Next step up from Epson scanners [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

colttvance

2-Dec-2018, 13:06

In my experience, quality goes something like this: flatbed then to drum. I have not found a solid middle ground for negatives that are larger than 120mm. Once you pass up flatbeds, you start into drum scanner which are wallet breakers, think Hasselblad Flextight, and a few others. Typically, anything older requires archaic software and equipment to use. Basically, what I am getting at is that, as you start looking for higher quality scanners (aside from Hasselblad Flextight), you will need to buy archaic computer equipment (Power Macs, Adapters, etc.) The maintenance cost of these old PCs, as well as the cost and sourcing of the parts for the scanners can really be a hinderance.

My best recommendation is to purchase an Epson V800 and buy Silverfast software. It does take quite a bit of experimentation to get correct, but in my experience, it's better than breaking the bank on a drum. Here's what I currently do, for personal work or non-publishables, I scan myself. For work that is important or part of a project, I send it off to the lab for a drum scan if my self-scans will not be suffice.

The Epson software is a wee bit of a let down, and if you're shooting color, forget it. Silverfast is the way to go since it has what is called Negafix.

Kevin J. Kolosky

2-Dec-2018, 13:12

I guess what I meant to ask is whether there are better flatbed scanners than the Epsom scanners?

Alan9940

2-Dec-2018, 13:18

There are higher end flatbed scanners like the Kodak Creo IqSmart series that will provide better scans than any Epson, but these units are quite pricey and, as coltvance said, older hardware that needs older platforms to run on. Like coltvance, I do my own scans with Silverfast Ai Studio on an Epson flatbed, and then if I have something extraordinary I'll send out for a drum scan. You may, also, want to check out:

http://www.richardmanphoto.com/scanningservices/

I've never used Richard's scanning service, but the prices are certainly reasonable.

Peter De Smidt

2-Dec-2018, 13:36

Dslr scanners can be better than an Epson.

Pere Casals

2-Dec-2018, 15:27

I guess what I meant to ask is whether there are better flatbed scanners than the Epsom scanners?

do my own scans with Silverfast Ai Studio on an Epson flatbed, and then if I have something extraordinary I'll send out for a drum scan.

+1

Anyway the weakest point of the V850 is 35mm film, so complementing it with a Plustek 8xxx (or 120) series ends in a powerful combo for a multi-format shooter.

paulbarden

2-Dec-2018, 16:14

I guess what I meant to ask is whether there are better flatbed scanners than the Epsom scanners?

There are, but nothing within the same price range. If your budget is $1000 or less, the Epson scanners are pretty much the only game in town.

I bought the V750 Pro in 2012, and it took some learning to get the best out of it. But once I had learned to navigate its quirks, I was quite satisfied with the results. Its far from perfect, but "perfect" isn't very affordable.

PS: Take a look at this review of the current "Pro" model of Epson scanner, the V850 Pro: https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV850Pro.html
Note that the reviewer concluded that this model didn't do an appreciably better job that the V750 Pro, in terms of scan quality. The default film holders that come with the device are quite poor, and most users will suggest that you get the Better Scanning film holders (Which I have yet to do, myself. But that day is coming, I am sure): http://www.betterscanning.com/ I've learned how to deal with the quirks of the Epson film holders for 120 roll film and the output is just fine for my needs. Scanning 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film is pretty easy too, but the 35mm output is pretty poor: its very difficult to achieve sharpness of any kind from 35mm film with the Epson.

Greg

2-Dec-2018, 16:23

Dslr scanners can be better than an Epson.

My present experience is that using my Nikon D850 on a very solid and very aligned copy stand, very evenly lit light panel, a 120mm f/6.3 Micro Nikkor (lens used on a Nikon Multiphot) at its optimum aperture for the film size that I am shooting, and masking the borders of the film beats my Epson V750 Pro scanner hands down. Am producing digital files from 35mm up to 11x14 films. For shooting 35mm chromes, the V750 is really noticeably inferior in sharpness and for accurate color reproduction.

Jim Andrada

2-Dec-2018, 16:54

I moved up to an IQsmart 2 rather than deal with the drum workflow. It's a far better machine than any Epson. BUT it was pricey (I bought a refurbed unit) and big and heavy. I think the shipping was around $600.00 I had a couple of older Macs lying around - a Mini and a Macbook. The scanner is solid as a rock, the Creo/Kodak software can be iffy, but the old Macs are not a problem.

For MF and 35mm I think the Plustek might be worth a look. I was using a Coolscan 8000 until it self destructed but with the IQsmart I can load a couple of rolls of 120 on the glass and let it scan everything overnight. It isn'a speed demon.

Alan9940

2-Dec-2018, 21:11

For 35mm, I use a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II. It does a pretty good job; way better than any Epson flatbed.

Jim Noel

2-Dec-2018, 23:22

Duolab123

3-Dec-2018, 00:00

My Microtek Scanmake i900 scans circles around the Epsons. Separate bed underneath for negatives to 8x10, no glass in the path. The brand name has changed, but there is a newer model. I don't recall the new brand name.

I have a older Microtek, I don't use it that often, it works great with Vuescan software. I run a nice Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm. There's no glass in between with the Microtek film holders except for 8x10 negatives. All I scan is color reversal film and occasionally b&w. I would definitely take the D850 route with a motorized Beseler carriage and white LED light box before I would take for ever fiddling with a scanner. Even the old school Nikon PB4 bellows and a slide copier attachment with a bellows lens.
Having said that my old Microtek has a 20 slide holder, I think it would take 4 hours to scan that many.

Pere Casals

3-Dec-2018, 01:42

using my Nikon D850 , a 120mm f/6.3 Micro Nikkor beats my Epson V750 Pro scanner hands down. Am producing digital files from 35mm up to 11x14 films. For shooting 35mm chromes, the V750

Greg, this is true and false, depending on situation.

This is true because the V750 extracts only 8,5 Mpix effective of a 35mm shot, while the D850 may extract perhaps 30Mpix effective (if the shot also has that level of quality).

But it is false because for 8x10 the V750 extracts 300MPix effective and the Nikon D850 only 1/10 of that.

Of course with the copy stand you may take very tinny crops to even beat a drum... if later stitching the crops in Ps.

But really it makes little sense the copy stand, as a cheap roll film dedicated scanner like a Plustek 8xxx is a better choice. And for LF the V750 anyway delivers an insane amount of image quality exceeding demands for most jobs.

(The 30Mpix effective is for BW targets, less for color as the D850 has 22 green MPix, and 11Mpix of red and blue, so with a red subject you have a 11MPix hardware limitation).

and for accurate color reproduction.

Not at all, I don't agree with that. The V750 is IT8 calibrated and what's not IT8 calibrated is the Nikon D850, specially if you have custom settings like "vivid" or not saving raw. You may like more the D850 colors, but the calibrated ones are those from the V750.

wilderness

3-Dec-2018, 10:25

My Microtek Scanmake i900 scans circles around the Epsons. Separate bed underneath for negatives to 8x10, no glass in the path. The brand name has changed, but there is a newer model. I don't recall the new brand name.

IMO these scanners offer superb prices for quality work.
One recently listed on eBay for $1 and $59 Shipping (excessive) ended with no bids. Included everything from original box except one of the targets.

Working with one for eight months, and thus far have scanned 10k in A120 negs.
Purchased a BU a few months ago off eBay that included everything including the original box. Many eBay listings of these are priced too high and are absent nearly all the original accessories (requires shopping).
I've never scanned any 8 x 10 negs, however tested the lower platen glass some years ago on 4 x 5's and was not pleased with the quality (didn't try elevating the neg or emulsion).

aaronnate

3-Dec-2018, 12:08

Purchased a BU.

I must have missed something what is a BU?

aaronnate

3-Dec-2018, 12:13

Very timely thread. For those of you with a Microtek i900 scanner, is there a driver for windows 10? I did not see one on the website but then again I may have missed it.

wilderness

3-Dec-2018, 15:40

I must have missed something what is a BU?

Back up

wilderness

3-Dec-2018, 15:43

Not that I'm aware of. In 2011 I downloaded all the drivers that were available. Have blank folders for 7_32 & 7_64.
If your able to locate a 7_64 driver it may work on the W10.
Don't recall if I have the i900 installed on my XP64 machine, which I rarely use and is boxed away.

