processing to the file, such as initial dust removal. .

 

For sometime I've believed that the problem I've had with achieving red reds by this method stems from the V700 itself. Scanning colourneg with vuescan and V700 doesn't produce a file that can be inverted in Photoshop with near correct colour representation, particularly reds. This is the only explanation I can draw from my hundreds of scans with every conceivable workflow using the various types of software. The only way I can achieve red reds is with EpsonScan and Silverfast scanning as colourneg, and Vuescan in conjunction with ColorPerfect.

With the V700, scanning and finding the blackpoint of each colour channel then the white point of each colour channel, whether done in scanner software such as Vuescan, or later in a software package such as Photoshop acieves black blacks and white whites but doesn't guarantee correct colour representation through the colour gamut even if a mid grey can be found to offer some guidance. Epson Scan is the best solution, scanning colour negative as "Colour negative" then manipulating (black and white points for each colour channel then finding a grey point) in Photoshop.

I'm convinced the problem lies with the V700 as whenever someone says scanning colournegative is straight forward and trot out the same advice that's heard over and over again, they are not using the V700.

Sits back and waits for someone to say they use the V700....

 

Pete

Edited November 21, 2012 by Stealth3kpl

[Stealth3kpl]

That's really the best way to do color (and B+W, too.) Scan flat and edit in PS. PS is fully capable to do all that one needs to get the best files for printing.

 

I also feel that Silverfast is more robust and with better tools but totally agree about their pricing structure.

 

Don't give up on color film. Film has the potential to produce excellent color without a lot of fussing around. No color fringing and other weird non-human-like aberrations.

 

What scanner is this?

Pete

[Stealth3kpl]

Scanning colour film is not difficult. A prerequisite is properly exposed and processed film of course. With VueScan, do not use film profiles. Opt for Generic. Then set the BP & WP as wide as the histogram.

 

Under colour you may adjust the separate colour channels for brightness, along with the overall brightness, but you may prefer to do this in PS.

 

Finally adjust levels and other parameters in PS. Job done.

 

This is the method employed here in the Vuescan scans following profiling the negative:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/261830-scanning-software-best-possible-quality.html#post2238743

 

using the V700

Pete

[Stealth3kpl]

I agree with Erl - I think many of the difficulties arise from over-complicating the process and allowing the scanning software to intervene in the process in ways that make it less predictable. As far as I'm concerned, the scanning software is never going to be as good at color or image manipulation as Photoshop - so I simply don't allow it to do anything.

 

The way I use Vuescan is to capture a linear negative scan with no clipping, no color profiles, no dust reduction, not even multi-passes to reduce noise. What comes out is as good and straight a scan as I can get from my scanner, in my opinion. Photoshop (or Photoline for plug-ins that don't support 64-bit yet), are much better at everything after that first capture than scanning software can ever be - especially now that ColorPerfect has been updated so that black clipping no longer occurs.

 

Admittedly there are rare times when Vuescan doesn't seem to handle even the linear scan as effectively as my demo version of Silverfast (I mailed Ed Hamrick about this, but got one of his traditionally rude replies), but I refuse to pay the extortionate amount that Lasersoft want to charge for the Nikon LS9000 version of Silverfast. Their pricing policy - which is basically increase the cost depending on the price of the scanner hardware - strikes me as cynical gouging. But that's another discussion...

 

Incidently, I agree with everything you say here. This is why I dropped ColourPerfect long ago (this thread was started 2 years ago). What scanner are you using for 35mm colour negative?

Pete

[Stealth3kpl]

I might have said this two years ago, but I have given up on C41 colour completely now. In fact, I gave away my last C41 colour negative film yesterday.

 

I know how to scan, but I have increasingly found that scanning C41 colour negative film to be a very frustrating experience. Whether it's just "me", a lack of decent labs, staffed with people who know what they are doing, stale chemicals, or what ever, I am sticking to black and white film in the M2/MP from now on.

 

Are you referring to negatives developed at Peak?

Pete

[Stealth3kpl]

Just a straight, non-inverted scan of the negative image, exactly the way it's described on these help pages that you referred to before.

 

I don't even do the four-pass thing, as I found the minimal noise from the LS9000 sensor didn't trouble me. And I also make sure I choose 'Raw output with: Scan' and not 'Save' so that Vuescan doesn't even rotate the scan, let alone do any post-processing to the file, such as initial dust removal.

 

I save a 48-bit RGB tiff file (ie: 16 bits per channel) - and don't tick the Raw DNG box, as it doesn't give a true DNG file in any case.

 

That's it. The results after ColorPerfect has converted the file sometimes leave me amazed at how life-like they are, though I'll admit there are certain sorts of exposures which never work so well.

 

Oh, I've just noticed that you are using extra software in the form of ColorPerfect rather than just taking the pure scan from vuescan into photoshop and converting it there. I thought you were saying there is no need for Colorperfect which was the original point made by this thread. Ed Hamrick does say that the negative should be profiled first though, but it's good that you don't feel the need. I find no two conversions with Colorperfect are the same so by the end of scanning a series of images in the same location they all look different.

