Vuescan advice please (Vuescan + Plustek user)

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello.  

I'm new to scanning and hope someone will be able to point me in the right direction here .  

I've been following the advice of posts on the forum regarding Vuescan settings and my workflow is such that I'd like a flat scan from Vuescan, giving me as much image info as possible which I can then carry to Lightroom / Photoshop for editing .  As such I am keeping my Black and white points set at '0' and both curve low and curve high set to 0.001 

I have been using the crop setting '35mm negative' , which leaves a white border around the preview image. Using the attached image as an example, if I don't crop into the image (i.e. crop out the white border) before scanning I get a much greyer output scan than if I crop the border off prior to selecting 'scan' .  

This can be seen here - These are the scan output results I get if I don't crop the border before hitting 'scan' (left image) or if I crop the border before hitting ‘scan’ (right image).  The right hand scan being much brighter of course and the corresponding histograms from Lightroom are included below also to illustrate how much more white is in the scan that was cropped prior.  This image was quite well exposed in-camera I believe. 

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!

Lightroom Histogram for left image:

Lightroom Histogram for Right image :

 

 

Can someone please give me some guidance on which of these is 'better' as a starting point for more editing ?   I would have thought that the left hand side image is a more accurate representation of the exposure of the in-camera image, since the histogram is in the middle , aswell as having more differentiation of tones rather than everything clumped together in the whites. 

In practice, scanning images without the border has given me some problems, for example portraits where the histogram is pushed all the way to the right and I've had to knock the exposure down by a stop before doing anything in Lightroom - which this seems kind of pointless after 'correctly' exposing an image in camera. 

On the flip side , I thought that cropping the border out would give the scanner a more 'true' representation of the image in question.  

I'd be grateful of any tips here please as I don't fully understand why these are giving such different results or which one is the 'better' starting point.  

Lastly - if the cropped image workflow is the more accurate way of doing things then perhaps these results indicate my camera is over-exposing. This has crossed my mind during this process.  

Thanks in advance for the help, and any related any pointers. 
Graham 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by grahamc

[Advertisement]

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

[grahamc]

For what it's worth, I did a quick edit here using the uncropped / greyer scan (using Lightroom) , and am happy with it.

If I had used the brighter scan I suspect I would've had to start with a -1 exposure adjustment before working on it, which just seems pointless.

 

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!

Edited April 25, 2022 by grahamc

[LocalHero1953]

I'm not familiar with either scanner or software, but it's the same issue when scanning with a digital camera: how do you set exposure?

For the uncropped negative, Vuescan is taking the border as white, and the darkest part of the scene as black. If your film base is very clear, and your scene highlights are not blown, then you are compressing the scene tones, giving you a flat image. For the cropped image, Vuescan is using only the scene to set whites and blacks, giving a wider tonal range within the scene. In your shoes, and with lots of time on my hands, I would use the cropped image.

I use an Essential Film Holder through which I run my film strip; there is always a small clear film base border and an black film holder border. I don't crop my images, so my files are always flatter than I want; I adjust this in post. Cropping every negative in a roll to the exact scene would be tedious, so I accept the limitations of autoexposure at speed. If I want to make the best I can of an image, then I would treat it as a one-off: crop it and and set the exposure manually. 

Edited April 25, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[250swb]

From the histograms the right image looks best, and visually it looks best. I think what is happening is that the uncropped image is also scanning the film base which of course will render a brilliant white, hence the spike in the histogram, and which will be compensated for in the image area by bringing all the other tones down. You really need to just scan the image area unless you want to start making adjustments for the film base. Both images are flat, which is good, and you can see there is little or no black in either, but I feel the left image is not only flat but compressed in the mid tones. However you've finished the left scan off nicely in Lightroom although I think the headstones have remained a little flat. Personally I always worry about a spike like the one you have in the left histogram, it usually says something isn't right.

[grahamc]

33 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I'm not familiar with either scanner or software, but it's the same issue when scanning with a digital camera: how do you set exposure?

For the uncropped negative, Vuescan is taking the border as white, and the darkest part of the scene as black. If your film base is very clear, and your scene highlights are not blown, then you are compressing the scene tones, giving you a flat image. For the cropped image, Vuescan is using only the scene to set whites and blacks, giving a wider tonal range within the scene. In your shoes, and with lots of time on my hands, I would use the cropped image.

I use an Essential Film Holder through which I run my film strip; there is always a small clear film base border and an black film holder border. I don't crop my images, so my files are always flatter than I want; I adjust this in post. Cropping every negative in a roll to the exact scene would be tedious, so I accept the limitations of autoexposure at speed. If I want to make the best I can of an image, then I would treat it as a one-off: crop it and and set the exposure manually. 