On a google Microtek suggested using Vuescan for W10

wilderness

3-Dec-2018, 15:49

Corran

4-Dec-2018, 13:35

IMO the next step up, in a similar price range, is something like the Microtek M1 scanner. It's basically a better Epson (like for example, actually focusing on the film). I had one for a while and it was quite good. I never scanned 35mm on it though.

There's also some cheaper high-end flatbeds out there, if you can find them and get them running and keep them clean. I used to have an Agfa (rebranded Microtek or something) T2500 that was great, but had some dust issues inside on the sensor. I couldn't ever figure out how to open it up and clean it though. I retired it once I couldn't get SCSI to work on my Windows machine. Another option in this space is the Polaroid SprintScan series. Never used one but have seen good scans from them.

And then finally the high-end flatbeds that are big, somewhat expensive, and require legacy hardware, such as what I use now, a Screen Cezanne, or the iQSmart, Eversmart, and other models.

Pere Casals

4-Dec-2018, 14:14

My Microtek Scanmake i900 scans circles around the Epsons.

Jim, a Microtek Scanmake i900 can be found for $70 (and offer under that would be welcomed)

185107

This is not by chance... because it's a poor performer compared to a V700, regarding density alone the i900 is clearly well under 3.0D, with no SNR at 3.0D:

185108

While the V700 clearly performs way beyond the i900 is able:
(Note that vertical scale is different than in the i900 case)
185109

The i900 also has a 6 rows sensor, but having half the pixels than the EPSON.

Sorry, but I see no improvement in the i900...

Steven Ruttenberg

7-Dec-2018, 22:34

+1

Anyway the weakest point of the V850 is 35mm film, so complementing it with a Plustek 8xxx (or 120) series ends in a powerful combo for a multi-format shooter.

And deep shadows as I am finding out.

Pere Casals

7-Dec-2018, 22:45

And deep shadows as I am finding out.

Try with silverfast Multi-Exposure, you'll find a big improvement, still if you need to recover depest velvia shadows you may want a drum or an x5 scan.

Steven Ruttenberg

8-Dec-2018, 22:44

I hate silverfast! Vuescan has the multiexposure function and it doesn't help. Not fond of Epson Scan software either. I tried silverfast and I pretty much tossed my cookies with it.

Pere Casals

9-Dec-2018, 03:53

Alan Klein

9-Dec-2018, 09:30

I hate silverfast! Vuescan has the multiexposure function and it doesn't help. Not fond of Epson Scan software either. I tried silverfast and I pretty much tossed my cookies with it.

Steve, You can't get blood from a turnip. The scanner's mechanical properties limits the end results. The different scanner softwares are just post processing programs that add complexity, aggravation and time to the scan process. I've learned to KISS- keep it simple. I use the furnished Epsonscan with my V600. I scan flat except for black and white point adjustments. I turn everything else off. With that, the scanner covers the full range of the picture in one shot.. I then process with Lightroom. Or ELements. This way, I don;t have to learn a complicated scanner software that';s just duplicating my post processing program. Why bother with Silverfast or VUescan? I only have to scan once. Screwing around with editing during the scan opens you up to having to keep scanning the same picture until you get the results you want. Scan flat, you scan once. Then do all the editing in post processing.

Alan Klein

9-Dec-2018, 09:34

I use it when I need multi-exposure, just test it for that.

Pere, I haven't seen a multi-exposure picture from anyone that couldn't get the same results with one scan and using the shadow slider in your post processing software on a single scanned shot. The scanner's dMax limits the most you can get out of the shadow areas. You can't get blood from a turnip.

Pere Casals

9-Dec-2018, 09:39

Why bother with Silverfast or ...?

There is a reason, Multi-Exposure feature is in Silverfast SE Plus but not in Epson Scan, not also in the SE not "Plus" version.

IMHO Multi-Exposure mkes a very good job with slides with very dense shadows, I use it only for that.

Pere, I haven't seen a multi-exposure picture from anyone that couldn't get the same results with one scan and using the shadow slider in your post processing software on a single scanned shot. The scanner's dMax limits the most you can get out of the shadow areas. You can't get blood from a turnip.

Alan, in my experience I find multi-exposure benefit consistent with what the say: https://www.silverfast.com/highlights/multi-exposure/en.html

My guess is that some pro level scanners make the multi-exposure before moving the sensor to next row, while the Epson does it in two passes. Using ME improves the V850 capability, at least when used with silverfast in particular. Of cpurse not all jobs (by far) require ME.

Pere Casals

9-Dec-2018, 09:47

And deep shadows as I am finding out.

Steven, it looks you have bot tried Silverfast's ME in the V850, try it...

Steven Ruttenberg

9-Dec-2018, 22:19

Pere Casals

10-Dec-2018, 03:16

If I want to be able to save 48bit files as linear raw tiffs I have to spend lots of dollars to get an upgrade.

https://www.silverfast.com/showdocu/en.html?docu=1178

https://web.archive.org/web/20180327130047/https://www.silverfast.com/showdocu/en.html?docu=1178

hmmm, Steven, even with the basic vers¡on you can save the 48bit, but with the V850 you even have the Plus version that includes ME and AAOC...

Let me insist, use the software you want but just learn well your bundled version before.

massimodec

10-Dec-2018, 04:13

I am following here, lots of informations... I'm new to scanning large format color and B/W negatives.

But, when I scan wihtout ANY color setting, Epson v850 Pro (and others I've seen in the past) produces a bluish uncontrasted positive...
How do I change it to a "normal colors" image?
There should be some presets to clear the orange support color and so on...
Thank you

Pere Casals

10-Dec-2018, 04:54

Alan Klein

10-Dec-2018, 09:18

I just dont like silverfast. If I want to be able to save 48bit files as linear raw tiffs I have to spend lots of dollars to get an upgrade. But the interface is annoying too. The scanner can only do so much and Vuescan does that. I do zero adjusting or conversion at scan stage. So silverfast isn't al that for me. It also wouldn't let me choose my dpi setting at one point. It kept telling me what it wantd for a setting.

Now the epson or at least Vuescan when scanning and ouputting to raw does not seem to allow an increase in or decrease in exposure. I have played with the rgb brightness on the input tab and I get the same output raw file.

At any rate still working on it.

Now if the full version of silverfast allowed for an adjusted raw file I might consider trying it, but adjusting exposure is the only function I really need beyond saving as a linear raw tiff file.

My theory that the scanner does not decrease or increase the captured exposure is as follows. If it decreases, it would be defeating it's higher dmax setting that allows maximum ability to see through the dark shadows. YOu can't increase it because the manufacturer made the unit to be the brightest it could be so it can get the highest dmax. It's already at the highest brightness strength. Finally, due to the limitations of the film itself (5 and 7 stops for chromes and negatives), the entire range is captured in one scan. There's no point doing a second scan. Finally doing two scans getting the same data does not increase the dMax of the scanner. Multiscan ability to make better scans is just manufacturer's hype.

Ted Baker

10-Dec-2018, 09:52

You can't get blood from a turnip. The scanner's mechanical properties limits the end results.

This nonsense get repeated again again, even when examples are given. The scanner CCD DOES NOT have a dmax limit IF YOU increase the exposure time, it is just like any other camera in that respect. The DMAX limit as stated by the manufacturer is using a simple minimum exposure set by the need to not fill the wells of the sensor when the density of the film is 0.

What actually varies is the amount of noise relative to the true signal, the errors at maximum density are quite substantial. By increasing exposure you can reduce that noise a tiny bit.
However there are still other problem to contend with, 1. quality of the image at these low density ranges within the film and 2. metamerism (i.e. color) errors are also increased. (I think this is an area where an optimised sensor works better, and may explain some of the improvements found in higher end equipment)

Put simple these last two factors mean increasing the exposure can improve the S/N ratio, but there are still other problem to contend with.

If your shooting negatives, you are unlikely to get anywhere near these limits btw.

Following are two samples scanned by Ken Lee on his v750, over a piece of BW film with a density of approx 3.1. One is scanned with zero exposure gain the other with a 30% increase.

The image has had all the values increased by a linear amount to give the save grey value, you can see the difference in noise quite easily? If you can't see this difference then don't bother changing the exposure.

