Scanning velvia...is this what to expect or can it be better?

[Meekyman]

Hi Folks,

I am new to LF photography and to using film. I am currently using Fuji Provia 100f, velvia 50 and portra 160. I am giving myself some time with LF before deciding if it is for me and one thing important to me is to be able to scan and print digitally. I do not have my own scanner (that would be next part of the "investment" if I continue) and so am sending occasional images out to a commercial scanner. They are using an Epson V750....I know it's not the "best" scanner but I have seen some very decent images from this scanner and it would be my intended purchase for "run of the mill" images.

OK, so I recently sent my first Velvia 50 slide to be scanned. The image on the light table looks good to me. Was taken on a blue sky day, so hint of blue/near magenta in the white of the water in the shade. It is ever so slight underexposed (I metered off the brightest water and placed at 1 and 2/3 to retain detail and colour...maybe at +2 in the future?; also not focussed on infinity so maybe a tad bellows extension to add?). Anyway, the original scan came back with a horrible magenta colour cast....the brown/gold of the water totally lost. Attached below.

My efforts to process it have provided an OK image (attached) but still lacks something that is in the slide...can't really put my finger on it.

Is this typical with scanning velvia 50 or just bad practice? I have a colour calibrated monitor, profiled printer and I suppose to complete it with a scanner I would also have to profile for different films? Would that make a difference to colour reproduction?

Thanks

Graham

[BennehBoy]

Perhaps have a play with a plugin called colorperfect -> http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html

I use it with 64T and C41 negs and it works a charm.

[Light Guru]

Scanner setting have a HUGE impact on how the image is going to look. By having someone else scan them YOU are giving up control over that part of the process.

v750 scanners are great I use one all the time at work and the results are great.

It sounds like the place you are having scan your negatives or transparencies just uses preset settings and does not care to take the time to adjust them for every image they scan.

[Lachlan 717]

Velvia scans very easily on my V700. Sounds like a dud organisation doing it.

[Peter York]

With E6 you can profile the scanner for each type of film. With a proper profile, the issues you describe should disappear. See here for IT 8 targets: http://www.colorreference.de/targets/index.html

Furthermore, you can color correct your v750 scan to approximate the original transparency.

What you should consider is the shadow detail and your overall satisfaction with the Epson scanners. I suggest you have a favorite image drum scanned and compare it, in print, to a V750 at the largest size you expect to print. The general rule of thumb is that the Epsons do a very good job up to 3x, and a good job at 4-5x. IMHO the Epson scanners are very good but they are not as good as a high-end flatbed or a drum scanner, and a drum scan will extract more shadow detail from a dense transparency. In a film > digital workflow the image is only as good as the scanner, thus the scanner becomes the most important piece of equipment.

[Meekyman]

Thanks everyone.

Peter....what would you suggest is a high-end flatbed scanner? Just for me to look for potential alternatives. Nikon Coolscan 8000/9000 for example?

Graham

[Preston]

Graham,

I agree with those who say you got a bad scan from whomever made it, and they very likely used a set of default settings--a good scan is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. As Peter says, The 750 is, by all accounts, a nice scanner up to 4x-5x. Beyond that, a drum scan would be a nice step upward. I reserve drum scans for only those chromes/negs that are worthy, due to the expense.

If I read correctly what you wrote in your first post, you do not currently own a scanner. The high-end flat beds are very expensive, so I'd suggest the Epson at least to start. Obtaining a good scan takes effort, and the quality of the scan is highly dependent upon the skill of the operator. You'll need to build the necessary skill-set once you have a machine. I have gotten very good results with my IT8-calibrated Microtek 1800f and VueScan with 4x5's, but it's taken me a long time to get there.

I see you mentioned the Nikon scanners. These are for small formats: they will not scan 4x5, if I remember correctly.

In my opinion, the best results in the print come from having chromes/negs that have detail where you need it, a scan that realizes this detail, and exacting post-scan processing. One cannot print detail that isn't there, or color or tonal separation that isn't there to begin with. You have to think in terms of the process as a unified whole, rather than in bits and pieces.

--P

[Lenny Eiger]

Anyway, the original scan came back with a horrible magenta colour cast....the brown/gold of the water totally lost.
Graham

The level of blue cast you have in this scan is totally unacceptable. I would take the image back to the lab and insist that they scan it again properly. Any scan operator, even a novice, should be able to come very close to matching the colors of a chrome. Certainly within PhotoShops abilities to curve it within a few points here or there. This is not the case here, it is the result of total unadulterated sloppiness.

If I were in England, I would get Richard Kenward or Tim Parkin to do scans for me. The people you have doing it for you may or may not have produced a good scan in the past, as they say where I come from "Even the blind chicken gets some feed." They obviously haven't a clue what they are doing and they don't care much for their clients.

Lenny

[David_Senesac]

Ok, you've had an inexpensive flat bed scan made and it looks pathetic compared to your dazzling transparency. Welcome to the club. Now go have a profesional drum scan made to be grounded on what is possible. If one isn't too picky flatbed scanners can produce acceptable small print files. But to someone like me expecting high quality with large prints, flatbed scanners scanning outdoor images with even modest contrast generally have mediocre color fidelity and limited shadows that takes a fair amount of skilled Photoshop work to correct and even then there is only so much possible.

[Peter De Smidt]

Just send the film to Lenny. It'll be a good reference.