[Swift1]

I decided to move this entire article to my personal website.

It can now be found here,
Scanning Color Film | Photography by Colton Allen

---

Last edited by Swift1; 04-24-2015 at 12:19 PM.

[baro-nite]

Thanks so much for such a detailed and helpful post, Colton. This is very timely for me as I happen to have a roll of Ektar ready for scanning!

[Swift1]

I should add that this method works just as well for any other type of color negative film.
Also, if anyone has tips or info on ways to improve this, I'm all ears.

[Jacquot]

Thank you. I will look at this in detail because I have no scanning knowledge or equipment yet, and so no baseline, but I want to shoot and scan film. You do this so well. This gets bookmarked!
David

[Lauke_101]

Bookmarked this immediately. Thank your for taking the time to write this up, Colton! It's a very clear set of instructions
Looks like this is much less time-consuming than the Vuescan + ColorPerfect method most people seem to recommend for Ektar, while the results look great to me!

[tonysemone]

John,

when I dial up the Main EpsonScan Professional Mode window, I get nothing at all like what you show, i.e., there are no options shown below the Adjustment choices, no Unsharp Mask, no Grain Reduction, etc. What am I missing?

[baro-nite]

What am I missing?

Easy to miss, there's an obscure little scroll bar that allows you to see the rest of the options.

[Swift1]

John,

when I dial up the Main EpsonScan Professional Mode window, I get nothing at all like what you show, i.e., there are no options shown below the Adjustment choices, no Unsharp Mask, no Grain Reduction, etc. What am I missing?

John??

You may need to expand some options or scroll down inside the main Epson Scan window.

[pai]

Thank you Colton. You have saved me (and several others I'm sure), a lot of time and money. I had given up shooting Ektar because of the high cost of professional scans and the awful colours I was getting with my own flatbed. My stash of Ektar in the fridge is finally going to see the light of day (and the scanner's lamp).

[tonysemone]

Sorry, Colton, I had just gotten to your thread here from "John's" on RFF. Advancing age, I reckon . Nevertheless, I appreciate your comprehensive protocol. I'm sure it will help me a lot.

[LesDMess]

Thanks for sharing this well written process.

[Swift1]

After scanning what if any other postprocessing do you usually perform?

TIA,
Chris

I can't give away all my secrets

[womble]

Thanks Colton. My lab does a good job but I can only afford the small scans so it'll be great to be able to re-do the ones I want LARGE. Cheers, K.

[artobest]

While it's always interesting to see other people's working methods, your workflow concerns me for several reasons. First, and this may simply be a matter of preference, you are scanning as colour negative. This will cause your scanner driver to bake in a tonal response curve that, in my experience, is rarely desirable. Scanning as positive and inverting in Photoshop gives a more linear tonal response and, in my opinion, greater latitude for editing. You will need to set black and white points individually for each colour channel, which effectively eliminates the orange mask and provides a good basis for further tweaking in Photoshop or Lightroom, with their more advanced controls.

Secondly, you are scanning in 8-bits. This is a bad idea on several counts, not least because it reduces your leeway for post facto editing - you risk banding if you subsequently make colour or tonal adjustments in the finished scan. Solution: scan in 16-bits (ie 48-bit colour) and resave as 8-bit later if you really need to save space.

Thirdly, you are clipping the blacks in your scan. The black point should never intrude on the histogram as you show, since all the picture information to the left of it will be irretrievably cut from the scan. If you want deep, dark blacks, you can do that later with a non-destructive adjustment layer or Lightroom edit.

Lastly, saving as jpeg instead of tiff means you'd better be damn sure that your scan is perfect when it comes off the scanner, because any future saves will inevitably degrade the file.

Of course, there is another conversation to be had here about whether it is best to do as much as possible pre-scan, but I believe that scanning as 16-bit positive gives you the best of both worlds.

[Swift1]

While it's always interesting to see other people's working methods, your workflow concerns me for several reasons. First, and this may simply be a matter of preference, you are scanning as colour negative. This will cause your scanner driver to bake in a tonal response curve that, in my experience, is rarely desirable. Scanning as positive and inverting in Photoshop gives a more linear tonal response and, in my opinion, greater latitude for editing. You will need to set black and white points individually for each colour channel, which effectively eliminates the orange mask and provides a good basis for further tweaking in Photoshop or Lightroom, with their more advanced controls.

Secondly, you are scanning in 8-bits. This is a bad idea on several counts, not least because it reduces your leeway for post facto editing - you risk banding if you subsequently make colour or tonal adjustments in the finished scan. Solution: scan in 16-bits (ie 48-bit colour) and resave as 8-bit later if you really need to save space.

Thirdly, you are clipping the blacks in your scan. The black point should never intrude on the histogram as you show, since all the picture information to the left of it will be irretrievably cut from the scan. If you want deep, dark blacks, you can do that later with a non-destructive adjustment layer or Lightroom edit.

Lastly, saving as jpeg instead of tiff means you'd better be damn sure that your scan is perfect when it comes off the scanner, because any future saves will inevitably degrade the file.

Of course, there is another conversation to be had here about whether it is best to do as much as possible pre-scan, but I believe that scanning as 16-bit positive gives you the best of both worlds.

As with most things, if something isn't working for you then you need to find a different method. For me currently, my method is working for me.
In response to each of your points,

Firstly, as I stated, I'm perfectly happy with the results I'm getting, and I shared this method because people requested I share my method. I'm aware that there may be technically better methods.

Secondly, I'm very aware that scanning in 16 bit/channel will give me more leeway in post. Generally, if I've exposed my film well, I shouldn't need to do much post processing. If I have a particular frame that is giving me difficulty, then I will scan as a 48bit TIFF. Also, if I am making a very large print then I might scan as 48bit TIFF, and then edit and save as a 24 bit TIFF.

Thirdly, I disagree about me clipping my black point. Nothing in the actual frame can ever be darker/blacker than unexposed film, as it would be physically impossible. I'm using the unexposed film base to set my black point, so by default nothing within the frame will/could possibly end up on the left side of the black point.