185325185326

aaronnate

10-Dec-2018, 10:35

185325185326

This is all completely new to me so pardon my ignorance. What am I looking at in those images? Yes I see a difference between the two but no clue what they mean.

Ted Baker

10-Dec-2018, 10:45

This is all completely new to me so pardon my ignorance. What am I looking at in those images? Yes I see a difference between the two but no clue what they mean.

This is a scan of a very dense piece of film (a step from a stoufer wedge), around a density of 3.15 (taken by another member Ken Lee). The exposures of each are different, one is longer than other just like when you change the shutter speed on your camera. (one is 30% longer than the other). A bit like changing from 1/125 of second to 1/90s of a second...

The image is then post processed by very simply giving each a linear increase, such that they both have the same values, a bit like putting pieces of film in an enlarger and adjusting the time from 12 seconds to 10.5 seconds to give the same value. (in my example one was increased 12x and the 10.5x)

So the resultant image should have the same tonal value if you like (about 18% grey), but you can see a difference in the noise.

Hope that makes some sense.

Keep in mind this is towards the limits, i.e. a very dense piece of film, especially for negatives, that is being brought up to middle grey, and these are just improvements that need to be seen in context.

Pere Casals

10-Dec-2018, 11:24

My theory that the scanner does not decrease or increase the captured exposure is as follows. If it decreases, it would be defeating it's higher dmax setting that allows maximum ability to see through the dark shadows.

Alan, the linear sensor of a scanner is like the one in a dslr in many senses. In a dslr (when fixed aperture and ISO) you may vary exposure time to have a good capture, and also you can use HDR feature to take two shots and later combining both shots in a single one to deal with an ample dynamic range that surpases the dslr capability.

This is what Silverfast does in a V850 when Multi-Exposure used, it takes 2 scans of the negative, each made with different exposure times. A drum uses a PMT sensor that has way more dynamic range, so it may not need that feature. Also I guess that some expensive flatbeds do not make two passes to obtain two images that are to be combined, but in that case two consecutive exposures of the same row are made before advancing to the following row.

These kind of tricks are common in imaging devices, for example Alexa movie camera uses "DGA", the analog voltage from each pixel feeds two ampliers instead one, working each at different ISO, this extends dynamic range because for the same image acquisition there are also 2 analog to digital converters, so each pixel in a shot is taken at two different ISOs to be later combined in a single reading.

I the case of a cheap V850 the implemented solution is making two passes each with different exposure.

aaronnate

10-Dec-2018, 11:59

Makes sense now. Thanks

Steven Ruttenberg

10-Dec-2018, 12:10

I agree with last couple of posts by Ted and Pere. I have this experience in my scanner as well, V850.

For linear raw output though, I have not found a way to adjust the exposure. I have tried, but I always get same raw output, regardless of setting or software used.

Steven Ruttenberg

10-Dec-2018, 12:14

https://www.silverfast.com/showdocu/en.html?docu=1178

https://web.archive.org/web/20180327130047/https://www.silverfast.com/showdocu/en.html?docu=1178

hmmm, Steven, even with the basic vers¡on you can save the 48bit, but with the V850 you even have the Plus version that includes ME and AAOC...

Let me insist, use the software you want but just learn well your bundled version before.

The version I got with scanner allows 48 to 24 bit. If I pick the 48bit only option, it will not let me do anything. That feature is locked till I uograde. And in the end, it cannot provide more than what scanner is capable of.

I will see if they have a trial version, I am always open to new methods if they work.

Pere Casals

10-Dec-2018, 12:30

The version I got with scanner allows 48 to 24 bit. If I pick the 48bit only option, it will not let me do anything. That feature is locked till I uograde. And in the end, it cannot provide more than what scanner is capable of.

I will see if they have a trial version, I am always open to new methods if they work.

Download latest version of the V850 drivers and Silverfast. With the V850 I downloaded the web install so I don't know, but with the V750 I had to download the last version from Epson support web because the version in the CD that I installed was not working.

No doubt that your bundled silverfast version has to be able save 16 bits per channel, if you can't then you have to fix that problem.

here in min 5:25 shows it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umXH39GlUkM , that has to work for you !

Steven Ruttenberg

10-Dec-2018, 13:05

Thanks. Will give it a try tonight. If you can actually change exposure and such for the final raw file when scanning that would be a plus. We will see. I have bee using Vuescan for like forever. Plus it supports my Nikon Coolscan 4000 which I need for my 1000s of 35mm negatives and slides. Plus, I am getting another 35mm film camera again. If SF can support that it would be of benefit. Still looking for a medium format film camera as well, so might need to upgrade to the 8000 coolscan I think it is called.

I watched that video in the past, thanks for the reminder link.

Alan Klein

10-Dec-2018, 14:45

This nonsense get repeated again again, even when examples are given. The scanner CCD DOES NOT have a dmax limit IF YOU increase the exposure time, it is just like any other camera in that respect. The DMAX limit as stated by the manufacturer is using a simple minimum exposure set by the need to not fill the wells of the sensor when the density of the film is 0.

What actually varies is the amount of noise relative to the true signal, the errors at maximum density are quite substantial. By increasing exposure you can reduce that noise a tiny bit.
However there are still other problem to contend with, 1. quality of the image at these low density ranges within the film and 2. metamerism (i.e. color) errors are also increased. (I think this is an area where an optimised sensor works better, and may explain some of the improvements found in higher end equipment)

Put simple these last two factors mean increasing the exposure can improve the S/N ratio, but there are still other problem to contend with.

If your shooting negatives, you are unlikely to get anywhere near these limits btw.

Following are two samples scanned by Ken Lee on his v750, over a piece of BW film with a density of approx 3.1. One is scanned with zero exposure gain the other with a 30% increase.

The image has had all the values increased by a linear amount to give the save grey value, you can see the difference in noise quite easily? If you can't see this difference then don't bother changing the exposure.

185325185326
This is pixel peeping and not an example. Looking at this piece of negative shows and tells nothing. SHow me the results of a real picture that extends from black to white with people, shadows, skies, trees, etc and in color. Then show me how you combined two pictures that made it better than taking one and just using the sliders to get the best result. Combining two shots tends to eliminate noise but does not provide additional resolution or exposure results. Misalignment between the scans due to mechanical limitations of the scanner also makes it difficult to combine two pictures.

Show me a real world result that you did not some silly experiment someone else did with a piece of film with nothing of meaning on it that you can recognize.

Alan Klein

10-Dec-2018, 14:46

This is all completely new to me so pardon my ignorance. What am I looking at in those images? Yes I see a difference between the two but no clue what they mean.

They mean nothing.

Alan Klein

10-Dec-2018, 14:58

Alan, the linear sensor of a scanner is like the one in a dslr in many senses. In a dslr (when fixed aperture and ISO) you may vary exposure time to have a good capture, and also you can use HDR feature to take two shots and later combining both shots in a single one to deal with an ample dynamic range that surpases the dslr capability.

This is what Silverfast does in a V850 when Multi-Exposure used, it takes 2 scans of the negative, each made with different exposure times. A drum uses a PMT sensor that has way more dynamic range, so it may not need that feature. Also I guess that some expensive flatbeds do not make two passes to obtain two images that are to be combined, but in that case two consecutive exposures of the same row are made before advancing to the following row.

These kind of tricks are common in imaging devices, for example Alexa movie camera uses "DGA", the analog voltage from each pixel feeds two ampliers instead one, working each at different ISO, this extends dynamic range because for the same image acquisition there are also 2 analog to digital converters, so each pixel in a shot is taken at two different ISOs to be later combined in a single reading.

I the case of a cheap V850 the implemented solution is making two passes each with different exposure.

Why do you need two scans. If slowing the scanner speed raises the dMax, then just slow it down to begin with. You wouldn't need a second scan because the range of the negative will not clip because the sensor can handle the 5 or 7 stops unlike the ten or twenty stops in the real world that digital cameras have to deal with.

Of course that begs the question. If slowing the speed down raises the dMax, why doesn't the scanner manufacturer just do that in the first place? I would think because their engineers have made a determination that slowing the speed will not get anymore meaningful data. That their sensor maxed out its' dMax at the speed they designed into the scanner.

Finally, combining two scans is problematic from what I've read. The scanner mechanical limitation prevents alignment among the thousands of rows of scanning between two scans.

