Some very basic questions about using an Epson V700 Photo please.

[newmoon2night]

I'm sorry for these very basic questions, but ... can anyone advise please?
I've installed the scanner yesterday, and installed the Epson software (but not the SilverFast SE and Photoshop Elements software).
I have an phobia about installing unnecessary software, but I'm thinking now that maybe these aren't unnecessary and I should at least have installed the SilverFast SE - is that correct, and is this what I should use to control the scanner in the future?
I already have Adobe Lightroom installed, so is it necessary, or is there any additional benefit, in installing Photoshop Elements also?
With my first scan last night (of a 6x7 transparency) I couldn't find a way to increase the resolution so that I had a TIF file any bigger than around 2.4MB, and I also couldn't get Lightroom to look for TIF format files either! Can anyone tell me how to do this?
Indeed is there a tutorial or book anywhere giving the 1,2,3 of workflow steps for numpties when using this scanner for scanning transparencies, using Lightroom (ideally) and printing up to A3 (I have an HP B9180)?
I add finally that 95% of my scanner use will be scanning 4x5 and 6x7 Fujifilm transparencies for printing.
Oh, and absolutely finally, I have been thinking of getting Genuine Fractals software for use with photographs taken digitally. Would that be of any benefit with scanned images?
Thanks for any advice on these questions.

[PViapiano]

My preference is for the Epson software and Photoshop CS (any version)...

Others here like SilverScan, however, I've found it to be unstable on my system.

I've never found a need for GF software. Photoshop has always worked perfectly for printing.

[Greg Lockrey]

If you do want to use Silverfast, I don't use it either, it's my understanding that it needs to run with some sort of Photoshop. That's why PS Elements is included. I don't use GF either. I don't know much about Lightroom, only used the trial version and found it very similar to Qimage for the purpose that I was going to use it for.

[BennehBoy]

I use VueScan.

[Richard Wheat]

Epson scan is fine for most work.
I use Vuescan for colour negatives as a find it easier.
You don't need (but may want) Silverfast SE for scanning.
Photoshop elements will let you make local edits to the resulting digital image - I use Photoshop CS3. Lightroom will let you make global edits (I think that's right - don't have it myself).

My scanning process with a V700 and Epson Scan for 6x7 transparencies is as follows:

1. Turn on your scanner (USB connected)
2. Start Epson Scan.
3. Set mode to Professional
4. Set document type to Film (with Film Holder)
5. Set film type to positive film
6. Set image type to 24bit color (I use 48bit with PS CS3)
7. Set scanning quality to best
8. Set resolution to 2400 (I use 3200 - uses more memory/disk)
9. Press the File Save Settings button - it is above the Close button and has an icon with a folder with an image in front of it.
10. Set a location and name for the resulting file
11. Set image format to TIFF
12. Use the options button and set the Byte order to Windows and Compression to none
13. Close the options dialog box
14. Close the File Save Settings dialog box
15. Press the Configuration button - its the middle bottom one
16. Set your preview and color (I use ICM) settings.
17. Set your Film Size to 6x7
18. Close the Configuration dialog box
19. Tick the thumbnail box below the Preview button
20. Press the Preview button
21. You should get a preview which has correctly thumbnailed your frames (I assume you are using the standard Epson medium format film holder here - if you are not then clear the thumbnail box and you will have to marque each frame yourself (I use a Doug Fisher film holder)
22. Working with each one of the images - set the histogram adjustment to give fiull range output - use the densitometer to make sure you haven't any clipping. I use the zoom window for this. You can also make lots of adjustments to the image such as Tone Correction and Image Adjustment - I only use the histogram.
23. Select Unsharp mask (I don't use it) if you want.
24. There are more options for each frame such as Grain reduction etc. - of these I only use Digital ICE when I am able to (can't with the Doug Fisher Film Holder).
25. Tick Trimming OFF.
26. Go through steps 22 through 25 for each frame you want to scan.
27. Select the frames to scan with the tick boxes on the preview window.
28. Press Scan and go and have a cuppa.

As I said this basically the way I use Epson Scan YMMV. You don't have to set all these options each time - it defaults and you then only have to adjust each for frame.

You should get a tiff file in the order of 120Mbytes with approximately 6800x5800 pixels from a 6x7 scanned at 2400dpi.

