Epson 4990 settings

[Rider]

I know the Epson 4990 is popular for LF scanning for its value and good LF results.

I am confused by is interface. Under Configuration--Color-ICM, the only target color spaces are Adobe RGB, Apple RGB and Colormatch RGB.

Doesn't choosing one of those rob you of the maximum color space available? Is it better to choose "No Color Correction"?

[Joanna Carter]

I know the Epson 4990 is popular for LF scanning for its value and good LF results.

I am confused by is interface. Under Configuration--Color-ICM, the only target color spaces are Adobe RGB, Apple RGB and Colormatch RGB.

Doesn't choosing one of those rob you of the maximum color space available? Is it better to choose "No Color Correction"?
You should choose Configuration--Color-No Management (or whatever the exact words are). The correct workflow is to scan the film with no profile at all, then assign the profile, you have made for your particular transparency film, in Photoshop.

[Rider]

You should choose Configuration--Color-No Management (or whatever the exact words are). The correct workflow is to scan the film with no profile at all, then assign the profile, you have made for your particular transparency film, in Photoshop.

If I choose "No Color Correction" all Adjustment options are disabled, including Dust Removal.

[Rider]

You should choose Configuration--Color-No Management (or whatever the exact words are). The correct workflow is to scan the film with no profile at all, then assign the profile, you have made for your particular transparency film, in Photoshop.

Another question, Joanna. This assumes I have gone out of my way to create a profile for my transparency film. I have not. Is that the only to get good results? The printer also came with Silverfast SE. Is that better than the Epson program? Also, I use mainly Lightroom 2 rather than Photoshop. Is there a way to get decent results without creating profiles?

Also, choosing No Color Correction disables all options; wouldn't it be better to make some overall changes before scanning, since the scanner does not produce "RAW" images but TIFF files.

[Joanna Carter]

Another question, Joanna. This assumes I have gone out of my way to create a profile for my transparency film. I have not. Is that the only to get good results? The printer also came with Silverfast SE. Is that better than the Epson program? Also, I use mainly Lightroom 2 rather than Photoshop. Is there a way to get decent results without creating profiles?

Also, choosing No Color Correction disables all options; wouldn't it be better to make some overall changes before scanning, since the scanner does not produce "RAW" images but TIFF files.
If you are using a profiled workflow to scan transparencies, then the Epson software does not allow you to make any adjustments whilst scanning; I simply scan the film, as is, and then clean it up in Photoshop; the results are fine. I don't know about Silverfast; I can't stand the user interface.

Scanning transparencies without a profile can be done but getting rid of colour casts, etc is very difficult; the profile assures you of a decent colour balance, no matter what the software you use for editing the scanned image.

[bvstaples]

If I choose "No Color Correction" all Adjustment options are disabled, including Dust Removal.

Remove your dust manually. I make sure my negs, glass, and carrier are FOD before I scan, that was I can scan raw (not RAW) images and do all my clean up in PS afterwards.

[Patrick Dixon]

If you are using a profiled workflow to scan transparencies, then the Epson software does not allow you to make any adjustments whilst scanning; I simply scan the film, as is, and then clean it up in Photoshop; the results are fine. I don't know about Silverfast; I can't stand the user interface.


So for colour work you don't even adjust the scanning preview histogram points?

[Rider]

I wanted to post a picture I scanned. I can't see the button for that.

I know what you mean about Silverfast; it's a very German interface. My copy doesn't work on Windows 7, so it's a moot point.

Creating a profile for every film and speed? How do you go about doing that?

[PenGun]

I use Vuescan and it is very good. It's a free download to try;

https://www.hamrick.com/

I find it a better interface than the Silverfast for me but I have 'the kitchen sink' turned on. The simple setting work well too.

[Rider]

Found the button.

So here is y first scan in a long time after a few minutes of tinkering in Lightroom.

[Joanna Carter]

So for colour work you don't even adjust the scanning preview histogram points?
Yup. if you want reliable profiling, then you should disable all corrections before scanning.

[Joanna Carter]

Creating a profile for every film and speed? How do you go about doing that?
Wolf Faust makes targets for various films; I only use Velvia 100, Astia 100F and Provia 100F, so I only need two targets because certain targets suit more than one emulsion. I use Monaco EZColor to make the profiles.

[Rider]

I think a canned approach would work better for me. I don't scan enough to justify custom profiles. Is there a simple, idiot proof workflow for the 4990?