I would like to see a real-world comparison. With actual pictures taken of people, skies, shadows, trees and in color. Then scan it with Silverfast two scans and with Epson one scan (flat) and do the adjustments of the Epson scan to increase what you can see in the shadows. Then compare both pictures to see if there really is a difference. A few years ago, someone showed that comparison. There was no difference. Maybe you can do better.

Corran

10-Dec-2018, 15:11

I think the larger issue here is not DMax but DRange. Doesn't matter what the exposure of the scanner is, the range of values achievable doesn't change.

This is where the multi-pass scanning comes in. However, as noted, giving "more exposure" raises the noise. I would postulate that there is some advanced issues here with regard to signal-to-noise. Consider for a second that at higher ISOs, digital cameras not only have more noise but also less dynamic range. If the second exposure digging into the shadows also has less DRange, it might not actually pull out any more information.

In my use of multi-pass scanning years ago with various scanners, it almost invariably caused issues with alignment. Not only just basic alignment but also differences in translation of the film line-to-line. These minute issues are not noticeable in single scans but when trying to line up multiple scans it because a big issue. These issues are probably due to less than perfect stepper motors.

Ted Baker

10-Dec-2018, 15:27

This is pixel peeping and not an example. Looking at this piece of negative shows and tells nothing. SHow me the results of a real picture that extends from black to white with people, shadows, skies, trees, etc and in color. Then show me how you combined two pictures that made it better than taking one and just using the sliders to get the best result. Combining two shots tends to eliminate noise but does not provide additional resolution or exposure results. Misalignment between the scans due to mechanical limitations of the scanner also makes it difficult to combine two pictures.

Show me a real world result that you did not some silly experiment someone else did with a piece of film with nothing of meaning on it that you can recognize.

Its an example, with an explanation, if you can't see a difference nor understand what has been said, then just simply ignore it.

Anyone can do there own testing just take a piece of exposed leader, adjust the exposure time, the film leader is very dense yet still transparent, but the scanner will still be able to penetrate it. The noise in the image will also be high. You can compare the amount of noise in the image when you adjust the exposure time just like the example given.

You can even trick the scanner to adjust the exposure time by putting a piece of unexposed and developed film over the scanner calibration area.

You can also easily measure at what point the noise level is unacceptable.

faberryman

10-Dec-2018, 15:29

In my use of multi-pass scanning years ago with various scanners, it almost invariably caused issues with alignment. Not only just basic alignment but also differences in translation of the film line-to-line. These minute issues are not noticeable in single scans but when trying to line up multiple scans it because a big issue. These issues are probably due to less than perfect stepper motors.
This was my first concern when I first heard of the multi-pass technique: are the stepper motors in these consumer level devices really repeatably accurate at the pixel level. I think I remember seeing a rubber toothed belt in the V700 which didn't exactly inspire confidence in that regard. And what exactly are in those deep shadows, if anything, after all. From looking at projected slides, often not much. The dynamic range of transparencies is what it is.

Steven Ruttenberg

10-Dec-2018, 18:00

Sometimes the "deep" shadows really contain a lot of information that can readily be seen when viewing negative on light table. However, the scanner, like a dslr has a certain dynamic range and will do its best to get it all in. In the case of raw files, you don't have much say so on that. Using multi-exposure however, does provide that. One image exposed for shadows, one normal then combines them to create a raw file or different file.

I have used it with my V850 and have seen zero alignment issues. And like any other function you have to use it properly. If there are no details to be had, ie, so dark you can barely nake out on light table or just black, it wont work. You have to have something to work with. Crap in crap out.

V850 handles noise with multi-sample and it works quite well and doesn't slow scan down at all. Whereas multi-exposure does because it is two complete passes.

Steven Ruttenberg

10-Dec-2018, 18:08

Its an example, with an explanation, if you can't see a difference nor understand what has been said, then just simply ignore it.

Anyone can do there own testing just take a piece of exposed leader, adjust the exposure time, the film leader is very dense yet still transparent, but the scanner will still be able to penetrate it. The noise in the image will also be high. You can compare the amount of noise in the image when you adjust the exposure time just like the example given.

You can even trick the scanner to adjust the exposure time by putting a piece of unexposed and developed film over the scanner calibration area.

You can also easily measure at what point the noise level is unacceptable.

I thought about using a grad nd between light source and negative to do tue same thing when taking an image in the field. Although, need to find one a little over 5 in in width like this https://www.formatt-hitechusa.com/photo-filters/firecrest-nd-grad-filters

It is a 165mm wide or 6.5 wide and 180 mm long. I think it would work. Just need correct density for a given negative or positive scene.

Pere Casals

10-Dec-2018, 20:53

Why do you need two scans.

Easy, if you extend exposure to get better DMax then you burn the areas in DMin, so you need a second capture for thin areas,

just the same than in HDR feature in DSLRs and smartphone cameras, two shots (with different exposure) to extend dynamic range beyond the electronics allow with a single shot.

Finally, combining two scans is problematic from what I've read. The scanner mechanical limitation prevents alignment among the thousands of rows of scanning between two scans.

Multi-Exposure in a V850 has no problem, it works perfect to me.

If the carriage guides aren't lubricated then stepper perhaps can lose steps (because of open loop control type), but I never had this problem.

A few years ago, someone showed that comparison. There was no difference. Maybe you can do better.

It only has an effect when you scan dense negatives/slides with areas beyond 3.0D, extending effective DMax from around 3.1D to around 3.4D.

If you use Multi-Exposure with a regular negative reaching (say) 2.5D then you will see no improvement, but with a dense Velvia shot you may find way better shadow detail with way lower noise, just try it in that situation, you'll find a very clear improvement.

Multi-Exposure improves extreme shadows in slides. In negatives it improves detail in extreme highlights, the counter... don't think it will improve shadows in a negative !!!

Also check that the scanning DR limits are not cutting the histogram ends... and you have to save 16 bit per channel in tiff format, if you save bmp or jpeg you save 8bit even if you scanned 16 bits !!!!

Some people ignore that...

https://www.silverfast.com/highlights/multi-exposure/en.html

__________________

Also one has to understand that an slide may have a way larger dyamic range than a monitor can show (as when BW paper has lower range than a negative), so when we scan a linear flat wide dynamic range of a medium that's wider than the monitor (or print) can display then we need to edit well the curves and the image itself to get a sound result.

... in the same way that a RAW dslr file is edited ("developed") to fit the captured dyamic range in the limited dynamic range of the presentation display, etc...

Alan Klein

10-Dec-2018, 21:18

Dynamic range is not an issue from what I see. The scanner picks up the full range in one scan because there are only 5 stops effectively in slide film. Here's an example of a scan of Ektachrome 35mm. Scanned flat with a V600. The adjustments were made in Lightroom or Elements to the scanned imaged. I can't test different speeds with a V600. But I have noticed that you can pull out the shadows pretty well with the slider.

185344185343

Alan Klein

10-Dec-2018, 21:21

Alan Klein

10-Dec-2018, 21:25

Its an example, with an explanation, if you can't see a difference nor understand what has been said, then just simply ignore it.

Anyone can do there own testing just take a piece of exposed leader, adjust the exposure time, the film leader is very dense yet still transparent, but the scanner will still be able to penetrate it. The noise in the image will also be high. You can compare the amount of noise in the image when you adjust the exposure time just like the example given.

You can even trick the scanner to adjust the exposure time by putting a piece of unexposed and developed film over the scanner calibration area.

You can also easily measure at what point the noise level is unacceptable.

How do you judge what testing a film leader will do to a real world image. You really want to compare real world images for real world impact.

Alan Klein

10-Dec-2018, 21:30

This was my first concern when I first heard of the multi-pass technique: are the stepper motors in these consumer level devices really repeatably accurate at the pixel level. I think I remember seeing a rubber toothed belt in the V700 which didn't exactly inspire confidence in that regard. And what exactly are in those deep shadows, if anything, after all. From looking at projected slides, often not much. The dynamic range of transparencies is what it is.

Exactly. Everyone gets concerned about shadows. But the eye doesn't care about shadows. We are drawn to lighter parts of the image. The brain ignores shadow areas for the most part. Making them a little lighter can be done in any case with the shadow slider. Also, contrast with darker shadows makes photos more interesting. I think we get too caught up with technology. We do things because we can. But they don't necessarily add anything to the quality and effect of the image. It becomes another exercise in pixel peeping.