If you don't see all the buttons as I described them - try downloading the latest version of Epson Scan from Epson, the one that came with the scanner may be old.

I don't use or have any experience with Genuine Fractals.

Hope this helps,
Richard.

[Scott Knowles]

I use the Epson Scan (V750) software for 90% of the work. I did load and later upgrade the Silverfast SE to AI after upgrading to Leopard. I've used the Silverfast but not enough to see all it's advantages yet. I'm not sure I'll update or upgrade the package if those are available because the company charges (and considerable too in my view) for everything after the initial version. After that all my work is done in Photoshop.

[Kirk Gittings]

If you do want to use Silverfast, I don't use it either, it's my understanding that it needs to run with some sort of Photoshop.

Not. Silverfast is a stand alone program, but all images will require additional editing so you will need some kind of image editing program. LR is a very limited program for image editing (it is great for processing raw images and organizing files) even compared to Elements in some ways. Any image editing program that is not capable of layers IMO is way to limited for serious work.

The Epson software is a pretty crude tool compared to Silverfast, but it may be all you need.

[Greg Lockrey]

Not. Silverfast is a stand alone program.

That was my impression too until I tried to load it onto my Leopard Mac, which I didn't have any PS present on that platform. I couldn't find it... But it was present on the Windows side via Parrallels with the PS. Someone on another site said something about PS has to be present in order to be able to "see" the Silverfast boxes. But what do I know, I'm not a computer geek?

[sparq]

Silverfast SE + Picture Window Pro 4 is a very affordable yet powerful combo for Wintel users. I am very happy with it.

[Jiri Vasina]

I also think that the Epson software is enough for the scanning - I have bought SilverFast Ai for my previous scanner, but have stopped using it in the end, and after buying the V700 I did not even install the SilverFast SE - it does not provide option for scanning 48bit color/16bit greyscale files. And I managed to learn the controls enough so it does what I want. You really don't need SilverFast software, you can do very well with the Epson control software.

SilverFast comes either as a Twain application - that can be launched only from some other image editing application. Or it can be installed as a standalone app - which can still be launched from PhotoShop, or can be launched via separate control software. If you have bought either one (or have downloaded either one), the serial number is valid also for the other version. So you can download the standalone version and use either one suitable for your needs.

[newmoon2night]

Thank you everyone, and particularly Richard for the complete numbered guide, which is fantastically helpful and I will work through it this evening.
I'll do a search on how to get Lightroom to search for TIF files - it will be one of those easy things that's there somewhere, and the main problem is finding it!
Thanks again everyone.

[sparq]

.. I did not even install the SilverFast SE - it does not provide option for scanning 48bit color/16bit greyscale files...

SFSE supports 16bpc scans in an "HDR mode" (raw 16bpc TIFFs straight out of the scanner), that's my preferred output format anyway.

[Kirk Gittings]

I no longer own SE, but I would bet my shorts that it provides for 48 bit color and 16 bit greyscale. I have never owned any Silverfast product that didn't and I have owned quite a few. No scanner software could be competitive these days without it.

[Jiri Vasina]

Yes, I could set the HDR mode, but I did not try it. The 48bit color/16bit greyscale options are greyed out, though. I assumed that the HDR mode is somewhat crippled - to force you to buy the more expensive versions which let you do the "extended" scans - even on the company's website information about the version differences, it shows the Ai is the one to go with 16bit per channel scanning. Therefore I uninstalled the SilverFast SE and use only the Epson software.

I have just checked the SilverFast website, and if I understand it correctly, the SE version does not allow for corrections to scanning parameters in the HDR setting, Ai version lets you view the effect of any changes on 16bits/channel scan prior to the scan just on the preview? I don't want to spread misinformation, but this is what I understand from their site.

Sorry for the misinformation in my earlier post.

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry, You appear to be right-SE does not support 16 bit per channel scans except as a raw HDR scan. For sure Ai and Ai Studio do 16 bit because I own them and all adjustments can be done in and written to 16 bit. Personally I do everything on these machines and in PS in 16 bit (48 bit color/16 bit greyscale).

[Jiri Vasina]

Yes, precisely, I also do everything in 16bit per channel.