[Joanna Carter]

I think a canned approach would work better for me. I don't scan enough to justify custom profiles. Is there a simple, idiot proof workflow for the 4990?
What do you mean by a "canned" approach?

Yes, all you have to do is find out what scanner settings work for each and every transparency, do the scan and then work on the file in Photoshop to correct any problems you find.

If you scan a transparency without a profile, what you usually end up with is a colour cast and incorrect luminosity levels. However, these colour casts are not consistent across the whole image; the difference between correcting colour casts in Photoshop and via a profile is that, in Photoshop, the correction is made over the whole range of colours whereas, with a profile, the cast is corrected differently for different shades and tones of each colour.

So, in summary, as long as you don't mind spending time doing a lot of work in Photoshop, scanning without a profile is easy. I have better things to do with my time than spend hours trying to correct colours; I use a profile.

[rdenney]

I think a canned approach would work better for me. I don't scan enough to justify custom profiles. Is there a simple, idiot proof workflow for the 4990?

Profilling the scanner is not difficult. You put the target in the scanner, go to the software that does the profiling, punch the button, and then identify the resulting profile in your scanning software. Or, you use the scanning software to make the profile if it has the feature.

Then, you scan transparencies and they turn out the same as they look on your light table.

That is the canned approach. Doing it without the profile is the uncanned method.

Rick "noting that Vuescan does have a built-in profile for many films, and it does get pretty close" Denney

[Jay W]

I've been printing B&W and ignoring these issues, so let me see if my analogy works. (My background comes from the darkroom.)

When you print color in the darkroom, you have to color balance the film, paper/chemistry, and the enlarger to get good color. Usually this is all done at the same time by dialing filtration to the enlarger, but it could be thought of as separate color balances for the film, enlarger, and paper/chemistry. (The papers used to come with printed color balance information.)

In the digital darkroom, it seems similar that you have to color balance the scanner (input), and you have to balance the printer (output), and it's awfully nice to balance the monitor. If you shoot different films, then there's separate color balances for the films.

It seems you could pull out an old Kodak color check grid (colors and B&W), shoot that on your favorite films, develop, scan, and make a profile, but I guess you're re-inventing the wheel, and it's easier to simply purchase the premade targets for $75 and use existing software. (Damn this hobby is expensive.)

Am I in the ballpark?

Jay

[Rider]

In the past, I've been pretty happy with the results that my other scanner (Coolscan 5000) produced using the Nikon Scan software. Sure there were color casts to change to get the look I wanted, but my slides themselves usually have color casts or don't look exactly how I want them to.

Is the Epson 4990 scanner software just not as good as others I've dealt with?

[Joanna Carter]

Am I in the ballpark?
Very much so. Just as with the colour darkroom, you should be able to determine what filtration will be required for a certain paper, exposed under a certain enlarger and developed in a certain developer, that would equate (approximately) to a printer profile.

So, now you get to insert, say, a Kodak transparency; this will require an adjustment to the filtration, as would a Fuji transparency require a different adjustment to the filtration. This secondary adjustment for a particular make of film is the equivalent of a scanner profile.

Now, some say that you can use the same filtration, regardless of the film used but, in reality, most of us find that it is better to go with an adjustment (profile) for each film type, as it would appear that there are characteristics that can add different colour casts dependent on the make of film.

However, profiling a scanner has a slight advantage over altering the filtration on an enlarger; profiling writes a colour translation table that is not necessarily linear for all shades of every colour, thus it is slightly more "refined" in the way that the profile alters the colour balance, rather than applying one colour filter for the whole image.

[Joanna Carter]

In the past, I've been pretty happy with the results that my other scanner (Coolscan 5000) produced using the Nikon Scan software. Sure there were color casts to change to get the look I wanted, but my slides themselves usually have color casts or don't look exactly how I want them to.

Is the Epson 4990 scanner software just not as good as others I've dealt with?
If you have been "pretty happy" with unprofiled results from another scanner, then you shouldn't notice too many differences in using the 4990. In that, the Epson software is really not that different.

However, profiling eliminates the "standard", non-linear, colour casts in a certain make of film; this then means that any residual colour discrepancies are now down to you and how you shot the film.

Don't forget that a lab can add a magenta or green cast, simply by not checking the pH of the solutions are within range; no amount of profiling can account for that and it is a sign that you need to either scream at the lab or to change to another one.