Steven Ruttenberg

10-Dec-2018, 21:33

Note the histogram at the upper left of each picture. As you can see, there's plenty of room to move to the right. But will adding more time to scan just add more noise? I would think, Epson has the speed where it is because that's the optimum between dMax and noise by extending the time.

I use multi-exposure often and multi-sample and the noise is not noticeable. Also, posted up a thread about a difficult slide and i just could not get the scanner to pricess the deep shadows well regardless of technique. I have found then the limits of the scanner.

But I do not get more noise using multi-exposure. I also scan everything as 48bitrgb in and out. Do my conversion to bw for bw film in PS prior to bringing into Colorperfect. Color negs and positives I bring directly into Colorperfect from PS. Be sure not to change the gamma of image and assign do not convert image profile to adobergb orior to Colorperfect. If bw assign gray gamma 2.2

Pere Casals

10-Dec-2018, 21:37

Dynamic range is not an issue from what I see. The scanner picks up the full range in one scan because there are only 5 stops effectively in slide film.

If you want 8 bits to grade the darkest step then add more bits for the other steps.

Does V600 support multi-exposure? What DMax?

Slides may reach beyond 3.5D...

IIRC there is a huge difference from v600 to v700

Steven Ruttenberg

10-Dec-2018, 23:24

I tried SF tonight, no real difference between it and Vuescan, but I am still working it.

Ted Baker

11-Dec-2018, 02:29

How do you judge what testing a film leader will do to a real world image. You really want to compare real world images for real world impact.

Alan, its for you to do your own testing. It is just a simple example to show you that your scanner can vary its exposure and penetrate very dense areas. You can vary the exposure to see the difference in signal to noise ratio. The signal to noise ratio will be BETTER with a longer exposure for a very dense area. You could if you wanted to shoot a few frames of dark scenes with your chosen stock where low tonal values might be of interest and determine if the effort is worth while.

If your shooting negative stock you could use this simple test to be confident that your scanner set-up or DSLR can adequately cover the density range of your film with an acceptable S/N ratio.

Or you could just carry on an enjoy your hobby.

BTW the the luminance range of a chrome when viewed is NOT 5 stops. What a chrome can capture in a scene does not have anything do with the luminance range of the chrome itself.

Pere Casals

11-Dec-2018, 02:49

Yes, velvia delivers at least 12 stops on a light table, not 5.

If wanting to grade the darkest stop with at least 4 bits then we would need at least a 15 bit effective (per channel) acquisition system to take the full range.

Such a range cannot be shown with a today's monitor without a degradating loss or compression.

__________

I tried SF tonight, no real difference between it and Vuescan, but I am still working it.

You may compare velvia scans with > 3.0D shadows: SF ME vs SF with no ME, and SF vs Vuescan. Scanning and saving 16/channel tiffs...

Steven Ruttenberg

11-Dec-2018, 07:13

I did save 16 bit channels. I will put up the two images for download and checkout for you Pere and any others who want to experiment. The scene is Toroweep, North Grand Canyon at sunset, so a fairly difficult scene to capture. Shot on Portra 160.

I have been playing with the conversion, but have not come up with something I like yet.

BTW, Silverfast was a pita to get installed. And, when I updated the Epson drivers, it installed a bunch of profiles that no matter what, Silverfast insisted on using for my linear raw scans. I just deleted them and then everything worked as intended.

So for anyone updating Epson drivers and making linear scans, you many want to double check that the Epson profile is not be assigned to your images, which really mucks up the whole thing.

ruilourosa

11-Dec-2018, 10:13

Microtek Scanmake i900 / ArtixScan F2 vs Epson v850???

any thoughts??

Pere Casals

11-Dec-2018, 10:41

Microtek Scanmake i900 / ArtixScan F2 vs Epson v850???

any thoughts??

The i900 is well worse than the v850. The i900 states DMax at 4.2D but effective is under 3.0D, worse than the EPSON's 3.4D with multi-exposure, then the i900 has a sensor with half the pixels than the EPSON performing the i900 well worse in resolving power.

Then the V850 has drivers for the last OS, service support and can be found new with warranty.

The ArtixScan (delivering some 2000 effective dpi) is also clearly inferior to the V850.

Corran

11-Dec-2018, 10:54

i900 is two generations behind the F2 (sold this side of the pond as the Microtek M2 I believe).

I had an M1 for a bit years ago and found it to be a good scanner. If I were to buy a midrange flatbed today for use on a modern OS it would probably be the Microtek M2 / ArtixScan F2.

Steven Ruttenberg

11-Dec-2018, 12:00

Here is the link to all the files I made of a scene. Keep in mind the converted images are in no way processed other than an identical conversion in Colorperfect. You can see a slight difference between Vuescan and Silverfast, both using multi-exposure and Vuescan with mulit-pass set to 16 (reduces noise) I don't see an option like that in Silverfast (unless it is just done behind the scenes) Feel free to download and play with. The negatives are linear raw tiff downsized from the full non-linear raw tiffs made at 6000dpi, no color space assigned, so be sure to assign adobergb1998 (do not convert it to that space though)

Shot on Portra 160, no filters at all.

This link is to the 16 bit negatives with no colorspace assigned

https://www.steveruttenbergphotography.com/img/g358767595-o591051810.dat?dl=2&tk=XcfSN9n-PcZamPa03CXxhTbP_86jVv_kEF_IACRLkiU=

And the two color images for comparison:

This is from the Silverfast scan:

https://www.steveruttenbergphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p3226200272-6.jpg (https://www.steveruttenbergphotography.com/p2147995/ec04be8d0)

This from Vuescan

https://www.steveruttenbergphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p3226200270-6.jpg (https://www.steveruttenbergphotography.com/p2147995/ec04be8ce)

I would be interested to see others conversion of the tiff using their preferred method, but no other adjustments at all, just the conversion. With the conversion you do, add the description of what it is you did to convert the files to color.

Pere Casals

11-Dec-2018, 12:36

Here is the link to all the files I made of a scene.

Please provide a link that would allow to download a 16 bits per channel image, (google drive drop box or similar). Then it would be interesting not a multi-pass but a multi-exposure scan to see if highlights can be recovered better, and also better not adobe rgb but sRGB.

The 8 bit image suggests that with the shadows and highlights should be worked before bending the curves, but should be done from the 16 bits/channel image.

Steven Ruttenberg

11-Dec-2018, 12:50

Steven Ruttenberg

11-Dec-2018, 12:52

For this test i do need t want the negatives as srgb. I work in rgb however, the negatives do not have a color space currently assigned and the color images are srgb files as I always convert them to that when I save as jpgs.

Pere Casals

11-Dec-2018, 13:22

Also only a 8 bit file can be downloaded...
jpg are 8bit, so save and share in tiff 16bit

Steven Ruttenberg

11-Dec-2018, 13:51

Yeah, I am not liking flickr now. They converted my tif files to jpgs. Jerks.

Steven Ruttenberg

11-Dec-2018, 14:16

Updated links to images and tiff files. I zipped the tiffs that you can download to experiment with. Again, interested in what people can come up with for a basic conversion, no post-processing, sharpening etc. Just the conversion to a positive.

Steven Ruttenberg

11-Dec-2018, 14:54

Another observation, regardless of set up, if you are making linear raw tif files, you cannot vary the amount of exposure, except by the multi-exposure option that makes two passes and combines the images. This means if you need manipulate the lighting you (assuming it can go brighter) then some sort filter between the negative and slide would need to be used like a grad nd to force the scanner to adjust the lighting differently or at least alter the light passing thru the negative to achieve a better scan if possible than you get with the built in defaults.

If light intensity can be varied with a drum scanner when making linear raw tifs, then that is a plus for obtaining a drum scanner.

Pere Casals

11-Dec-2018, 19:02

Again, interested in what people can come up with for a basic conversion, no post-processing, sharpening etc. Just the conversion to a positive.

For that I use the Epson Scan or the Silverfast conversion, both are pretty good, no limitation is derived from that because color can be managed later.

Steven Ruttenberg

11-Dec-2018, 19:26

Ahh, I tried that, but it doesn't work for me. I don't like to bake in the recipe. Inlike to be able to go back to the original file and try something different.

