Can anyone please help me identify the color problem in these these scanned TIFFs?

[Les Sarile]

I wonder if it has to do with the wavelength of the ir emitter? Perhaps 850nm or 940nm would work, but not 720nm.

If it were that simple then other companies should have been able to implement it. In the Nikonscan program, you would select Kodachrome as opposed to the positive or negative setting.

 

[jtk]

Incidentally, I don't think Silverfast ever proved better than Epsonscan ... don't think it was ever claimed to rival Nikonscan or Vuescan, with or without ICE.

The point of scanning is to produce a file that can then be PRINTED, which strongly suggests Photoshop. The notion that the scan, by itself, ought to look exactly like the original transparency seems more than a little silly. Make the scan, apply appropriate Photoshop (or whatever), send THAT to the publisher OR produce a print that is as good or better than the original.

 

[grat]

Epson should have been able to deliver a substantial upgrade on the V700 series scanners with the V800-- instead, they switched from CFL's to LED's, and claimed they made some improvements on the coating for the lenses.

Three micro-steppers and associated focus sensors would have made it a revolutionary step forward, but that would have cost an extra $20.

 

[jtk]

Epson continues to market a dead horse.

If they "should" have done anything that would have been a dedicated 35mm scanner. Nikon knew how to make them, Minolta didn't and nobody else seems to have stepped up to the plate (which would mean buy something from Nikon...like Minolta did with Leica CL) or make a dedicated 35 film machine for a shrinking market.

That way they could continue to sell flatbeds to the few who don't own 35mm cameras AND sell some new 35mm scanner as well.

Nikon took the easy/smart way out when it offered it's "new" (think Spiratone) slide copy device.

 

[PhilBurton]

Nikon took the easy/smart way out when it offered it's "new" (think Spiratone) slide copy device.

LOL. Back when (I was a young lad), I worked for a summer as a shipping clerk for Spiratone. Big issue was "basement fever."

Fortunately, Nikon lenses have always been better than Spiratone.

 

[Les Sarile]

Epson should have been able to deliver a substantial upgrade on the V700 series scanners with the V800-- instead, they switched from CFL's to LED's, and claimed they made some improvements on the coating for the lenses.

Three micro-steppers and associated focus sensors would have made it a revolutionary step forward, but that would have cost an extra $20.

I think that the greatly reduced scanning time due to Epson's move to LED from CFL is a substantial improvement. I believe they at least halved the scan times - possibly even more specially when ICE is turned on.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My V850 holders have glass in them to keep the film flat. Did the V700 holders have these? Also, two holders of each type were furnished. There was also a Silverfast upgrade or inclusion with the V850. Of course, these differences were not related to the scanner itself.

 

[grat]

I think that the greatly reduced scanning time due to Epson's move to LED from CFL is a substantial improvement. I believe they at least halved the scan times - possibly even more specially when ICE is turned on.

Sorry-- didn't mean to imply the switch to LED was pointless. But it was trivial. If anything, it simplified the system, since there was no longer a wait time on the CFL's warming up.

Similarly, the V8xx holders are an improvement in most areas-- they're more difficult to load 120 film into, especially if the 120 film in question is a teensy bit wider, but they do help control flatness, without newton rings. There are conflicting reports on whether they are better or worse-- in a few head-to-head comparisons, the V8xx holders are reported to produce better image quality, but filmscanner, for instance, swears they're absolutely terrible and cause chromatic aberration because the back-lighting passes through an extra layer...?

But autofocus on the Epsons would be huge.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Sorry-- didn't mean to imply the switch to LED was pointless. But it was trivial. If anything, it simplified the system, since there was no longer a wait time on the CFL's warming up.

Similarly, the V8xx holders are an improvement in most areas-- they're more difficult to load 120 film into, especially if the 120 film in question is a teensy bit wider, but they do help control flatness, without newton rings. There are conflicting reports on whether they are better or worse-- in a few head-to-head comparisons, the V8xx holders are reported to produce better image quality, but filmscanner, for instance, swears they're absolutely terrible and cause chromatic aberration because the back-lighting passes through an extra layer...?

But autofocus on the Epsons would be huge.

The bigger problem I find because of the glass in the V850 holders is that there are two more surfaces to pick up dust than with my V600. Definitely dirtier.

Your point that they're too small for 4x5's is true depending on the film. Also, with the medium format holders, you can no longer put three 6x7s image strips in them as I did with my V600 holders. So now you have to cut strips of 6x7s into (4)2s and (2)1s rather than 3s. How does that fir easily in the plastic sheets? (It doesn;t). Also, that makes all my old "cuts" incorrect if I want to rescan them with my V850.

I haven;t seen any chromatic aberration though.

What was Epson thinking when they designed the V850 holders? Didn't anyone there ask any photographers who used their equipment about the new design?

 

[grat]

I've had no problems with the 4x5 holder. The MF holder, however, I've had some film that's closer to 61mm than 60mm, and it fits poorly. The edges wind up getting pinched.

As for the dust, I actually clean my holders with an anti-static spray that smells absolutely awful and foams up, but seems to work pretty well. The negatives, however, are stil a problem.

The V8xx holders suffer from the same problem the V800/V850 do-- rather than design something new, they redesigned the existing parts. I think the ANR material was a late addition.

