Vuescan tutorial?

Hi,

I have a V500 and I had been using the epson software. Then I read good things about Vuescan so I got it. I think I must not be using it right since my scans don't look any better than with Epson. I'm scanning only B&W negative film (mostly 120). After the scan, they look pretty bad but after a little photoshop work they're fine. Still, my workflow must be wrong with Vuescan. Anyone know of a good tutorial on the scanning process? Also, how much image correction do you all do in the scanning software versus photoshop? Is there a benefit to working one way versus another?

Many thanks so some one here on the board who told me to turn off ICE.

Thanks!
Risk

The best workflow is to make absolutely no adjustments to the image in the scanning software. No sharpening, no contrasts adjustments, nada. There is no way that the scanning software will do as good a job as a careful Photoshop workflow. That is why Vuescan is better than the standard Epson software, it allows you to make scans that capture as much information as possible without adding in its own changes.

A lot of people (including me) go so far as to scan b&w negatives as a positive (saving it to a raw Tiff file) and do the inversion from negative to positive in Photoshop. The idea being that scanners are actually better at scanning in positive mode, and that the inversion process is yet another where personal control is better than letting the machine do it for you. I find this to be true, your mileage may vary depending on how meticulous you are. I've got the whole process down to 2 - 3 minutes.

The Vuescan website also has plenty of very good documentation, if you know where to look. Hope this information is helpful.

Thanks for your reply. I will definitely try that. Do you have a Photoshop workflow that you could share? (ie. scan resolution, open image, invert, curves, etc.)...just trying to get a process down that isn't so time intensive. If you could share your 2-3 minute process I would be most appreciative. Thanks!
Risk

Hi Risk,
I forgot to mention, one other nice feature of VueScan which I'm not sure Epson Scan has is multi-sampling. Sometimes in dark shadow areas you will see a lot of noise from the scanner. Multi-sampling can help with that.

I wrote a blog post about my scanning workflow a couple of months ago that may help you get started: http://www.daltonrooney.com/weblog/2008/04/16/taking-a-picture-part-four-analog-to-digital/

Pay special attention to the link to Colin Jago's website. There is a lot to learn there. http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?page_id=1225

The important thing about scanning as a positive is that you need to capture all of the information from the scanning sensor. A 16 bit linear raw file is best. This tutorial will teach you how to do this in Vuescan: http://www.c-f-systems.com/Scanners.html#Vuescan

I use the ColorNeg filter to invert the file, but that's not absolutely necessary, I bought it out of convenience. If you're not up for testing and purchasing a new piece of software (which is understandable) you can invert the image manually in Photoshop. Don't use the Invert function! Instead, try using Levels to invert: set the output range to 250,0 (as opposed to default 0,255) and tweak the gamma (midpoint) to get a good baseline. Make sure you don't clip either end of the histogram. This image may look quite flat, but that's OK, all of the information you will need is contained in the 16-bit file and you will be able to apply curves liberally to arrive at your preferred tonality. You should notice improved highlights and shadow transitions over your standard scanning method. This has been the best way I have found so far to get film-looking results in my scans. Epson Scan always looked much too harsh for me.

I would be curious to hear others' workflow on this board. Am I going overboard? As I said, I have this part of the workflow down to a 2-3 minute process, and I am very, very happy with the quality of my scans and prints.

Here's a recent photo: http://www.daltonrooney.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/41.jpg

This version has been converted to RGB and scrunched down to web size, but I have a 10x10 print on the wall at home, and every little detail is there.

Dalton,

Thanks so much for the info. I've printed out tons of stuff and now I need to sit down and do some reading, but it looks like this is just what I need. I'll have to look into ColorNeg. I'm not sure I quite understand what it's doing, but it looks really interesting. This is going to sound quite silly, but I've been scanning my B&W negs, taking them into photoshop and applying my adjustments, then using the Alien Skin Plug-in Exposure 2 to apply an HP5+ filter to scans from HP5+ film. This plug-in is really meant to add a "film look" to digital shots, but I've found it helpful with my scans too. This seems to help with the tonality issue. But it sounds like ColorNeg may be a better way to go about this.

Thanks again! I love your blog. I'll be stopping by there regularly.
risk

Hi Dalton,

I just watched the video on your site on your photoshop workflow. Great stuff! But you didn't do any noise reduction or sharpening. Is there a reason for this. After some really bad over-sharpened photos, I've been going to the other extreme...still trying to find the balance. Any tips?
risk

Hi Risk,
I don't do noise reduction very often with scanned film. Every once in a while I will use it if an image is super grainy (like a night shot on pushed film) but for the most part for the sizes I print it's usually not necessary.

Sharpening is a tricky subject and there are a lot of other people that can do a better job talking about it than I can. I have a single-step sharpening regimen that I apply at the very end of my workflow, after I've resized the image for printing. (That tutorial wasn't about printing, which is why I didn't talk about sharpening). I use FocalBlade because it allows you to focus on edge sharpening without emphasizing grain. But, like I said, there are people that have much better sharpening workflows than I do. Try reading up on this three-phase sharpening system developed by Bruce Fraser: http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-of-gamut-thoughts-on-a-sharpening-workflow

It's something I'm still working on.

Regards,
Dalton

A million thanks! This is exactly what I need to learn. I can't wait to try some of these new techniques.

risk

dalton said:

I use the ColorNeg filter to invert the file, but that's not absolutely necessary, I bought it out of convenience. If you're not up for testing and purchasing a new piece of software (which is understandable) you can invert the image manually in Photoshop. Don't use the Invert function! Instead, try using Levels to invert: set the output range to 250,0 (as opposed to default 0,255) and tweak the gamma (midpoint) to get a good baseline.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure there's much difference between the invert command and using the outputs of the levels dialog - see the attached pic. I took a 16 bit raw scan (from Silverfast) and inverted it using the two techniques - the resulting histograms look essentially the same to me...

Jim

Hi Jim,

I suppose that makes sense. The levels function is just inverting the input and the output numbers so mathematically it is probably the same as Photoshop "Invert". The next step is the tricky part, and the reason I use ColorNeg—applying curves to your now-inverted image to get the most pleasing tones. I have found that the ColorNeg inversion, whatever it is doing (and it is definitely not the same as a Photoshop "Invert" function) really nails tonal relationships, especially in highlights, which seem to get fudged by the scanner software, and makes those final curves adjustment very easy. I always found my scanned images to be a bit harsh when I let the scanner software have its way, but with ColorNeg I am very pleased.

I would say that the difference is as significant to me as when I switched to QuadTone Rip for printing instead of the standard Epson driver. I believe that software that gives you more control is a good thing.

I wouldn't suggest my approach for everyone, mainly because it requires more work and the software is not free. But based on the hundreds of photos I've now scanned and printed since discovering this technique, I am certain of the results.

Regards,
Dalton

Hi Dalton,

I've been trying out ColorNeg myself and I see what you mean about the highlight detail... in fact it seems to preserve both highlights and shadows well, leaving me with a fairly low contrast file that is quite "malleable". I'm still finding a fair amount of color correction is needed for color negs, but with the 16-bit file, that's not too much of a problem. Looks promising so far...

Cheers,

Jim