Next step up from Epson scanners

[Steven Ruttenberg]

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

[Steven Ruttenberg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.