Anyway, I see we are agreeing that taking a file outputted by a scanner cannot be colour corrected by finding the black and white points of each colour channel as suggested by Erl (at least from the V700)

Pete

 

I agree with Erl - I think many of the difficulties arise from over-complicating the process and allowing the scanning software to intervene in the process in ways that make it less predictable. As far as I'm concerned, the scanning software is never going to be as good at color or image manipulation as Photoshop - so I simply don't allow it to do anything.

 

The way I use Vuescan is to capture a linear negative scan with no clipping, no color profiles, no dust reduction, not even multi-passes to reduce noise. What comes out is as good and straight a scan as I can get from my scanner, in my opinion. Photoshop (or Photoline for plug-ins that don't support 64-bit yet), are much better at everything after that first capture than scanning software can ever be - especially now that ColorPerfect has been updated so that black clipping no longer occurs.

 

Admittedly there are rare times when Vuescan doesn't seem to handle even the linear scan as effectively as my demo version of Silverfast (I mailed Ed Hamrick about this, but got one of his traditionally rude replies), but I refuse to pay the extortionate amount that Lasersoft want to charge for the Nikon LS9000 version of Silverfast. Their pricing policy - which is basically increase the cost depending on the price of the scanner hardware - strikes me as cynical gouging. But that's another discussion...

[plasticman]

Oh, I've just noticed that you are using extra software in the form of ColorPerfect rather than just taking the pure scan from vuescan into photoshop and converting it there. I thought you were saying there is no need for Colorperfect which was the original point made by this thread. Ed Hamrick does say that the negative should be profiled first though, but it's good that you don't feel the need. I find no two conversions with Colorperfect are the same so by the end of scanning a series of images in the same location they all look different.

Anyway, I see we are agreeing that taking a file outputted by a scanner cannot be colour corrected by finding the black and white points of each colour channel as suggested by Erl (at least from the V700)

Pete

 

Ah - yeah - I do use ColorPerfect. But I'd say that the plug-in augments the strengths of Photoshop, and does this one task (converting a film negative) in a more reliable way than Ps itself does. This is true of many plug-ins that are developed to complete a single task that Ps wasn't primarily designed for.

 

In 9.5 / 10 cases I'm really impressed by ColorPerfect's conversions - and in the remaining cases a less than optimal conversion will still be better than a Photoshop conversion on its own. But after the initial conversion by CP, nothing can beat Photoshop's controls.

Edited November 21, 2012 by plasticman

[Stealth3kpl]

I'm looking forward to hearing how CalArts99 managed to do the conversion above, and what scanner was used - if it's C41 that is. How about it?

Pete

[plasticman]

Don't have time right now to look through my scans, but here's one that jumped out at me as having some reds that I definitely don't see are a problem. Not as saturated and sharp as CalArts luscious colors, but this looks like the muted and overcast day it actually was.

 

Sometime I'll re-do the conversion, as I forgot to bring down the highlight clipping in CP (so there's a clipped area on my daughter's tee), but otherwise it's just a standard conversion, with a slight warm cast that I liked. Not art, but I love C41.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[CalArts 99]

I've never heard of ColorPerfect. And sorry, I just now realized the thread is about ColorPerfect.

 

I scan with Vuescan (it has RAW options with tiff outputs) and with multiple passes (seems to help with shadow areas.) But aside from that everything is done in PS. The film is Ektar with noise reduction, sharpening, and color correction (using the human eyeball method ) done in PS and not in the scanning software. The scanner is a Nikon Coolscan (48 bit at 4000 dpi.) Scratches, dirt, and film imperfections are done with PS brushes and PS filters. It's just my way of working, everybody will have their own methods.

 

(For printing large I normally do drum scans on an Aztek Premier PMT scanner as the Dmax is better, and so is grain control. But that's only because I have access to one at the studio where I used to work.)

 

I don't mind B+W with digital. And scanning can be a bit tougher with B+W film sometimes. I find that digital doesn't look so wonky with RGB to grayscale conversions. It can look pretty good. But with color I feel that film has it all over digital. I'm really disliking digital color even after adding noise for a dimensional film grain 'look.' Maybe it's just me, but digital looks pretty lifeless and clinical in comparison.

 

Anyway, as I mentioned everybody will have their own method for scanning that works for them. As long as the print looks great to your own mind's-eye, it will look great to your audience. And don't forget that printing will add other issues to take into consideration (like reduced dynamic range, various paper types and surfaces, ink versus analog, etc..)

 

My point was to keep promoting color film and hope that people will take the time to work with it since the rewards are definitely there.

 

(btw, this is a good place for custom profiles and they aren't too expensive: CHROMiX ColorGear.com

There are other good places too, of course.)