Anyway, the raw filesbare available to download. I will make available two more without multi-exposure for comparison to the two with multi-exposure.

Alan Klein

11-Dec-2018, 19:33

My V600 has a lower dmax and ability to see into the shadows. Yet I find no problem with the single scan the V600 gives me. With the V850 and it;s higher dMax, you ought to be able to get even better results with one scan than I do.

I also bracket my exposure +1 and -1 stop with Velvia. Of course I';m using MF so it's cheaper the LF. But it raises the point that if you really need those shadows, why not bracket your shots and combine in post processing? Having the shadow details full exposed in the shot will get you better final results.

Steven Ruttenberg

11-Dec-2018, 19:51

Very true, but I like to do it in one shot. Ie, expose for shadows and develop for highlights. Plus, you can also develop to give good scan negatives. Like using Pyrocat HD or 2-bath Pyrocat for black and white or bleaching for color negatives. Other techniques are available as well.

My single pass files will be available later tonight. Then you can compare to the files with multi-exposure as well. The next slide I scan I will do the same thing. Also my next bw negative. At least we will have info for the V850 raw scan capability ysing Vuescan and Silverfast.

I do bracket shots most time calculated exposure and -1 since I expose for shadows. I just haven't trued to combine them yet as they are 3.8gb files. I am sure PS can handle it though.

Alan Klein

11-Dec-2018, 19:58

I use multi-exposure often and multi-sample and the noise is not noticeable. Also, posted up a thread about a difficult slide and i just could not get the scanner to pricess the deep shadows well regardless of technique. I have found then the limits of the scanner.

But I do not get more noise using multi-exposure. I also scan everything as 48bitrgb in and out. Do my conversion to bw for bw film in PS prior to bringing into Colorperfect. Color negs and positives I bring directly into Colorperfect from PS. Be sure not to change the gamma of image and assign do not convert image profile to adobergb orior to Colorperfect. If bw assign gray gamma 2.2

Steve, We really have to get the exposure right when we take the shot. Working with a poorly exposure photo is like shooting yourself in the foot. It's one of the reasons I bracket. Of course, it's cheaper for me because I shoot MF. On the other hand, how much is it worth to spend money on gas and your own time to get to the site, time shooting, time developing, etc? Isn;t it worth it to bracket to make sure you get the shot? Nothing is more frustrating than seeing developed pictures that just can;t be used. And a scanner doing six passes isn't going to save it.

Alan Klein

11-Dec-2018, 20:12

These are 16 bit files and were done with multi-exposure.

I was stating that with the Vuescan scan file it used multipass as well as multi-exposure to reduce noise. It causes V850 to take 16 samples at each point of scanning so it makes only one pass. I do not know what Silverfast does in this regard.

I can put though on dropbox tonight, the negatives should not be 8 bits though. They were save as 16 bits.

If flicker is changing bit depth, one more reason to not use flikr. I wil double check what I uploaded bu they for sure were saved as 16bit tiffs.

Steve, I think the multi scans are just making both pictures fuzzy and blurring the results. Do you have single scans? Also, can you provide a single scan where no changes were done? I'd like to work from a flat scan. 8 bits are fine. If you can;t do flat scan with Silverfast or Vuescan, can you use Epsonscan? Then I'll do my editing of your flat image.

Peter De Smidt

11-Dec-2018, 20:48

Steven Ruttenberg

11-Dec-2018, 21:03

Multi-pass shots do tend to lose sharpness, but some systems take multiple readings without moving the reading area. So, for example, move sensing area to point A. Take 4 readings. combine readings. Move to point B. Take 4 readings... This methods tends not to lose any sharpness.

That is what the Epson V850 does when I use Vuescan. Moves to spot 1 takes 16 samples (that is what I set it to), moves to location 2 takes 16 samples and so on. I don't know if Silverfast SE PLus has that function to make V850 do that. So for me using Vuescan, I get less noise and no loss of sharpness, but I do not allow the scanner software to do anything other than scan and save file.

Steven Ruttenberg

11-Dec-2018, 21:06

Steve, I think the multi scans are just making both pictures fuzzy and blurring the results. Do you have single scans? Also, can you provide a single scan where no changes were done? I'd like to work from a flat scan. 8 bits are fine. If you can;t do flat scan with Silverfast or Vuescan, can you use Epsonscan? Then I'll do my editing of your flat image.

See response to Peter De Schmidt.

Yes, I am working on creating a second set of 16 bit files identical in size, etc to the first to put link to. The first link as stated using ME (multi-exposure) and for the Vuescan file it also uses the multi-pass. When you compare those two files there is almost zero difference. The difference i attribute to the algorithms Silverfast and Vuescan use to combine the multi-exposures. That is a guess of course. But the differences are subtle and either scan is more than acceptable to work with.

Should have link shortly.

Steven Ruttenberg

11-Dec-2018, 21:26

Here are the links to both sets of files. Be sure that adobergb1998 or whatever profile you use is assgined. Do not do any color conversion or yo uwill ruin the files. Files wit VS are made with Vuescan, Files without VS are made with Silverfast SE Plus

Files with Multi-Exposure
https://www.steveruttenbergphotography.com/img/g358767595-o591051810.dat?dl=2&tk=XcfSN9n-PcZamPa03CXxhTbP_86jVv_kEF_IACRLkiU=

Files without Multi-Esposure
https://www.steveruttenbergphotography.com/img/g338254279-o591051810.dat?dl=2&tk=RhK8UcveecD6wRKYuV9QojwXkBj0bBrBXPQY6IA0PqA=

cuypers1807

11-Dec-2018, 22:26

Is anyone using the Epson Expression 12000XL for larger than 8x10? I use a V700 for 35-8x10 but I have been dslr scanning my 11x14 tintypes at this point but was curious if anyone had worked with one. Going to shoot 11x14 film eventually.

Pere Casals

12-Dec-2018, 02:39

When you compare those two files there is almost zero difference.

Steven, Multi-Exposure has an effect in very dense areas, specially those from 3.0D to 3.4D (in a V850).

Portra is a film "for prints" (and today for scanners) that makes the job by building moderate densities and it may benefit slightly from M-E in the extreme highlights (high density in the negative).

To see the Multi-Exposure effect one has to see what happens with slides sporting deep shadows. Slides medium is designed to be projected, in that case it's worth building such extreme densities to obtain a breathtaking static contrast.

Portra it's an easy to scan film, first because information is encoded in the negative with lower densities (than slides), and second because it was re-engineered to have larger (overlaping) color clouds to optimize result when it was scanned in digital minilabs.

____________

Inversions:

C-41 film should be inverted (adjusted) manually, here Tim Parkin explains why:

http://www.drumscanning.co.uk/about/colour-negatives/
https://web.archive.org/web/20180430185059/http://www.drumscanning.co.uk/about/colour-negatives/

Fuji ColorKit, as stated in the link, delivers nice inversions, but if wanting to also adjusting it manually then I see no benefit from doing it with the SF or Epson Scan standard inversions.

Ps has powerful tools to manage color, and if wanting more then we have 3D Lut Creator for total control.

Having those tools, the weak link in the chain is only the operator, he requires skills and having an aesthetic criterion to bring the look to the point he (or a customer) wants.

Ted Baker

12-Dec-2018, 03:37

Here is the link to all the files I made of a scene. Keep in mind the converted images are in no way processed other than an identical conversion in Colorperfect. You can see a slight difference between Vuescan and Silverfast, both using multi-exposure and Vuescan with mulit-pass set to 16 (reduces noise) I don't see an option like that in Silverfast (unless it is just done behind the scenes) Feel free to download and play with. The negatives are linear raw tiff downsized from the full non-linear raw tiffs made at 6000dpi, no color space assigned, so be sure to assign adobergb1998 (do not convert it to that space though)

Shot on Portra 160, no filters at all.

Steven, nice pictures. Firstly this is a negative, I will take a guess this image with a lack of any specular highlights, would not even have a density beyond 2 on the film. I doubt you will see any benefit with multiple exposure, unless you exposed it at something less than 25 iso. (roughly). I never use more than one scan with negative materials.