I bought Ai version for my previous Epson 3170 scanner, but did not grow very fond of it (though used it for more than 1.5 years) and went back to Epson scan soft. With V700, in SE I could not bring it to do what I wanted - select 16bits p/c and do corrections and alterations of the curves,... . I deleted it after 2 days of wain trying. Since then I managed to learn to get even more from the Epson scan software.

[sparq]

We all have our preferred workflows. All I need from the scanning software is a 16bpc scan. Curves, sharpness, resizing, cloning, burning&dodging, cropping, etc. - all that happens later in my favorite editor. With 16bpc, there's no advantage in adjusting curves in the scanning software before a tiff is saved (but let's not open that old can of worms again).

[bwaysteve]

I am trying to get some first hand info on scanning 8x10 tri-x on a V700.I have not purchased at this point but wanted to find out some pro and cons of this.Epson (pre sale tech support is worthless)They hire people to read along with you online from the website.
Is anti Newton glass required or does the 8x10 fit in a holder.It sounds like the Epson software w/CS3 or Vue Scan is the way to go.Anyone with this experience out there?

[Kirk Gittings]

Steve, there is no holder per se, you can scan on the glass wet or dry or some people use a piece of anti Newton glass (or I have heard of using non glare framing glass). I don't do 8x10 myself, but have played around with it some to show students. Others will have more experience with it.

Allot of people love Vuescan or are satisfied with the Epson software. I'm not one of those. Once you get used to how SF operates, I think it is a superior tool. To each his own.

[Jiri Vasina]

There is no holder for any film larger than 4x5 supplied with the V700. I just place the film on the glass with the included film guide - sometimes I get newton rings no matter what I try, sometimes I don't have any at all. There are aftermarket holders (www.betterscanning.com) for some film sizes, but I'm not certain about 8x10 - on the website they speak only about 5x7 holder.

Antinewton glass might be helpful but I have not tried it.

[sparq]

There's no 8x10 holder available for V700 because the "above the glass scanning area" is not big enough. 8x10 films need to be scanned off the bed. W/o an ANR glass, I always ended up with horrible Newton rings when scanning off the bed; irreparable in post processing. The ANR glass on top evens out the film pressure and usually helps but it does not eliminate the rings completely, either; especially when there are not enough "teeth" in the emulsion (larger darker areas).

The only guaranteed way is to get the bed messy with fluid mounting but it is a somehow risky business.

[Brian Ellis]

I used to scan 8x10 Ilford HP5+ on a 4990. No holder, I just put it on the glass. The first time I tried it I had a Newton ring problem but when I reversed the side of the film that was on the glass it went away. Can't recall whether emulsion side down or up was the solution but one of them was. I've heard others say it didn't matter for them which side was on the glass, they had the problem either way. So I don't know, maybe there was some synergy between HP5+ and my 4990 or for some other reason I just got lucky.

[Jiri Vasina]

I sometimes have Newton rings regardless of the side I place the emulsion on (up or down) and they keep reappearing no matter what I try. With some other negs, the rings never occur. Sometimes I have to warm the negative up - scan the negative twice and then it scans without the rings... Most often I scan emulsion side up (at least as a starting point).

[seepaert]

Off course you can scan with the supplied epson sioftware, as you can ride th tour de france on a childrens bike. But it has nothing in common with a real scanning program like for instance linocolor.

Silverfast can run on it self, at least it does in my systen 10.4 It is a lot better than the epson software, but still I was very disappointed after the good stories I heard about it. Main problem is that the prescan shows you a result that doesn't resemble the real scan. After scanning the result is not shows, which causes you to file a lot of rubbish, when you should have rescanned. I would not advice it for the difficult corrections on a color negative, but it works on BW and slides.

[newmoon2night]

OK, back to a Lightroom question.
I followed Richards instructions and used it with a 4"x5" transparency, set at 3200, and ended up with a TIFF file of 473MB. Great I thought ... until Adobe Lightroom wouldn't import the file because it was 'too big'.
Some searching on Google revealed that Lightroom limites file size to a maximum of 10,000 pixels per side, and this irritates quite a few people who scan images or stitch panoramas. Opinion seems to be that at some time this limit will be removed, but until then the only option if using Lightroom is to reduce the file size.
So am I right in thinking that in this case dpi does equate to pixels, and therefore with a 5 inch side and 10,000 pixels maximum, I need to limit the scan resolution to below 2000 (which means the maximum has to 1200dpi)?
Or is that a far too simplistic analysis of the situation?
Looking at the file properties in Explorer I see that it defaults to opening with HP Photosmart Premier, and does open with the B9180 software. I suppose I could forget about Lightroom all together for this, and just use the HP software, though I haven't looked to see what it will do, and whether I can clean the file up or anything.
Thanks for any further advice.

