Jump to content

VueScan issue: RAW DNGs become much more saturated than TIFF


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everybody

 

I have run into a situation. I am scanning Velvia RVP100 on a Nikon Coolscan V ED using the latest version of VueScan.

 

Since my workflow is to work with DNGs, which I open in Camera Raw and then in Photoshop, I only save RAW DNG files to which the infrared cleaning has been applied. In other words, I don't use TIFF files.

 

I have noticed that the RAW DNGs when opened in Camera Raw are very saturated, much more so than 1) how they look in VueScan and 2) how a TIFF of the same scan with identical settings look.

 

See these examples.

 

The first is a screenshot of the RAW DNG open in Camera Raw. It is very saturated.

 

The second is a screenshot of that same image open in VueScan just after it has been scanned. This image is not particularly saturated.

 

The third is the same scan saved as TIFF version (but converted to JPG for upload here). It looks much like the scan in VueScan even though it is slightly more saturated than the second image.

 

I've tried numerous settings in VueScan, such as various types of Color Balance, white and black points, and tweaking the R, G and B, but I can't mimic the much less saturated, and imho more pleasant, look of the TIFF.

 

I also can't find a reason why VueScan would display the RAW DNG in a much more pleasing and less saturated way than when the same file is opened in Photoshop.

 

Any assistance is very gratefully accepted.

 

Kind regards

Philip

Link to post
Share on other sites

Philipus, I don't know if this will help you, but worth a try.

 

When using VueScan, which is excellent by the way, I treat it as purely scanning software because that's what it is designed for. I don't do any manipulations or correction with it because Photoshop is designed for that and does a better job. ie. use software for what it is designed.

 

When scanning, set your Black point and White point wide apart to fit the entire histogram in. This will render a very flat looking scan, but captures all the detail available on the film. If you do any adjustments in VS, this will throw away some info and you can't get it back. Now I assume because you are scanning to RAW (which I don't usually do) you must be getting unprocessed data on the colour part of the file. How VueScan shows it does not matter IMO. Camera RAW will give you the facility to control and balance the colour, as well as the BP and WP which must now be set correctly, in PS.

 

Providing you can achieve the balance of colour and tone you want, this should be the best quality way of PP.

 

I hope this helps, but other posters will probably come with better advice.

 

When time permits, I will try to simulate what you are doing and see what I get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is don't use DNGs. Just use Tiffs. You know you can bring tiff files into Camera Raw and edit them there, right?

 

It probably has something to do with colorspaces. What colorspace do you have Camera Raw setting after it converts? If it's something particularly wide, like wider than AdobeRGB, you might get what you are seeing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with erl that you should just aim to get all the information from a scan that you can, and leave any manipulations until the next stage. The way I treat a scan is to go for a lower contrast image, slightly subdued colour, and just make sure no tones are getting clipped. It looks horrible, but all the information is in the file. Save as an aRGB (or ProPhoto RGB) TIFF. Then with Photoshop or your chosen post processing software you can make the image how you want it to be.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying Erl. I agree - Vuescan is only a way of getting the images in digital form, not a piece of editing software.

 

When scanning, set your Black point and White point wide apart to fit the entire histogram in.

 

I have played around with the BP and WP. It seems both should be set to zero to capture as much as possible - does that make sense? I've seen various info about the BP and WP on the internet so I'm a bit unsure.

 

Kind regards

Philip

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.

 

All I can say is don't use DNGs. Just use Tiffs.

 

Why? I have more options in ACR using DNGs.

 

You know you can bring tiff files into Camera Raw and edit them there, right?

 

Yes I know this, but afaik one has to do it form within Bridge and I am not always in Bridge when I am scanning. Perhaps there's an easier way? 10.7 won't let me pick ACR as application to open TIFFs with.

 

It probably has something to do with colorspaces. What colorspace do you have Camera Raw setting after it converts? If it's something particularly wide, like wider than AdobeRGB, you might get what you are seeing.

 

ACR is set to AdobeRGB which is also what is set as Output Color Space in VueScan.

 

cheers

Philip

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Steve. I also wish to have as much information in the scan as possible. Do you also set the white and black points as far apart as possible or do you use other settings to create the low contrast, dull image?

 

Cheers and thanks again

Philip

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way to set the BP and WP is in the 'Prefs' tab. Select 'Graph Type' as 'B/W'. This setting then gives you the tiny movable triangles under the graph that you can slide to the widest limit of the histogram graph.

 

This will ensure maximum capture of data from the film, which you then can optimize in your software of choice, eg. Photoshop.

 

As previous posters have said, scan to Tiff rather than DNG. You can save the original Tiff as a Master if you wish and save separately when changes are applied.