Regarding actually setting the actual exposure, you may find that silverfast sets the exposure automatically AND CORRECTLY, vuescan will it do for you by default, I don't think epson software works correctly in that regard, at least on my 4990. The ability to manually set exposure rather than automatically is for me mainly a time saver, no need for preview.

I will download files, BTW If you have ruined sheet of portra 4x5 you use a variation of the method I mentioned earlier to work out where the maximum density of your film fits within the range of your scanner.

Steven Ruttenberg

12-Dec-2018, 07:56

Steven, Multi-Exposure has an effect in very dense areas, specially those from 3.0D to 3.4D (in a V850).

Portra is a film "for prints" (and today for scanners) that makes the job by building moderate densities and it may benefit slightly from M-E in the extreme highlights (high density in the negative).

To see the Multi-Exposure effect one has to see what happens with slides sporting deep shadows. Slides medium is designed to be projected, in that case it's worth building such extreme densities to obtain a breathtaking static contrast.

Portra it's an easy to scan film, first because information is encoded in the negative with lower densities (than slides), and second because it was re-engineered to have larger (overlaping) color clouds to optimize result when it was scanned in digital minilabs.

____________

Inversions:

C-41 film should be inverted (adjusted) manually, here Tim Parkin explains why:

http://www.drumscanning.co.uk/about/colour-negatives/
https://web.archive.org/web/20180430185059/http://www.drumscanning.co.uk/about/colour-negatives/

Fuji ColorKit, as stated in the link, delivers nice inversions, but if wanting to also adjusting it manually then I see no benefit from doing it with the SF or Epson Scan standard inversions.

Ps has powerful tools to manage color, and if wanting more then we have 3D Lut Creator for total control.

Having those tools, the weak link in the chain is only the operator, he requires skills and having an aesthetic criterion to bring the look to the point he (or a customer) wants.

I have tried the multi-exposure with slidees as well and Ibstill don't see much benefit, it may work in some cases, but if there is no detail to start with it won't help. If you want, I can send you an actual slide of a problem scene forbyoubto play with.

Steven Ruttenberg

12-Dec-2018, 08:00

Steven, nice pictures. Firstly this is a negative, I will take a guess this image with a lack of any specular highlights, would not even have a density beyond 2 on the film. I doubt you will see any benefit with multiple exposure, unless you exposed it at something less than 25 iso. (roughly). I never use more than one scan with negative materials.

Regarding actually setting the actual exposure, you may find that silverfast sets the exposure automatically AND CORRECTLY, vuescan will it do for you by default, I don't think epson software works correctly in that regard, at least on my 4990. The ability to manually set exposure rather than automatically is for me mainly a time saver, no need for preview.

I will download files, BTW If you have ruined sheet of portra 4x5 you use a variation of the method I mentioned earlier to work out where the maximum density of your film fits within the range of your scanner.

Thanks for compliment. I was wondering if it would work with negatives. I will try your method. I am working this photo now, has potential.

Pere Casals

12-Dec-2018, 08:23

it may work in some cases

ME has a great benefit in dense slide shadows.

If the slide reaches only 2.5D obviously you won't find a benefit, ME is worth when regular way is reaching its limits.

The same than with hdr photography, no benefit if the scene has 3 stops range...

Steven Ruttenberg

12-Dec-2018, 08:26

I agree

chassis

13-Dec-2018, 18:24

Along the lines of a DIY DSLR scanning setup, is there a viable DIY PMD scanner?

Is PMD hardware fundamentally obsolete technology, and no longer available, new, at any cost/price?

Steven Ruttenberg

13-Dec-2018, 23:55

Okay,
Here is my interpretation of the image I previously uploaded. I need to step back a bit and come back to it and see if I still like it this way. But so far I do. The first image is no sharpening at all, the second image is a high pass with pixel radius set to 2 (the high pass layer was desaturated and layer blending set to 100 to 155. Scanned with Epson V850 as linear raw tiff, converted with Colorperfect and processed in Photoshop. For this image I used the scan made with Silverfast

No Sharpening

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4847/46309135411_5b9c778407_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2dybqza)

High Pass Sharpening

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4914/46259049452_686d49f8b9_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2dtKHL9)

Pere Casals

14-Dec-2018, 04:29

Steven, this is a very good interpretation. Best is that it shows very well volumes with an amazing depth.

I've also played with this image, in my edition I worked more the skies, the 16 bits allows to recover a lot of detail in the highlights if wanting that, of course.

Steven Ruttenberg

14-Dec-2018, 08:58

Very true on high lights. When I revisit the image I may decide on working sky more.

Thank you.

Steven Ruttenberg

14-Dec-2018, 08:59

Post up your interpretation. Be a good study on different artistic interpretations.

Alan Klein

14-Dec-2018, 13:45

Ted Baker

14-Dec-2018, 15:07

Steven Ruttenberg

14-Dec-2018, 15:18

Steve, I tried to edit your photos. But they are so under-exposed. Did you see the histogram? Everything is on one side and most of it is clipped. Even if multi scans work, and I have my doubts, you need to start with a fairly normal exposed photo. Also I was having trouble getting rid of the orange mask.

In Photoshop, go to image>adjustments/exposure then change gamma correction from 1 to 2.2. The images I posted above are from those very negatives you have downloaded, I just used the full size negative. I never allow the scanner software to be used to convert my negatives unless nothing else works and it is close. Additionally, I want all of my archive image files to be raw files, ie, zero manipulation of anything, just the "raw" data. Once you convert the scanned image with scanner software, you bake a formula into the image that almost always cannot be corrected or changed so your editing is limited. Especially, if like I do, I get an image adjusted I like, I post it, then step away from it for a while and come back to it and evaluate it. If I like it still, I am done. If not, I can unbake any part of the formula all the way back to the original unadulterated file.

At least that is my methodolgy.

Pere Casals

14-Dec-2018, 17:53

Steven Ruttenberg

14-Dec-2018, 18:20

Just with a few clicks in Ps it shows there is much more detail in the highlights, only possible from the 16bit/ch image...

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4904/46318678591_30ed4ce0fd_b.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4809/32446818088_9c3ed73eee_o.jpg

That is pretty good. I like the gold coming out in sunlight. This is one reason I like to step away and come back for final edits. You get too wrapped up in your own image and can lose sight of it and miss stuff.

Pere Casals

14-Dec-2018, 18:45

I like the gold coming out in sunlight.

Steven, I only used (coarsely) the darkening tool and edited a bit the top of the red curve to make highlights warmer.

hmmm, this is a really great shot deserving an intense edition in the sky to make it dramatic. I was thinking... perhaps the whole sky also should be edited to attract in first place the viewer's attention to the highlights at left, making that area red it would lure the viewer to go there(also darkening highlights at right). When sight is exploring from left to right it feels more comfortable, as we are used to read from left to right. In the arabic world it's the counter, because they read to the left... Some cocacola advertisements (decades ago) were inverted left to right for the arabic world, to match their aesthetics. At least I was told that in a lesson on photography...

Sorry if I was making critique :) just pointing the choices we have from scanning/editing in 16 when a grad filter not there, or not enough.

Pali K

14-Dec-2018, 21:03

This would be my take on it. Used my typical ColorPerfect and Color Balance workflow documented here:
http://www.analogfilm.camera/2017/05/31/scanning-color-negatives-using-epson-scanner-and-colorperfect-plugin/

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Temp/Steven%20Ruttenberg%20LFF%201600px.jpg

Full Res Here (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Temp/Steven%20Ruttenberg%20LFF.jpg)

Pali

Peter De Smidt

14-Dec-2018, 21:23

Good job, Pali! To my eye, Steven's version has a strong magenta cast.

Corran

14-Dec-2018, 22:28

Agree very much with the above. It has a more natural color palette. All the tones are also there and not too dark or too light, and the sky looks natural and not overdone. Great job.

Steven Ruttenberg

14-Dec-2018, 23:27

I think I tend toward a somewhat more ourple and magenta coloring. Why, I am not sure, but it seems thise are what I end up with. Partly I think because I find the warmer tones without magenta not pleasing. Not that I am right or anything, it just seems that is where I tend to fall. I like all the versions here so far.

