Question about scanning RAW

[ymc226]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't have a scanner yet (never used one for photography) but plan on getting the upcoming Plustek Optic 120 film scanner to scan B&W 135 and 120 negatives with the intention of post processing with Lightroom 4 & Silver Efex Pro 2 and printing using an Epson 3880.

 

Just reading The VueScan Bible for the second time and am confused about the process still. Sascha Steinhoff describes the RAW workflow (page 78) as follows:

 

1. Insert analog original in scanner
   
2. Make basic adjustments in scan program
   
3. Scan analog image
   
4. Output RAW file
   
5. Input RAW file into VueScan
   
6. Make advanced adjustments in scan program
   
7. Scan RAW file
   
8. Output image file
   

 

My desire is to end up with a scan file that is as equivalent to the DNG files coming out of my M9.

 

Can I just perform steps 1 to 4 only? I don't understand why I need to input the RAW file back into VueScan (step 5), make additional adjustments, rescan before finally outputting for a second time.

[Advertisement]

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

[01af]

I [...] am confused about the process still. Sascha Steinhoff describes the raw workflow (page 78) as follows:

[...]

No wonder you're confused ... this description of a workflow is complete bollocks.

 

'Raw' is not an acronym (such as, for example, JPEG, NEF, DNG, etc) but it's a simple English word which means, well, raw. As in, not cooked. So if you encounter an author who keeps writing 'RAW' rather than 'raw' then you know he has no clue what he's talking about.

 

 

My desire is to end up with a scan file that is as equivalent to the DNG files coming out of my M9.

You never will, so forget it.

 

Scanners deliver RGB files, not raw files. So the best you can do is to produce 16-bit TIFF files at the scanner's maximum native resolution in a linear (i. e. not gamma-adjusted) colour space. Linear files look flat and dark, but they are the best basis to work with.

 

Possibly some modern scanners may offer the option to produce Linear DNG files. Linear DNG is not really raw; it basically is 16-bit TIFF in linear colour space in a DNG-shaped wrap-up. So if your scanner offers this file format then use it ... however I am currently not aware of any scanners which do.

[tobey bilek]

It might be considered unmanipulated(raw?) if you export from the scanner having done no adjustments to it.

 

My scan workflow is to get color balance and density correct ,then deliver the resulting TIFF to photoshop.

 

My Epson 5400 Elite has curves and other photoshop type adjustments in it which I do not use. Adobe is much more efficient. However if I wanted to export a JPEG, I would use the scanner internal software to finish the image with contrast and curves.

 

TIFF files can now be opened in PS camera raw starting with CS5 or maybe 4 .

 

Can you do as well as an M9? You can come close if you have a top grade scanner and some grain reduction program. Otherwise no. I have no idea how close the Plustech scanners come to a drum scan.

[kanzlr]

we do not know yet how the 120 will work, but it will definitely include Silverfast 8, which yields pretty good results, so maybe just try that for a while before you switch to VueScan.

 

I use VueScan with Nikon Coolscans and while I can obtain good results with VueScan alone, I much prefer to use VueScan for a raw TIF scan and to convert and finish the scans in Photoshop by means of ColorPerfect, a Photoshop plugin that is used to invert negative scans and works with a decent library of film presets that give pretty good results out of the box. You can correct color, gamma, black point, etc. in the plugin, and the resulting color image is already VERY good. Maybe add a slight curve, etc. in Photoshop, and you are ready to print, or do whatever you want.

 

Setting up VueScan for ColorPerfect is easy:

ColorPerfect: Dia- & Negativscans | VueScan Professional | Diascans | Negative scannen

[ymc226]

For those that use VueScan, the book mentions 2 RAW formats: RAW-DNG and RAW-TIFF. Which would you use to get the best malleability of your files in Lightroom?

[01af]

For those that use VueScan, the book mentions two RAW formats: RAW-DNG and RAW-TIFF. Which would you use to get the best malleability of your files in Lightroom?

Okay—I'll repeat it once more for you: There is no such thing as a RAW format. Instead, there are several raw formats, most of them manufacturer-specific formats for image files out of digital cameras, and one general raw format by Adobe called DNG. These are for digital cameras; there are no raw formats to support scanners, with the possible exception of Linear DNG which is a variant of DNG but not raw. Got it?

 

Or actually, there is an ancient Photoshop-specific format called RAW ... but that's a completely different thing. You don't want to use that.

 

Much less are there things like RAW-DNG or RAW-TIFF. These are inventions off the back of the head of that book's author which don't actually exist. Toss this book in the trash can, please. For use with the output from a scanner, it doesn't matter whether you're using 16-bit TIFF or Linear DNG (if your scan software supports Linear DNG in the first place). Under the hood, they're just the same.

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been scanning this afternoon, using Vuescan.

 

The files are saved as DNGs and open into Photoshop via ACR, providing all the adjustments there that are on offer for any other DNG file.

[01af]

I have been scanning this afternoon, using Vuescan.

 

The files are saved as DNGS and open into Photoshop via ACR, providing all the adjustments there that are on offer for any other DNG file.

So Vuescan now supports DNG. That's great—and very much recommended as the file format to use. Back when I struggled with SilverFast, Vuescan, and other scan software (years ago), it did not yet support DNG. Which is hardly surprising because the DNG format did not even exist back then.

 

Andy, can you please confirm that it's Linear DNG what Vuescan is using?