 

 

Note that this image is 'flat' and also 'blue'. Perfect correction is completed in Photoshop to increase contrast and correct colour cast. Very quickly done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Erl. I appreciate it.

As previous posters have said, scan to Tiff rather than DNG. You can save the original Tiff as a Master if you wish and save separately when changes are applied.

I am still trying to figure out why I should use TIFF rather than DNG.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Erl. I appreciate it.

 

I am still trying to figure out why I should use TIFF rather than DNG.

 

Look at it this way. Why use DNG instead of Tiff? Tiff is easier to work with from a scan and is lossless, unlike jpegs, which are still very good for many applications.

 

I have found no disadvantage in using tiffs, but like you, I do struggle with scanned DNG's. Dng's are fine straight out of the camera and can be re-processed many times into the future. I treat my film as the DNG with reference to scanning. It can always be re-scanned, and I often do as my skill at scanning increases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at it this way. Why use DNG instead of Tiff?

That's a nice out-of-the-box way of seeing it

 

I treat my film as the DNG with reference to scanning. It can always be re-scanned, and I often do as my skill at scanning increases.

Yes, you're right, of course, the neg/slide is the raw image.

 

I will play around a bit with TIFFs and see where I end up. I did notice that they look much more like the slide.

 

Cheers

Philip

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Sharif
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!Tiefgaragenausfahrt by Herr Sharif, auf Flickr
       
      Bessa, Color Skopar 3.5/28, Trix 400@1600
       
      Sharif
    • By Sharif
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!Hallo Grobspanplatte! by Herr Sharif, auf Flickr
       
      Leica M2, Leica Elmarit 2.8/28 asph, Kodak Trix 400, Ilford Ilfotec LC29, Plustek Opticfilm 7600, Vuescan
       
      Sharif
    • By mnutzer
      "Where's my Coke?" 

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 
      ・  Leica IIIa syn  ・  'cron 50 coll.  ・  AGFA-Scala  ・  Nikon Coolscan  ・  Vuescan  LrPsCC  ・  Academy fountain  ・  Palace Park  ・  Stuttgart  ・  Germany  ・  March 2016.  ・

       
    • By plasticman
      I'm considering the hitherto unthinkable: switching from Vuescan to Silverfast. I just want some opinions from users of Silverfast.
        Background: I've been pretty satisfied with Vuescan the last few years. But one scenario in particular exposes a problem I keep having trying to export totally flat, linear, color-negative scans: when the entire image is high-key (over-exposed or simply an image that's intentionally just one narrow section of the full tonal range), I find that pretty much nothing I do will give me a scan that is correctly flat and at the same time only fills the correct part of the histogram. Instead of this, the tones get redistributed across the entire range of the histogram - which gives a highly contrasty scan where the opposite is what I intended. There may be workarounds - if you know how to fix this let me know - but my aim is to always simply export the flattest, linear, most neutral *batch* scan without needing to tweak output on a single-image basis. I find ColorPerfect, PhotoShop and Lightroom are all better at manipulating color and contrast etc than Vuescan, and I'd prefer to keep the scanning software out of the image-manipulation process, as far as possible.   This is where my experiments with the latest Silverfast demo come in: the output scans are all much flatter, and maybe more boring. But that's what I want! They also sometimes seem to find slightly more color 'nuance' in things like masses of leaves in a forest of trees. This is a difficult thing to be sure about, as the color is influenced by the tonality.   Anyway, the extra bonuses are that the scans are much faster. They also have slightly sharper characteristics at 100% view - though they don't actually extract more detail than Vuescan at 4000dpi (so possibly just USM - if so, I'd love to know how to switch it off, as I don't want the software to do any pre-processing).   I'm still looking and comparing the two softwares, and I'm not sure yet, but there are definitely things that bother me about Silverfast:   - the price-gouging structure - the censored support forum (and the often dismissive tone of the 'help') - the crazily unintuitive and unhelpful (and downright ugly) interface - this gets in the way of everything.  - the program often does something (like a prescan) when you simply close an interface element (like the frame-finder function) - the lack of any in-depth documentation - apart from a third-party book that they sell(!!) you on their site - the general feeling that the company don't give a **** about their users   I'd like to hear from people who use the software - especially with scanners like the Coolscan range - and are actually happy with it (or unhappy for specific reasons).
    • By 2009acoustic
      Hi
       
      I am a new user of Leica X.
       
      I would like to know anyone here tried out the different menu settings for Film Mode, Sharpness, Saturation and Contrast. I have applied "standard" all the time. Wonder what would be a good combination.
       
      Also, do these settings affect the DNG file?
       
       
      Regards
       
      ML
×
×
  • Create New...