Why is scanning Portra so difficult?

[ericdan]

I have an Opticfilm Plustek scanner with Silverfast 8 and VueScan.
I get decent results from both scanners for say Ektar or Pro400H, but Portra 400 (the new version) seems to need extensive editing in Photoshop.

I think my scanner is working fine as I am getting decent results for slide film and most other films.

Here's what I've tried:
1. VueScan using the Generic profile for color negatives and auto-levels for color. This yields very flat results and skin tones are way off. 130, 75, 75 for example.
2. Silverfast with Generic or old 400NC profile. Generally acceptable but horribly glowing reds.
3. Raw scans and inversion using ColorPerfect. better than VueScan but skin tones are still way off.

I know scanning color negatives is not an easy task, just wondering how everyone else handles this?
Nikon Coolscan, Noritsu and Frontiers seem to have very good built-in algorithms.
Does anybody have any luck with current consumer scanners and software?

 

[Lamar]

For Ektar I can pretty consistently pull some blue out of the shadows and dial it right in but, like you, I have a tough time getting Portra to look right. I can do it but its just a pain to find the right balance, especially in bright, sunlit scenes. I use NikonScan and VueScan with a CoolScan V ED, mainly Tetenal chemicals now but I was using Digibase before and have the same issue with lab developed Portra. Glad it's not just me....

Portra 160 album:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lamarlamb/sets/72157649143030791/

Portra 400 album: ( a lot of these are in stadium lighting and pushed, adding to the problem....)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lamarlamb/sets/72157648736661309/

 

[ericdan]

I think it's has to do with the inversion process. I have a Kodak pakon scanner which is horrible because it crops a lot, is only sharp in the center and has some distortion, but it gets the colors right without doing any post editing.
Color wise the scans look like a mix between frontier and noritsu scans I see on Flickr.
Vuescan and silverfast are just not the right tool I think.


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[Paul-H]

Hi

I am using the Plustek 8200i and have both Silverfast 8 and Vuescan.

I find for scanning negatives Silverfast gives a better result with negatives than Vuescan does especially with Monochrome negatives but Vuescan is much faster by a long mile. I ended up using Vuescan to make RAW scans and ColorPerfect for the conversion but even then some tweaking was still necessary but found it easy to do using the ring around option, with most only needing two clicks of red and one click of yellow to be correct.

For scanning slides Vuescan and an iT8 profile slide produce much more superior scans to silverfast SE although if you have the Ai version with an iT8 slide it should be much closer.

Never have figured out why Vuescan is so much quicker though.

Paul

 

[ericdan]

Paul, any sample scans I can see?


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[Paul-H]

Will try to sort some out for you.

 

[Ektagraphic]

This is very strange to hear about, considering that Kodak advertises these films as scanning well...I guess that we can't listen to everything they say! I'm just about to get into scanning, so this is good to know.

 

[ericdan]

They dry flat and have fine grain. Maybe that's what they meant. In terms of colors they are a disaster with vuescan or silverfast unless you put substantial time into post. From what I can see on Flickr people get decent results with all the commercial scanners and epson v700 or nikon coolscan looks great too.


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[Alan Klein]

I scanned Portra without problem using the Epsonscan software provided with the Epson V600.

 

[ericdan]

Yes agree. All epson scans I have seen look good.


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[mts]

Portra 160NC scans

This is very strange to hear about, considering that Kodak advertises these films as scanning well...I guess that we can't listen to everything they say! I'm just about to get into scanning, so this is good to know.

To which I concur with Kodak. I scan Portra 160NC as well as Fuji 160S with a Nikon 9000ED with very little color correction needed. Many films have been scanned without any problems. Some frames require a bit of level adjustment with curves, but usually even that is not much correction. This is done with Nikon Scan software and default settings. Processing is C-41 alternative scratch-mix chemistry.

 

[ericdan]

well, like I said in my original post. If you're owner of a nikon coolscan you would never notice the difficulty. Just pray that it never breaks, because plusteks don't do the job.

 

[Paul-H]

Hi

Just noticed that Silverfast have posted an update to the Silverfast 8 Software with improved profiles for Portra as the only improvement listed, this might fix the O/P's problem

Paul

 

[cooltouch]

I'm just the opposite from ericdan. Portra scans like a dream on my Epson 4990. And I'm just using Epson Scan software too. Very faithful colors, good saturation. Whereas my Epson doesn't care much for Ektar at all. Mostly it's middle tone browns -- they scan as purples. Something funny about Ektar. When I dupe negatives of most any other negative emulsion, I can reverse them in Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro and get faithful looking positives, but not with Ektar. Way too much cyan, and no matter how hard I try I can't get rid of it.

So anymore these days, I just stay away from Ektar. I really like Portra a lot. It's the closest I've come so far to a good slide film in terms of saturation and fineness of grain. Oh, and I'm usually shooting Portra 160. Don't think I've even tried the 400 yet.

 

[toyotadesigner]

If you use VueScan, you should invest into an IT 8.7 target from Wolf Faust (coloraid). Then capture some exposures of the target and profile the film (Portra 160 or Fuji 160), save the profile and assign it every time you scan a negative film. The help files give you more information.

For decades I shot only slides, and this year I started with Fuji Pro 160NS and Fuji Pro 400H. Profiled both with the above method and get nice results.

However, it all relies on the lab and the consistency of their work. If you change the lab, you have to re-profile the film because with a different development process you get different orange masks.

 

[Alan Klein]

Wouldn't it be better to do the edits after scanning flat? Can't you apply profiles in post? This way you only have to scan once and not worry that you'll have to scan again if the adjustments done by the scanning software isn't just right.

 

[toyotadesigner]

Well, to be honest: I don't know how to apply or convert a film profile after scanning, or better saying if it has the same effect.

When I select the profile during scanning, the result is perfect. With VueScan you can deselect the profile and return to 'Default' after scanning if you want, but this wouldn't remove the orange mask of the film.

Basically the profiling goes like this:

Preview a small patch of blank film. (Not mentioned in the VueScan manual)
Set the check mark in 'Lock Exposure'. (Not mentioned in the VueScan manual)
Preview the same small patch of blank film. (Not mentioned in the VueScan manual)
Set the check mark in 'Lock Color'. (Not mentioned in the VueScan manual)

Then profile your film (VS sets the color values to White Balance and superimposes the grid), scan the IT 8.7 target, insert the path to the text file that relates to your film and target, save the profile, save the settings.

For each scan session load the settings you've saved, and the 'Lock Exposure' and 'Lock Color' will be selected with the correct values.

Then scan.

Finished.

This way you can profile any film you want, or the same film from different labs and assign them a unique name for the settings. This is a lot easier - for me - then to post process the image for hours.

 

[Alan Klein]

The check mark seems to be setting a white point and or a black point. I wonder, if you scan "flat" by returning to "default", then try to set the black and white just by adjusting levels?

 

[toyotadesigner]

The check marks for Exposure and Color define the white point and the orange mask. Adjusting the levels in the scan parameters is not as precise, because the white you see doesn't necessarily have to be white.