Thanks for this , this makes sense Paul.

In this case I think I'll perhaps run with the left option for proofs and then run a crop for anything that I want to spend more time on .  

I realise what is happening now, appreciate the help  

Cheers

G 

Edited April 25, 2022 by grahamc

[grahamc]

46 minutes ago, 250swb said:

From the histograms the right image looks best, and visually it looks best. I think what is happening is that the uncropped image is also scanning the film base which of course will render a brilliant white, hence the spike in the histogram, and which will be compensated for in the image area by bringing all the other tones down. You really need to just scan the image area unless you want to start making adjustments for the film base. Both images are flat, which is good, and you can see there is little or no black in either, but I feel the left image is not only flat but compressed in the mid tones. However you've finished the left scan off nicely in Lightroom although I think the headstones have remained a little flat. Personally I always worry about a spike like the one you have in the left histogram, it usually says something isn't right.

Thanks for this Steve.  I see it now .

I copied over the settings from the edit above to the more 'correct' scan, and got the result attached here - which is indeed the marginally better edited image.  Not all that much in it but it's the same slider settings for comparison.  So with more time spent on it I can now see that this scan would easily give the better end-result.

The issues I've been having with portraits (scanning far too white as a starting point) must be a separate in-camera / user issue then, I think I'm over-exposing them as the scans are coming out incredibly bright.

Thanks again 

Graham 

 

 

 

 

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!

Edited April 25, 2022 by grahamc

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps you are metering off the wrong thing? For example Caucasian skin usually gives an 18% grey reflectance reading (that and green grass), which is the tone you usually aim to take a meter reading from. If it's a close up portrait if you read off a shadow or darker background it's not hard to imagine skin tones moving into the highlight range. If you have a hand held meter you could take an incident light reading rather than a reflective light reading for portraits. .

[grahamc]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

Perhaps you are metering off the wrong thing? For example Caucasian skin usually gives an 18% grey reflectance reading (that and green grass), which is the tone you usually aim to take a meter reading from. If it's a close up portrait if you read off a shadow or darker background it's not hard to imagine skin tones moving into the highlight range. If you have a hand held meter you could take an incident light reading rather than a reflective light reading for portraits. .

Thanks.  The process I'm using most commonly is a reading off the palm of my hand my hand, which I have 'calibrated' of sorts - tested against a grey card reading as being one stop brighter than a grey card.  So (presuming I don't have a grey card with me) I take a reading of my palm in the same light as the subject's face and then open up a stop. Theoretically this should match a grey card reading.   I know that's not an exact science but in theory I think it should work 'more or less'.  Sometimes I use the actual grey card of course , if I have it with me. 

When I use either method for a close up portrait the skin / face I'm often having the skin/face coming out extremely bright .  My understanding is that it 'should' come out 18% grey as that's what the meter thinks it is in giving the meter reading ? 

Here is a before edit and after edit shot of a case in point.  I am certain I metered for 18% grey in the same light as the face of the subject.  Albeit in the way mentioned above but I don't think it should be this far off. 

The light meters you have suggested are the way to go also I think. In the meantime I may need to test images from this particular camera against another using a grey card, to ensure there isn't a problem with the camera over-exposing after a 'correct' meter reading .  

 

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!

Edited April 25, 2022 by grahamc

[grahamc]

Edit: Duplicate info 

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by grahamc

[250swb]

I think the 'after' shows you are still on the right track, it's no more than what you'd have to do in the darkroom in having to choose a paper grade to print with and a test strip to determine the base exposure time. I think with a bit of digital dodging and burning (maybe darken the background and add a little more contrast to the face, plus a slight vignette) the 'after' will come up great.

[LocalHero1953]

I realise I confused whites and blacks in my post, though the comments and advice remain the same. If you are scanning a negative with a clear border, Vuescan will set the border as  the black point of the final inverted image, not the white point.

If your left histogram above is of the inverted image, I'm puzzled why it has peak at the white end. I'd expect it to be at the black (border) end.

Edited April 25, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[grahamc]

Great.  So would land something like the attached .  

Maybe my exposure is not as bad as I thought it was and I am just not used yet to seeing these scans flat with no adjustments and a large range in the histogram.  I imagine all this is 'fixed' in commercial lab scans, to some extent to chosen profile.

Baring in mind this is a -66% exposure adjustment so I guess my friend has fair skin 

Thanks very much for the help & tips 

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!

Edited April 25, 2022 by grahamc

[grahamc]

20 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I realise I confused whites and blacks in my post, though the comments and advice remain the same. If you are scanning a negative with a clear border, Vuescan will set the border as  the black point of the final inverted image, not the white point.