[Rider]

Assuming I can't afford profiles, what is the best way to use the Epson Scan software? Let it color manage using Adobe RGB as the output space?

[Rider]

If you have been "pretty happy" with unprofiled results from another scanner, then you shouldn't notice too many differences in using the 4990. In that, the Epson software is really not that different.

However, profiling eliminates the "standard", non-linear, colour casts in a certain make of film; this then means that any residual colour discrepancies are now down to you and how you shot the film.

Don't forget that a lab can add a magenta or green cast, simply by not checking the pH of the solutions are within range; no amount of profiling can account for that and it is a sign that you need to either scream at the lab or to change to another one.

Joanna, my original question was to try to understand the Epson Scan settings. While I appreciate that custom profiling has its advantages, I can't afford it (just like most people can't afford a drum scanner), (and I'm not necessarily looking for my scans to match the slides--I am too creative for that :)).

Lacking a custom profile, I want to know what's the best color mode setting to use in order to get the best possible scan into Photoshop?

I know it's a tough question, I hope someone knows the answer.

(Btw, slides have color casts for many reasons: because I don't always shoot in perfectly balanced daylight (and the large format camera doesn't have an auto White Balance button like my Nikon :)), lenses introduce color casts, out-of date film produces color cast; pushing or pulling film causes color changes; and last but not least, sometimes you shoot a pink sunset but want it to look purple or blue; and so on.)

[Rider]

If you have been "pretty happy" with unprofiled results from another scanner, then you shouldn't notice too many differences in using the 4990. In that, the Epson software is really not that different.


Epson Scan seems to be truly crippled compared to Nikon Scan, which is why I am looking to find out the best settings (not to spend more money; I am saving my money for your new "quick load" envelopes when they come out!)

My recollection is that, among other things, Nikon Scan allows you to output to a much wider color space than Adobe RGB, which is where I started my question. Also, the built-in profiles are different. I haven't used the Coolscan in a while, but I will check it out soon to verify.

[Joanna Carter]

Assuming I can't afford profiles, what is the best way to use the Epson Scan software? Let it color manage using Adobe RGB as the output space?
Your best bet is to try out all the different settings and see what pleases you most.

[venchka]

Try Ken Lee's method with the 4990. I practiced Ken's method with B&W before attempting color. My early results with color weren't too shabby.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.html

Isn't Adobe RGB what 99.9% of the digital crowd uses? They seem to be doing ok with color.

Good luck.

[Rider]

Try Ken Lee's method with the 4990. I practiced Ken's method with B&W before attempting color. My early results with color weren't too shabby.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.html

Isn't Adobe RGB what 99.9% of the digital crowd uses? They seem to be doing ok with color.

Good luck.

Thanks Wayne! That link actually answered a couple of questions, including one I hadn't even asked yet: what's the real maximum resolution of this scanner--it seems to be 2100 spi (which means you can set it up to 2400 and still get more details).

I guess Adobe RGB will have to do if that's all the scanner offers.

Thanks, too, to Joanna for her help.

[rdenney]

Joanna, my original question was to try to understand the Epson Scan settings. While I appreciate that custom profiling has its advantages, I can't afford it (just like most people can't afford a drum scanner), (and I'm not necessarily looking for my scans to match the slides--I am too creative for that :)).

Given that all transparencies are designed for direct viewing, the differences between them, even when obvious, are still within the range of realistic. Any built-in profile for a transparency might not get rid of a given films quirks, but then maybe you don't want it to.

For color negative film, it's really important. There's no other way for the scanner software to get rid of the film mask, which is a different color for different films.

That's a separate question than the output color space, which is where the scanner puts the color, not what corrections it makes along the way. Most use Adobe or ProPhoto--those have more gamut than sRGB which you will sometimes need for contrasty transparencies. I had a Velvia slide that kept clipping the histogram before I realized that the software had slipped into the sRGB colorspace.

Color spaces are a whole other topic, so just pick Adobe for now and learn as you go.

Rick "who sometimes wants the characteristic cast of a particular transparency film" Denney

[Jay W]

I got thinking about profiles again. I have a 4990, and if someone would make a profile on their 4990, would that work fairly well on my scanner? (Maybe someone has replaced a scanner and re-profiled.) I realize it's not ideal, but maybe it's close.

If it would work fairly well, does anyone have a Velvia 50 profile they'd be willing to email? :)

Thanks,

Jay