[Jiri Vasina]

Yes, you are right. Set he scanning to 1200dpi, you'll get a more manageable filesize. And I don't go above 2400dpi with sheet film.

(image size = [size in inches] x [resolution in dpi] )

[Kirk Gittings]

3200 is well above the true optical resolution on a 700. It is closer to 2200. Scanning above that only gives you a larger file size and no discernible advantages. Like Jiri I scan at 2400 max.

[newmoon2night]

Yes, you are right. Set he scanning to 1200dpi, you'll get a more manageable filesize. And I don't go above 2400dpi with sheet film.

(image size = [size in inches] x [resolution in dpi] )

Thanks Jiri and Kirk. I feel like I'm starting to understand this a little now.

I will ask one other question though, as my understanding of this area is limited to what I have read on Wikipedia - what's the difference between 24 bit color and 48 bit color?

I know a bit is a binary digit (and read that a byte is generally 8 bits). From Wikipedia's article on color depth I also see that 1 bit is monochrome, and 2 bits early greyscale, so 24 and 48 bits are increases in color spectrum I imagine.

24 bit is 256x256x256 color range, and 48 bit must be quite a bit more (not sure how many).

Do computer screens, printers and the human eye perceive at this level or at 48 bit level?

Does scanning at 48bit instead of 24bit considerably increases the file size?

[Jiri Vasina]

I'll explain it on the difference first on black and white images only, and first between 4bit and 2bit image:

if you have a 2bit image, you have 4 possible values of darkness/lightness - you only have white, lighter grey, darker grey, black. Any transition in tonality can be represented only by those 4 values. if on the other hand you take 4bit image, you have 16 possible values - the transition is much smoother.

With 8bits per channel, you have 256 possible values. So the transitions in this case is pretty smooth (in most cases). With 16bits per channel, you have something like 65 000 steps in the transition - way more than your eye can discern.

But now imagine you need to do some modifications to the image, darken some parts, lighten some parts, change contrast or whatever. By any such modification you effectively lose the number of steps in the transition: when boosting contrast, in the source image you may have 2 adjoining steps in the transition, lets say at value 128 and 129. After you boost the contrast, from the 128 you get for example 120, and from the 129 you get for example the value 135. There is nothing in between. So from the smooth transition between 128 and 129, you suddenly have a rough step between 120 and 135. Therefore it's better if you initially have more steps to start with (you have 16bits per channel), because the changes are less discrete, more precise.

That is the reason why almost everyone working seriously with images will try to work with 16bits per channel (and in scientific applications even more), because you don't loose that much information in the process (at least visibly).

And for color image it's the same: you either have 256 steps for each of the channels (Red Green Blue) in 24bit image - 8bits per channel. Or you have the 65536 steps for each channel in 48bit image - 16bits per channel.

And yes, scanning at 48bit will increase the file size over 24bit - the computer has to store twice the amount of information, so the TIFF file would generally be roughly twice as large.

Hope this helps...

[Greg Lockrey]

You would have to have one heck of an eye to discern a 48 bit print verses a 24 bit print practically speaking. Using 48 bit in your processing helps in getting your colors closer to a desired result but if the 24 bit happens to be at the same value, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. A lot of processing programs won't handle 48 bit nor a lot of printers.

[Jiri Vasina]

For the end result picture, yes the 24bits are enough. But it's the modification of the images that is the crux. If you just scan the image and then print/present on web, it's OK to do it at 24bits. But if you need to modify the image it's better to do it in 48bits.

You may arrive at the same result if you do the work either in 24 or in 48bits, but more likely the result would be subtly different (the more changes, the more likely the difference).