Steven Ruttenberg

14-Dec-2018, 23:36

That is prettymuch how I use CP however, I create my scans with no assigned profile assigning it in PS right before I go into CP. I am going to calibrate my monitor to D50 instead of D65. If I still end up as usual then It is just what I prefer. Another thing I did notice is For this image I don't see a magenta cast and I do remeber trying to make sure it wasn't there, so I need to go back and look at what I did. I Also softproof to srgb before I create jpg with PS export command that assigns srgb. I did not notice any difference.

Corran

14-Dec-2018, 23:55

Color negative interpretation is hard to judge. Only you were there to see the actual colors, but of course our memory isn't perfect and you might not want to even have the same colors that you saw. Any interpretation presented by others is simply a reflection of their personal preferences and biases, which is also problematic depending on their monitor and calibration. And viewers may have a preference for different interpretations but if you don't like that interpretation, what do you do?

Personally, I prefer negative film for a pastel, softer look, with less overall contrast and saturation than one would normally "see." For contrast and saturation, slide film all the way. The image presented and interpreted seems to be leaning more towards what slide film would render.

In the spirit of trying to edit it towards what I would aim for using Portra, here is a quick edit from your original jpeg. Sorry, not really interested in downloading any massive tiff files at the moment on my rural internet.

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/srinterp1.jpg

Goal here was to punch up the reds as I remember seeing them at the Grand Canyon, along with a bit of contrast enhancement in the sky. Cropped to 2:3. Left the shadows open instead of crushing them down to lower zones.

Steven Ruttenberg

15-Dec-2018, 00:24

Corran, I agree on interpretation, part of why I asked for everyone to post up how they see it. I notice all interpretations are close to each other, except my sky which does need work. I sorta rushed it as it was late and I get up way to early for my day job. I also wanted to look awsy so I could "see the forrest" and lose any bias I had toward image from staring at it for a long time.

I felt I had too much purple in skys, but decided to see what others think.

I appreciate all the comments and involvement, next best thing short of mentoring. Here people are more honest than facebook, flickr, g+, etc which I prefer over getting my ego stroked. Reminds me to stay humble not arrogant.

This was shot on Portra 160 which I also prefer for scenes like this.

Your image looks good as well.

Ps,
This is something think could be part of critique thread. Not just comment/critique, but if op wants to make available his image then people can demonstrate what they are saying in words as well. But only if op is willing to do that. Generally I am.

Corran

15-Dec-2018, 00:30

Regarding the critique thread - while I think this could fall under critique it's a lot of general technique stuff and not so much about the image presented but any/all color negative material. My thought (though I don't "own" the thread) is to focus more on the specific images posted and more about the intent and "artistic" side of things, with a bit of technique thrown in when relevant (for example, if one had a short DOF and a busy background, a discussion on lens choice and aperture use would be technique-based but focused on the image specifics, not general preferences on lens choices and DOF).

Alan Klein

15-Dec-2018, 07:31

PAli THat's a great edit. YOu really got the shadows to lighten up well. I thought the originals were really crushed. But you saved them. Good exposure balance overall.

Pali K

15-Dec-2018, 07:57

Thank you Peter, Bryan, and Alan.

Steven Ruttenberg

15-Dec-2018, 11:39

I am about ready to quit Flickr. Once again, what I uploaded was very much changed in saturation, color, hue, and the bright sky was for some reason also made worse.

Ted Baker

15-Dec-2018, 12:44

This would be my take on it.

That's a nice effort.

I did a quick conversion using the scantools code I am writing.

BTW the density ranged for that negative was about 1.4 so no where near the 3.0 range of the epson. If my calcs are correct, so no need at all for the multiexposure.

The first one is a straight conversion, white balance on a gray looking stone, and simple contrast adjustment. I got rid of the sky because I am more interesting in colour calibration against a straight RA-4 print. (in this case imagined)

https://i.ibb.co/bLLndNR/20180901-0124-No-ME-small-P.jpg

I did another just for fun, with a bit more interpretation

https://i.ibb.co/Ntn7dbw/20180901-0124-No-ME-small-P-3.jpg

IMHO the epson scanners are not setup to handle colour negative as well as they could be.

Pere Casals

15-Dec-2018, 13:52

IMHO the epson scanners are not setup to handle colour negative as well as they could be.

See the collaborative scanner test:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8561/28420386682_d481942db8_o.jpg

Not many have Pali's skills managing color, but to me his conversion and highlight recovery is pointing a perfect color job from the Stevens' V850.

The Epson is, of course IT8 calibrated, what we do with the scan is another thing.

Steven Ruttenberg

15-Dec-2018, 15:30

Very interesting interpretation Ted, I am amazed at the range of interpretations for this image. As for IT8 calibrated, since I am not doing any conversion in the Scanning software, calibration does not matter. Ted, your software seems to be doing a good job. I am reworking my version based on everyones different view/vision of the scene. When I am done, I will post a before and after.

Color Negatives are a pita!

Ted Baker

15-Dec-2018, 15:32

That list of tests is using a chrome.

I don't think any off those scanners are optimised for colour negative. I don't know where the epson series fits in the pile, just that I think there is room for improvement...

Here is another interpretation, but I don't really have the calibration data, that I need and of course I have slightly different objective, in that I more interested in the technique than the final product at this stage.

i.e. I like to think Pali could do a better job with my software than with colorperfect. if I ever finish it :-)

https://i.ibb.co/4tPnZMv/20180901-0124-No-ME-small-P-10.jpg

Pere Casals

15-Dec-2018, 17:31

That list of tests is using a chrome.

I don't think any off those scanners are optimised for colour negative. I don't know where the epson series fits in the pile, just that I think there is room for improvement...

Ted, with some math it can be demonstrated that the color output of two scanners can be matched with a technical 3D LUT for each film, in the effective common dynamic range shared by both scanners.

This is because spectrums in a developed film are not arbitrary, each posible amount of silver density after first developer ends in a particular absortion spectrum in that layer, with a determined set of spectral shapes for each channel.

It is true that each scanner (depending on particular dyes on pixels) can have an slightly different nature, but always it is possible to calibrate a 3D LUT providing a perfect match.

On the other hand the EPSON may have several shortcomings, but its color accuracy it has been praised. In fact EPSON is a multinational leading pro inkjet market, knowing well what color is.

Steven Ruttenberg

16-Dec-2018, 22:29

Updated image of Grand Canyon Toroweep September 2018. Shot with Chamonix 45H-1, 90mm Schneider Super Angulon f/5.6@f/32 on Portra 160. Scanned with Epson V850 as linear raw tiff, converted with Colorperfect and processed in Photoshop. This is the unsharpened version.
I am still on the fence with cropping down further to remove the white sky on the upper right. When I look at it cropped that much it seems cramped. Thoughts?

Image from Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4894/46298475902_6b870f51c8_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2dxeMSw)

Image from Zenfolio. Both images appear to have been altered when uploaded. Saturation was increased for some reason. I looked at the jpg I created from PS from the full file and it looks like the full file, but compared to what i uploaded it is different?

https://www.steveruttenbergphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p3233848832-6.jpg (https://www.steveruttenbergphotography.com/p123885897/ec0c09e00)

Corran

16-Dec-2018, 22:45

Ted Baker

16-Dec-2018, 22:50

Try not to use excessive resolution for the web. Resizing when not done correctly by software that you have no control over can result in colour changes.

Steven Ruttenberg

16-Dec-2018, 23:05

Not a fan of the blown-out sky, upper right. It wasn't nearly so contrasty on your flat file so not sure what exactly in the editing process did that. The darker tones have this lifted look, like you overused the shadows/highlights tool.

Your original edit, other than the magenta bias, was much better IMO. This one looks like an overcooked digital file to me. The overall color palette just seems odd. Sorry if that comes of a bit harsh - just my opinion so feel free to ignore.

I still just feel you are trying to wrench this negative film image around to make it look like something it wasn't designed to look like. One thing I feel about color neg film is that adding saturation doesn't look natural (same with digital which doesn't seem to take well to excessive color saturation, turning the image into candy-colored mess).

I liked my original I didn't increase saturation though. In factI pulled it down. It does appear to be cooked as you say. The blown out part I am not a fan of either and it was there to start, but cropping out maybe is too much. I made a print to look at for a while. I am still leaning towards original. The colors in this one are in your face too much I think. The only thing I didn't like with my original was the slight haze on it. However, this image has been saturated by uploading to flickr which is annoying. I appreciate your candor. Comments are valid.

Thanks for input.