If your left histogram above is of the inverted image, I'm puzzled why it has peak at the white end. I'd expect it to be at the black (border) end.

Good point, I'm unsure why also - unless it is setting the white point based on the (white) border that it applies to the image.  It may do so because when I turn on 'pixel's (to indicate clipping), Vuescan does show clipping all over the border that it has applied in the preview .  Using the logic you have mentioned in regards to the black point, I imagine that if you don't crop out the white then it applies it as white point and that give us this spike.

Guessing of course but makes sense I think given the clipping indicators on white 

[johnwolf]

Including the white border in the scan, as said above, skews the histogram. More highlights pushes everything else darker. The Vuescan documentation discusses this and advises against including the border. 

I suggest you explore the settings in the Crop menu. For example, you could set Crop size and Lock aspect ratio to Manual, and then set Aspect ratio to 1.5. Then you can move the crop area around or scale it and it will remain the right 3:2 proportions. (I think you have to Preview again for crop changes to apply.)  

I also suggest using the histogram in Vuescan (Image menu). I like the Graph b/w version. Move the sliders to get all the tones you want in the scanned image.The scan will be flat, but that's OK. You got everything and can do the rest in LR. 

Once you get Vuescan set up the way you want, be sure to save your settings as a preset.  

John

Edited April 25, 2022 by johnwolf

[grahamc]

3 minutes ago, johnwolf said:

Including the white border in the scan, as said above, skews the histogram. More highlights pushes everything else darker. The Vuescan documentation discusses this and advises against including the border. 

I suggest you explore the settings in the Crop menu. For example, you could set Crop size and Lock aspect ratio to Manual, and then set Aspect ratio to 1.5. Then you can move the crop area around or scale it and it will remain the right 3:2 proportions. (I think you have to Preview again for crop changes to apply.)  

I also suggest using the histogram in Vuescan (Image menu). I like the Graph b/w version. Move the sliders to get all the tones you want in the scanned image. You can do the rest in LR. 

Once you get Vuescan set up the way you want, be sure to save your settings as a preset.  

John

Thanks for this John.  I used to have the histogram set up but it's no longer showing, so I will get that back also 

[Doc Henry]

Hi Graham , I scan "more simply"  than you , I do not use VS or others but I use the scanner software itself set by the manufacturer (I have two Nikon Scanners), simpler and free, no need to update , no expense (I had used VS for a test but I find it complicated and it degrades the color, especially the Kodak Portra). It was by comparing that I realized the degradation.....and do not forget that the photo must be from the start at the time of the shooting "well exposed"  (measurement with the lightmeter of the camera or an external lightmeter like a Gossen Lunasix or others).... another thing I only scan in TIFF not in compressed JPEG

Best

Henry

PS: you can see my pictures in the thread "I like Film" in "Other". I do not correct my photos with any LR or other software

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Doc Henry

[grahamc]

22 hours ago, Doc Henry said:

Hi Graham , I scan "more simply"  than you , I do not use VS or others but I use the scanner software itself set by the manufacturer (I have two Nikon Scanners), simpler and free, no need to update , no expense (I had used VS for a test but I find it complicated and it degrades the color, especially the Kodak Portra). It was by comparing that I realized the degradation.....and do not forget that the photo must be from the start at the time of the shooting "well exposed"  (measurement with the lightmeter of the camera or an external lightmeter like a Gossen Lunasix or others).... another thing I only scan in TIFF not in compressed JPEG

Best

Henry

PS: you can see my pictures in the thread "I like Film" in "Other". I do not correct my photos with any LR or other software

 

Thanks very much for this Henry, I will certainly consider that in the future particularly for colour as at this point I'm working only on B&W at home 

I enjoyed looking at your film pictures posted as well as your comments on other film-related topics

Thanks again 

Graham 

[Aryel]

Hello,

I do it a bit differently, I use vuescan to scan and save a raw file. I then assign a colour profile and use photoshop with the colour perfect plugin to invert the image. Works well for me. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[philipus]

Hello Graham

I'm surprised that you've set curve low/high to 0,001. For the longest time I've had them at 0,25 and 0,75 respectively and get nice and flat scans in both b&w and colour. I have a screenshot in my workflow article – https://philipus.com/my-workflow

brgds

Philip

[Chris W]

I'm using Vuescan. I manually crop freestyle. I have the most basic settings and save as a CDNG, to edit in my photo software (Capture One).

Film, especially B&W, has quite a large latitude and over exposing is best. Especially for portraits I over expose by 1 stop at least. Other people rate their film, 200 instead of 400 for example, to trick the camera meter.

This is a recent scan from a shot I made in 1990.

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!