And you are right, the visible color at (for example) 51.5% of the scale is the same in 48bit and in 24bits, but it's about the "graininess of the scale". If you have more smaller grains, the transitions are more smooth than if you have less of larger grains - is it not one of the reasons why we shoot LF? The smoothness of tonalities, of the transitions? Because the grain is relatively smaller in the comparison with the size of the image as a whole.

[Greg Lockrey]

For the end result picture, yes the 24bits are enough. But it's the modification of the images that is the crux. If you just scan the image and then print/present on web, it's OK to do it at 24bits. But if you need to modify the image it's better to do it in 48bits.

You may arrive at the same result if you do the work either in 24 or in 48bits, but more likely the result would be subtly different (the more changes, the more likely the difference).

And you are right, the visible color at (for example) 51.5% of the scale is the same in 48bit and in 24bits, but it's about the "graininess of the scale". If you have more smaller grains, the transitions are more smooth than if you have less of larger grains - is it not one of the reasons why we shoot LF? The smoothness of tonalities, of the transitions? Because the grain is relatively smaller in the comparison with the size of the image as a whole.

Let's not confuse the issue of "graininess" in terms of variance of color. It is more like "steps" of transition from one value to the next. Moving from step one to two in a 256 step wedge is indiscernible to most eyes let alone to ink-jet printers. I won't argue that the steps are finer in 48 bit but in practical matters the question is what is really necessary? Depending on the paper and ink most printers lose it from 1 to 20 and from 245 to 255 in terms of discernible value anyway and a keen eye can pick up about 2-3 step differences in between. In practical terms for example a 2400 spi scan of a 4x5 transparency in 48 bit takes about 20 minutes to accomplish verses about 5 minutes in 24 bit and for printing purposes not really have that much difference in the over all result. Plus the file size difference is significantly different to load into the printer as well. Time being money, is the perceived improvement worth the extra cost in time? I bet that only a handful of people can tell the difference.

[Jiri Vasina]

I used the word "graininess" solely on the steps in the color wedge. It was not meant to relate to graininess of the image (that was only an example). In hindsight the word was not chosen well, but it sounds better than "discreteness".

I completely agree that human eye can not discern 256 shades of grey (or any color). But have you never encountered those irregular blue banding in pictures of skies? The banding is not there if the image is 48bit, but suddenly appears in 24bit. And not only on monitor, but also on the print? The reason being that even the 256 steps are too discrete, not smooth enough.

Anyway there are horses for courses - sometimes you get the same result with two very different beasts (48bit vs. 24bit). And sometimes having a race champion (48bit) will only slow you down.

[Greg Lockrey]

I do know where you are coming from, Jiri, I use 48 bit 90% of the time myself. I was trying to keep the terminology clear for anyone else reading this thread. But there are many applications that can't use it (like stitching in older versions of Photoshop for example) so I keep those operations in mind whenever I do my scanning. I routinly make scans of 30x40" artwork on a 12x17" flatbed and I do a lot of stitching. Keeping files just large enough to be good enough is a priority when it can take over an hour to make those kind of stitches and I have a pretty powerful computer which is another important consideration in the mix. ;)

[Wally]

Let's not confuse the issue of "graininess" in terms of variance of color. It is more like "steps" of transition from one value to the next. Moving from step one to two in a 256 step wedge is indiscernible to most eyes let alone to ink-jet printers. I won't argue that the steps are finer in 48 bit but in practical matters the question is what is really necessary? Depending on the paper and ink most printers lose it from 1 to 20 and from 245 to 255 in terms of discernible value anyway and a keen eye can pick up about 2-3 step differences in between. In practical terms for example a 2400 spi scan of a 4x5 transparency in 48 bit takes about 20 minutes to accomplish verses about 5 minutes in 24 bit and for printing purposes not really have that much difference in the over all result. Plus the file size difference is significantly different to load into the printer as well. Time being money, is the perceived improvement worth the extra cost in time? I bet that only a handful of people can tell the difference.
24 bit is 8 bits per color, three colors, right? And 8 bits is only 256 discrete hues of each of these colors.

If your image has an area with a gradual change in hue and the hue is close to one of the three colors, in 24-bit mode you're probably going to see some banding. With 16 bits per color in 48-bit mode, there are 64K hues for each of the three colors and therefore 256 gradations across the transition of that band, and it's much less likely that you will see any banding.