 

[calico]

Age old question when it comes to scanning color negatives - is it the film or the scanner. If you read enough posts here - and elsewhere, this is always the question. Myself, I have access to many scanners so I can always try a different one for comparison.

Here is an example of a perfectly well exposed frame of Kodak Gold 100 film scanned on the Coolscan compared to a Noritsu with all settings in auto and no post work applied except for combining the two and adding text.

Kodak Gold 100-7_30-36 Coolscan-Noritsu by Les DMess, on Flickr

I have scanned thousands of frames of various films with the Coolscans and occassionally compare results from many scanners. This doesn't happen to most scans I've had from the Noritsu but is one of the worst color failures I've seen over the years. If I didn't have the Coolscan, I would have been left with the same question you - and many others, have - is it the film or the scanner.

I realize you are showing an extreme example of bad Noritsu scan. But, still, it shows me why I always like my own scans from my Nikon LS9000 Coolscan than scans from labs (which are from Noritsu....or sometimes Frontier).

This discussion is very interesting.

 

[Les Sarile]

I realize you are showing an extreme example of bad Noritsu scan. But, still, it shows me why I always like my own scans from my Nikon LS9000 Coolscan than scans from labs (which are from Noritsu....or sometimes Frontier).

This discussion is very interesting.

What's unfortunate is if one get's poor results how would they even know if it's the film or the scan?.

 

[calico]

What's unfortunate is if one get's poor results how would they even know if it's the film or the scan?.

Yes, in respect to color negative film.

At least with positive film (such as Provia 100F which I sometimes use), it is obvious -- can just look at the film. I had some Provia scanned at a lab once, just to see how they'd do, and the scans were obviously much different than the film. Maybe it would've required too much time for them to adjust post-scan, I don't know.

I admit I struggle with color negative scans myself on my LS9000, so I do understand the difficulty of scanning them. Reason I usually shoot Provia if I'm going to shoot color.

I'm having some b&w developed and scanned at Richard Photo Lab right now. Curious to see how that turns out. I haven't liked lab scans of b&w either. Usually look washed out and less crisp than from my LS9000.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What's unfortunate is if one get's poor results how would they even know if it's the film or the scan?.

That's why I gave up on negative color film and stuck with chromes. Just easier to scan. When I would bracket 3 shots on medium format, I would know which was the best even before scanning. Of course now that I'm also shooting 4x5, I stopped bracketing. So getting the exposure right is more critical with chromes.

 

[StepheKoontz]

The only way IMHO to save files like this is to manually work with healing brush and clone tools until you are satisfied. I did a quick pass on the sky and while not perfect, is a huge improvement.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Sometimes it just pays to move on.

 

[skyer]

Age old question when it comes to scanning color negatives - is it the film or the scanner. If you read enough posts here - and elsewhere, this is always the question. Myself, I have access to many scanners so I can always try a different one for comparison.

Here is an example of a perfectly well exposed frame of Kodak Gold 100 film scanned on the Coolscan compared to a Noritsu with all settings in auto and no post work applied except for combining the two and adding text.

Kodak Gold 100-7_30-36 Coolscan-Noritsu by Les DMess, on Flickr

I have scanned thousands of frames of various films with the Coolscans and occassionally compare results from many scanners. This doesn't happen to most scans I've had from the Noritsu but is one of the worst color failures I've seen over the years. If I didn't have the Coolscan, I would have been left with the same question you - and many others, have - is it the film or the scanner.

Does it look close?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Does it look close?

There seems to be a color cast in the second, sort of purpliest-white. Maybe the white balance is off.

 

[skyer]

There seems to be a color cast in the second, sort of purpliest-white. Maybe the white balance is off.

Sure, the images are not 100% identical. However, they are just small jpegs that lack a lot of information. What I meant is that usually, many scans can be corrected quite easily.

 

[koraks]

What I meant is that usually, many scans can be corrected quite easily.

But, as in this case, not always entirely. For instance, in the example you did, there are still massive color problems. Sure, the purple background looks closer now, and the black of most of the camera now approaches a true black. However, in several areas there are still problems with color and contrast.
I think this example shows that (1) color correcting a scan well isn't trivial and (2) image information that's lost in the original cannot be reconstructed easily.

 

[skyer]

But, as in this case, not always entirely. For instance, in the example you did, there are still massive color problems. Sure, the purple background looks closer now, and the black of most of the camera now approaches a true black. However, in several areas there are still problems with color and contrast.
I think this example shows that (1) color correcting a scan well isn't trivial and (2) image information that's lost in the original cannot be reconstructed easily.

You are right. It looks like some information has been lost the Noritsu scan. However, it's not the problem of Noritsu scanners, it's just how that particular scan was edited in the Noritsu's software by an operator.

 

[Les Sarile]

Does it look close?

Great job as it looks very reasonable to me. What was the workflow?

 

[skyer]

Great job as it looks very reasonable to me. What was the workflow?

In Photoshop I moved various per channel sliders in Layers and increased saturation.

 

[Les Sarile]

In Photoshop I moved various per channel sliders in Layers and increased saturation.

Like working on color separstions. Brilliant! Will have to try that out myself. Thanks.