 

By the way, I just googled a bit and found out that when Sascha Steinhoff is drivelling about RAW-TIFF, he actually means linear 16-bit TIFF (as I already suspected). Linear, in this context, means a gamma of 1.0. And that's exactly the same as Linear DNG. Neither format is raw. In the context of scanning, non-gamma-adjusted 16-bit RGB files (i. e. gamma = 1.0) sometimes are falsely referred to as 'raw'—but this kind of raw is entirely different from what raw in the usual sense is about. The correct term is 'linear' which basically means 'non-gamma-adjusted RGB'—and definitely is not raw. If you want, you may consider it half-way between raw and fully cooked.

[andybarton]

 

Andy, can you please confirm that it's Linear DNG what Vuescan is using?

 

No idea. How would I tell?

 

Are you going to apologise to ymc226?

[ymc226]

Thanks all.

 

Andy, can you give me step by step, your workflow in Vuescan to obtain your "DNG" file.

 

By any chance, if you're scanning color negatives or slides, is white balance still adjustable on the scanned file?

[andybarton]

Simple. Just check the correct boxes in the Output tab

 

 

 

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!

[01af]

Andy, can you please confirm that it's Linear DNG what Vuescan is using?

No idea. How would I tell?

Nevermind. Your last post confirms it.

[pico]

'Raw' is not an acronym (such as, for example, JPEG, NEF, DNG, etc) but it's a simple English word which means, well, raw. As in, not cooked. So if you encounter an author who keeps writing 'RAW' rather than 'raw' then you know he has no clue what he's talking about.

 

First to the OP. VueScan's latest update was released just this week. You can download it from Ed Hamrick's (VueScan author) page: VueScan Scanner Software for Windows 7, Mac OS X Lion, Linux, iPhone, iPad, iPod

 

FWIW, Sascha Steinhoff is Hamrick's favorite documentation author, and he does use the term RAW. I agree that it can be confusing for the reasons Olaf gave, but once you realize it is a term and not an acronym, it will be clear forever.

 

Olaf:

author of Colorperfect "VueScan features a special RAW output mode. To create suitable scans you first have to select the input tab and to choose either slide or color negative from the media pulldown list. For both choices a negative is preserved as such in a RAW scan's linear output file."

[01af]

FWIW, Sascha Steinhoff is Hamrick's favorite documentation author, and he does use the term RAW. [...]

 

Olaf:

"VueScan features a special RAW output mode. To create suitable scans you first have to select the input tab and to choose either slide or color negative from the media pulldown list. For both choices a negative is preserved as such in a RAW scan's linear output file."

Yeah. Just what I said: Steinhoff is a (moderated) who does not really know what he's talking about. As a matter of fact, I suspect that even Ed Hamrick himself isn't fully aware of the various levels of 'raw' involved. Otherwise he would not accept Steinhoff as his favourite documentation author.

 

If you precisely understand which level of 'raw' Steinhoff actually is talking about then you may find this half-baked writing acceptable. But if you're a beginner who is trying to understand the whole matter from scratch then it's hardly helpful. See ymc226's confusion.

[jaapv]

I have no idea which exact format Vuescan outputs, thankfully hardly ever scanning, but just a (possibly stupid) thought: Can’t you simply run the file through Adobe’s DNG converter?

That would wrap it up nicely.

[tobey bilek]

In addition to being linear, a raw file contains full color information on three channels, RGB.

 

Scanners do not provide it, ie you need to color balance as closely as possible in the scanner.

[01af]

I have no idea which exact format Vuescan outputs ...

Vuescan can create various file formats, including Linear DNG.

 

 

Can’t you simply run the file through Adobe’s DNG Converter?

If the file is in DNG format then you can—but it won't make any significant difference. Even DNG Converter cannot convert from Linear (demosaiced) DNG back to regular (mosaiced, raw) DNG. If the file is in some sort of proprietary raw (mosaiced) format then you can, too—but Vuescan does not provide such a format because scanners don't produce mosaiced raw data. If the file is in TIFF or JPEG format then you cannot—DNG Converter accepts only raw and DNG files for input.

 

The point really is this: 'raw' in the Vuescan sense is not raw in the usual sense.

[jaapv]

Thanks. I must confess, finding scanning as intellectually absorbing as watching water boil, that I have never made the mental effort of trying to understand the process.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Scarlet]

Yeah. Just what I said: Steinhoff is a half-educated fool who does not really know what he's talking about.

 

First of all, the above is unnecessary and should have been moderated. I don't understand why that is not done. Sometimes I get the feeling that the more posts one's sidebar shows the greater the leeway in issuing disparaging comments.

 

As for the OP's question, I would recommend outputting TIFFs (which, btw, also open upon ACR, should one ever want to do that). And I highly recommend not making image edits in Vuescan. The aim is only to achieve as flat a scan as possible, thus capturing the most image information.

 

Tim Gray, who's also a member here, has a helpful write-up that provides a good starting point for b/w scanning.

 

Btw, the reason the Vuescan bible suggests re-inserting the RAW file is that you can soft-scan files by re-opening them. But since the scan software is not good for image editing that shouldn't (imo) be done. Better edit in Photoshop or such.

 

Lastly, be prepared for a steep and long learning curve that will be (I promise) very rewarding. Just keep at it.

[andybarton]

First of all, the above is unnecessary and should have been moderated. I don't understand why that is not done. Sometimes I get the feeling that the more posts one's sidebar shows the greater the leeway in issuing disparaging comments.

 

 

That is not the case.

 

If you see a post which you consider requires the attention of a Moderator, please use the report button on the left hand side. It can then be dealt with my a Moderator

 

I will have a look at this when I am next at a computer.