Why Do Lab Scans Look Richer?

I recently got my own photo scanner (Epson V600). I scanned some 35mm negatives, which looked much different in richness compared to the same negatives the lab scanned. I called the lab, and they said they use the Noritsu Green System for scanning negatives.

Any clue on why the lab scans looks different? I tried using the "color restoration" feature during scans, which got some photos closer to the lab ones. However, the results weren't really consistent.

My scan settings:

Color Negative Film
24-bit color
3200 dpi
Unsharp Mask
Digital ICE

Lab Scan #1

Dead Link Removed

My Scan (V600) #1

Dead Link Removed

My Scan w/ Color Restoration (V600) #1

Dead Link Removed

Lab Scan #2

Dead Link Removed

My Scan (V600) #2

Dead Link Removed

My Scan w/ Color Restoration (V600) #2

Dead Link Removed

Lab Scan #3

Dead Link Removed

My Scan #3

Dead Link Removed

My Scan w/ Color Restoration #3

Dead Link Removed

Hard to tell at that size, but your scans look fine - in places, you've even eked out more shadow detail. The lab scans do tend to be warmer, and yours have a greenish tinge to them, but that's a simple fix. Get to work with some curves or colour balance adjustments in Photoshop or similar.

Also, try scanning as Colour Positive (48-bit), setting black and white points for each channel manually (taking care not to clip anywhere), then inverting in Photoshop. That'll get you a decent, flat scan. Then tweak to taste (curves, colour balance etc). Leave sharpening until after the scan, then you have more control.

Color inversion and filtering of a negative is not an exact science. You can have more than one valid result. Black point and white point choosing are near to a quasi-exact science, but even there, there is some leeway, depending, for instance, on the intended medium. For a photograph meant to be shown on film rather than printed, it probably make sense to have more "punch", a narrower distance between white point and black point.

I normally use slides but I begun dealing with negatives. I consider the ColorPerfect by CFSystems well made in principle, but with an absurdely contorted documentation. One day I have to find a translation in human-readable language.

I think this three-part tutorial will help you in filtering your negative scans:
http://ronbigelow.com/articles/levels/levels1/levels1.htm

In order to achieve a correct white-balance (filtering) it is important that you calibrate your monitor and that people seeing your pictures see them through some calibrated medium, else it's all a lottery.

You can calibrate your monitor "by eye-ball" using the instruments given by your Operating System but a device such as a Spyder by ColorVision goes much further in practicality and reliability. They don't cost a lot and last basically forever.

Color inversion and filtering of a negative is not an exact science. You can have more than one valid result. Black point and white point choosing are nearer to a quasi-exact science, but even there there is some leeway depending, for instance, on the intended medium. For a photograph meant to be shown on film rather than printed, it probably makes sense to have more "punch", a narrower distance between white point and black point. Your personal taste about the trade-off between "punch" and shadow detail comes into play as well.

I normally use slides but I begun dealing with negatives. I consider the ColorPerfect by CFSystems well made in principle, but with an absurdely contorted documentation. One day I have to find a translation in human-readable language.

I think this three-part tutorial will help you in filtering your negative scans:
http://ronbigelow.com/articles/levels/levels1/levels1.htm

In order to achieve a correct white-balance (filtering) it is important that you calibrate your monitor and that people seeing your pictures see them through some calibrated medium, else it's all a lottery.

You can calibrate your monitor "by eye-ball" using the instruments given by your Operating System but a device such as a Spyder by ColorVision goes much further in practicality and reliability. They don't cost a lot and last basically forever. I think it's a necessary expense if you deal with colour at a level of expected quality such that you begin questioning your filtering.

I think the biggest difference and the one that matters is nailing the end points then gradation and after changing the gradation/colour balance curves you should get better by far.
If you use the same film over & over it might be worth some calibration via shooting some colour chart/s and working on that to bring some basic standard.
For scanner settings and on through PShop for fine tuning.

I think the biggest difference and the one that matters is nailing the end points then gradation and after changing the gradation/colour balance curves you should get better by far.
If you use the same film over & over it might be worth some calibration via shooting some colour chart/s and working on that to bring some basic standard.
For scanner settings and on through PShop for fine tuning.

One suggestion is to be sure a color profile is used throughout the workflow.

This means the scanner, postprocessing software and monitor should all use the same ICC profile. At the moment I use Adobe RGB 1998.

You might ask your lab what color profile they are using and try it in your workflow.