I use Vuescan. I hate Epson software for scanning and not a fan of silverfast either. I create linear tiffs for later processing. I have tried scanning and using a profile for the scanner, etc. I typically color correct in PS if needed. Just annoying sometimes. One reason is, if the slides exposure is off even by a little you can be screwed. My 850 does really well and has over a 10 stop range or greater than 3.0 for a dmax. I am finding it is as much technique as hardware.
Last edited by Steven Ruttenberg; 6-Dec-2018 at 22:36.
Here is the initial image. I added a bit too much green saturation, but I am too tired to fix right now as this is just to show the difficult image I am working with. Still needs a lot of work, but I also need to step back for a bit as it took me quite a bit to get a useable image. You can definitely see the severe vignetting of the lens at f/16 in this image. Didn't put on flickr as that site seriously dicks with the image. This is no where near the final image, but like stated, it is example of what I am working with. The sky was indeed that saturated, if not more so for the real sky too.
Nikkor 75mm f/4.5@f/16 and 1 second. Polarizer filter, shot on Provia 100 RDPIII.
https://www.steveruttenbergphotograp...aff5#hbfdcaff5
Now, that's no easy image for a slide film! I can see why auto color could go horribly wrong. With this, what is the right color? Or more, what is the color you find pleasing? Where I bring my images to be drum scanned, they ask for a contact print, color corrected, that they can then match.
I own the gear, but those don't make masterpieces. My everyday experience.
I fully agree with that...Originally Posted by Alan Klein
Only adding that a V850 (for deep dense shadows in the slides) should use multi-exposure feature that makes two passes at different exposures, thus extending captured dynamic range.
This is the job done by the EPSON with dense shadows.
Of course a drum is better for extreme shadows in slides, but the EPSON if good for many situations.
Steven, let me smile !!!!
You just discovered how great are slides !!!!
The problem is not the scanner itself, all the digital chain is pure crap compared to Velvia, Provia, Ektachrome, old kodachrome, or even compapred to a BW reversed process.
After the Roman Empire fall there was a cultural darkness until Renaissance... so this is not new.
The whole sRGB standard is flawed, also Adobe RGB is, and new Rec.2020 for displays is a little step to recover visual hedonistc pleasure but... if you ask a monitor to show the same than a Provia on a light table the monitor won't do it because it's a way inferior imaging system than your slide.
Slides are absolute beauty, but we have a problem. Today (we'll see in the future) that beauty cannot travel through IP networks, cannot be stored in RAM, and cannot be diplayed in commercial monitors.
The beauty you see in the light table is a personal treasure...
I agree. All the slides I have taken have that wet look, like the image is formed on super still glossy water. Scan them in, and that magic look disappears. Colornegs and BW negs do much better as they don't seem to lose the look when you scan them in. Mainly because they don't have any look to go off of.I fully agree with that...
Only adding that a V850 (for deep dense shadows in the slides) should use multi-exposure feature that makes two passes at different exposures, thus extending captured dynamic range.
This is the job done by the EPSON with dense shadows.
Of course a drum is better for extreme shadows in slides, but the EPSON if good for many situations.
Steven, let me smile !!!!
You just discovered how great are slides !!!!
The problem is not the scanner itself, all the digital chain is pure crap compared to Velvia, Provia, Ektachrome, old kodachrome, or even compapred to a BW reversed process.
After the Roman Empire fall there was a cultural darkness until Renaissance... so this is not new.
The whole sRGB standard is flawed, also Adobe RGB is, and new Rec.2020 for displays is a little step to recover visual hedonistc pleasure but... if you ask a monitor to show the same than a Provia on a light table the monitor won't do it because it's a way inferior imaging system than your slide.
Slides are absolute beauty, but we have a problem. Today (we'll see in the future) that beauty cannot travel through IP networks, cannot be stored in RAM, and cannot be diplayed in commercial monitors.
The beauty you see in the light table is a personal treasure...
I did try the multi exposure and it really didn't do much in this case. I increased the brightness, which really isn't increasing the brightness, just slowing the scan down to expose longer, which in turns adds gobs of useless noise to the image.
What color is righ? The sunset is pretty close to what is on the slide, it is the green rolling hills that are not close (mainly because the shadow areas do not scan well) Hence, I am taking to get a drum scan to see if it can be improved. Then I may send to a guy who offered to do a scan as well. Assuming I can afford it. What I am afraid of, is the drum scan will do the slide some justice and then I will be on a quest to get a drum scanner on sale, used that I can afford, that doesn't require an ancient scsi set up and computer system, running last centuries OS.
Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.
Steven, you have to realize the limitations your monitor has, and from that you may want to obtain the closest look possible to the real slide. From that you edit the digital file to get best possible look for the digital presentation on for the color print.
At first I was amazed by pro scans made by 3rd party Pro service, until I realized that the great thing was edition made by a good operator, and that the delivered image was not close to the real slide content. Later I asked having also the not edited raw scans to see what the scanner did vs what the operator did... This was quite time ago...
Just make scan one of your slides by a proficient lab, requesting not only an optimized image, but also the raw scan.
In a monitor you don't have the static contrast (vs the not useful dynamic contrast) of an slide, nor the same color triangle. A velvia slide on a light table may make a hard man cry, a monitor won't, you just can edit the image to get an optimal look for the monitor. It's sad, but a monitor is not made of velvia (or provia).
Find or make a big Light Box. Every camera store and Pro had one of these.
https://static.bhphotovideo.com/Fram...Lightboxes.pdf
I bought the big double one on a stand for $20 on CL 6 years ago.
I used it with the stand, but now hang them on different walls.
I view negs of any size and have made 14X36" X-Ray positives that are very impressive on a light box.
I may shoot old 8x10 Slide film next year after seeing Bryan's results.
And will enjoy them on the wall. Good enough for some...
Tin Can
I can think of several photographers that make slide film scans look amazing (both on the monitor and in prints). This issue is not a limitation of monitors or scanners but one of technique, both at time of exposure and in scanning.
I agree completely.
Scanned slides were the defacto quality standard in the commercial world for years, often done with 8-bit per channel files into a small CMYK color space.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks