Building a "library" of Vuescan INI files

[Jonathan]

I was wondering: I scan most of my negs in Vuescan, and one thing that can be a bit time consuming (read: annoying) is each new film/dev combo you use can result in different fb+f etc. As a result, I spend a lot of time going through the motions with the "lock exposure" and "lock film base" features to get the most out of my scans.

At any rate, I've recently started saving my ini files for each film/dev combo (well, generally its film x + rodinal heh) under the (possibly mistaken?) assumption that by keeping my techniques relatively consistent I can just load the new ini, line up the negs, and hit scan. Bit of a time saver.

Which leads me to my question: Is it worth doing this or will fb+f and exposure be too variable between rolls to get consistent results?

If it is worthwhile I'd be happy to share my few INIs -- maybe we could collectively build up a library of INIs for everyone to use. That way you could just find your film/dev combo, load the appropriate INI in Vuescan and Robert's your mother's brother. Could that work?

 

[jd callow]

Another time saver is to do raw scans and then do all adjustments in PS. Density and contrast are 30 sec. jobs in PS and you can have confidence that you are not clipping the hist by putting faith in an .ini file.

 

[Jonathan]

Hi JD, thanks so much for the response.

Like you, I'm always aiming for a flat scan without any clipping, and do everything in PS rather than in-scanner. However, even saving as a raw scan you still have to set the exposure under the input tab (or allow vuescan to do it for you), no? This would be independent of any fiddling with the curves on the "color" tab, which I basically turn off.

The difference I think is in the workflow to get there. The one I've settled on is very similar to the techniques described at a couple of sites, perhaps best explained here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157608204093047/

As you can see, this basically requires a "calibration phase" for each roll to set black to the clear film base rather than just the maximum value. Hence my original desire to save some time with multiple pre-calibrated INIs.

Could it be this workflow is needlessly complicated? I'd love to hear your thoughts as to whether or not this technique is worthwhile. If I can get equal-quality results without having to worry about either calibrating each roll or storing multiple INIs, that would be ideal.

Cheers,

Jon

 

[donbga]

Another time saver is to do raw scans and then do all adjustments in PS. Density and contrast are 30 sec. jobs in PS and you can have confidence that you are not clipping the hist by putting faith in an .ini file.

Hmmm. I thought the purpose of Vuescan RAW files was to allow future Vuescan processing without actually having to physically scan the film again.

I've taken RAW Vuescan files into PS but found a lot of work is needed to get the image to look "normal". Am I missing something here?

Thanks,

Don Bryant

 

[Jonathan]

Hmmm. I thought the purpose of Vuescan RAW files was to allow future Vuescan processing without actually having to physically scan the film again.

Hi Don, you are correct. The key here is "processing" though -- things like digital ICE, infrared, sharpening, colour balance and post-scan curves. Not however settings associated with the original "capture" -- things like # of samples (or exposures), resolution/dpi, and the exposure itself. This is why I use the workflow I outlined leading up to my original question -- as far as I'm aware the film base and exposure are variables regardless of output method.

Ed Hamrick recommends locking the film base and exposure regardless of whether you're outputting RAW vs TIFF or JPG, which lends credence to this (again, possibly incorrect) assumption.

I've taken RAW Vuescan files into PS but found a lot of work is needed to get the image to look "normal". Am I missing something here?

Probably not. I find with RAW I have a hard time getting the inverted image to look as good as if I just rely on Vuescan to do the reversal. Either way, RAW vs. TIFF output won't differ much in practical terms beyond the inversion -- provided of course you're not using any of the post-processing features in Vuescan or keeping the IR channel. RAW has the advantage that you can reload the file and apply those however (which I don't anticipate requiring, personally).

Cheers,

Jon

 

[jd callow]

Sorry I'm using the term raw in the generic sense. To my knowledge (and correct me if I am wrong). film profiles, exposure and most other options within most scan software are automated processes that are not done at the hardware level (exposure being an exception depending upon the scanner). In general I have found that if I scan at the max bit depth with very little or no optimization of the histogram and no curve adjustments on a properly maintained (generally meaning calibrated) scanner I can quickly and far more accurately preform the basic adjustments that I am asking of the scanner software.

YMMV