Epson Scan No Color Correction same as other's RAW?

[Keith S. Walklet]

Henry, my results are slightly different. My 4870 won't scan 4x5 above 3200 spi (in transparency mode).

Haven't tried it with a negative. Is there a lower threshold?

Ted, I note marked incremental gains in the quality of the resulting files up to 4800 spi. After one moves beyond the claimed optical max spi into interpolated territory, they go south in a hurry.

Are you possibly confusing your measurements of the optical resolution with what Epson's marketing folks are calling it? Regardless of what the "true" resolution of the scanner is, the resulting files get better with each bump upward to their claimed optical limit of 4800 (something-or-others per inch) in my experience.

FWIW, I scan into Joe's Ektaspace, no sharpening, no ICE, 48 bit. Files are full gig at the 3200 spi resolution.

My workflow is slightly different than yours, too, Henry. Your suggestion for using the Auto feature seems a little less trouble than my approach, which involves using the virtual densitometer that Ted mentioned, plus multiple sample scans to make sure I'm getting full black and white ends of the data. It seems as though you're looking at a broader range of data than the densitometer is and could possibly zero in on the shadow and highlight limits more quickly. I'll have to give that a try.

The histogram in the version of EpsonScan I use is at best a generalization and I find I have to do the work to get the values set properly myself. I wish the software had a means to find those high and low values on its own. I know the third-party stuff does.

[Ted Harris]

Keith makes a good point about accurately finding the best white and black point. Silverfast Ai, for example, will show you were the points are after your prescan and then where they are after you have tinkered. You get both a histogram and a visual looksee.

[Henry Ambrose]

The workflow or method I wrote is what I'd call the simple intuitive approach. It requires no additional expense and its straightforward. You can look at the histogram after you click the "auto" button to see what its giving you. If you need to move the black or white point at that time you can, or apply curves if you want. I usually set the black and white points out a tiny bit so I don't clip off either end. For negatives that are "good" this method will give you a fine scan and its fast and easy.

I bought the full version of SilverFast so I could scan at higher resolutions. If I remember correctly, my 4990 goes buggy with Epson Scan at 2400 ppi on 4x5 film. I wanted that much (and more) resolution for big prints. Whatever the actual resolving ability of the scanner is measured or calculated, the prints look better when the scanning resolution is higher. In SilverFast I go back to using more of the driver's tools and I'm getting really nice scans. My clients were impressed and I was happy.

[Keith S. Walklet]

>The workflow or method I wrote is what I'd call the simple intuitive approach.

It does seem intuitive. I'll have to give it a try, though I don't trust the Epson histogram. I always open the file in PS to look at the histogram there. But at least EpsonScan has one. I know some very expensive scanners with software that don't.

>If I remember correctly, my 4990 goes buggy with Epson Scan at 2400 ppi on 4x5 film.

Again, I'm talking about transparencies, but was pretty sure they bumped the buffer size up so that it could handle 4x5 at 4800 spi on the 4990. But I turn off all the extra stuff. For instance, I can't even select the "dust removal" at the 3200 spi resolution. That larger buffer was the primary reason I contemplated moving up to the 4990 or V700 from my 4870. My thinking was that even if I didn't end up printing the image super large, with the larger scan file, I get the benefit of less noise by down-sampling.

>Whatever the actual resolving ability of the scanner is measured or calculated, the prints look better when the scanning resolution is higher.

I agree, up to 4800 spi. ;-)