Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-10-2014, 10:46 PM   #1
Pentaxian
LFLee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,249
Biggest obstacle in shooting film...

I think I found out the single reason why people don't shoot film anymore:

The scanning process is &^@$_#*(!

why in the world would someone design a scanner to difficult to use!!!

I really would pay someone to just teach me how to scan to get the correct colors!

sorry for the rant! I can't seem to get the colors on screen to match the color in prints! uggh...


Last edited by LFLee; 04-10-2014 at 11:04 PM.
04-10-2014, 11:04 PM - 1 Like   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
QuoteOriginally posted by LFLee Quote
I think I found out the single reason why people don't shoot film anymore:

The scanning process is &^@$_#*(!

why in the world would someone design a scanner to difficult to use!!!

I really would pay someone to just teach me how to scan to get the correct colors!

sorry for the rant!
I find the scanning process to be disheartening. It is extremely expensive, no master what method you use.
04-10-2014, 11:14 PM - 1 Like   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
If you really want it to match, you need to get into color management, which can be quite involved.

But do you already color calibrate your screen, using an i1 Display Pro or similar device + software?


Either way, what kind (brand, model) of scanner are you using, and what media (sounds like 4x6 prints or something)?
04-10-2014, 11:36 PM - 1 Like   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 671
My screen is calibrated with Colormuki and so is my papers/ink/printer.

Scanning is easy. 99% of the time Epson Scan gets it right and photos look great. Very often I just need to bump the contrast. That's it.

I think a lot of people who have issues with scanning film, is that their exposures are way off and inconsistent.

04-10-2014, 11:37 PM   #5
Pentaxian
LFLee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,249
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
If you really want it to match, you need to get into color management, which can be quite involved.

But do you already color calibrate your screen, using an i1 Display Pro or similar device + software?


Either way, what kind (brand, model) of scanner are you using, and what media (sounds like 4x6 prints or something)?
I use Epson v500 and their original software (tried vuescan but I messed up even worst). See, of the 10 images I scan tonight (spend many time to adjust the tone in the scan setting), the only pic that I manage to get the color as close as the print is this one (others were just plain terrible! some like having a cast of blue, some like a cast of green), drove me crazy!



Uggh... I really need to get to sleep now. Thanks for hearing my rant!
04-10-2014, 11:41 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 671
Who cares what the print is like? They are manipulated by the person who seats in front of frontier and dialed the way he likes. He adjust the photos to HIS liking. Not yours. To what he believes it's right.
Why not do what you think is right?

I never liked the prints I was getting and I do not get prints, it's a waste of time and I (or anyone) looks at them.

The above photo, the grain is large, the photo is way underexposed, once again, bad exposure. Why? Well, you probably didn't use incident meter, but the built in one. That was fooled by the sun and there you go. Wasted exposure.

Why was the cast green or blue? Sounds like white balance issue and the light was blur or green. Sounds like you didn't use filters on film to correct that issue in the first place.
They fix the white balance on the machines... You need to learn how to use photoshop or lightroom.
04-11-2014, 12:56 AM - 1 Like   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
QuoteOriginally posted by Nuff Quote
Who cares what the print is like? They are manipulated by the person who seats in front of frontier and dialed the way he likes. He adjust the photos to HIS liking. Not yours. To what he believes it's right.
Why not do what you think is right?

I never liked the prints I was getting and I do not get prints, it's a waste of time and I (or anyone) looks at them.

The above photo, the grain is large, the photo is way underexposed, once again, bad exposure. Why? Well, you probably didn't use incident meter, but the built in one. That was fooled by the sun and there you go. Wasted exposure.

Why was the cast green or blue? Sounds like white balance issue and the light was blur or green. Sounds like you didn't use filters on film to correct that issue in the first place.
They fix the white balance on the machines... You need to learn how to use photoshop or lightroom.
Could you possibly be more condescending? Not every choice you disagree with is a mistake. Some of us know how to make exposures.

I have an Epson flatbed, and I can't get it to make sharp scans of negatives, period. I believe the lens is not focusing in the correct place.
04-11-2014, 01:26 AM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 671
QuoteOriginally posted by fuent104 Quote
Could you possibly be more condescending? Not every choice you disagree with is a mistake. Some of us know how to make exposures.

I have an Epson flatbed, and I can't get it to make sharp scans of negatives, period. I believe the lens is not focusing in the correct place.
OK, but looked at the above photo, especially left shoulder and hair over the shoulder and tell me that it's not underexposed? The noise shows it is. The way it's exposed the hair supposed to be totally black, since there's no detail there. I'm pretty sure the negative is very thin in that area. It's a 6x7 neg and there's noise everywhere. My 35mm scans have less noise on V700. Photo was shown above, I commented on what I see.

04-11-2014, 03:19 AM - 1 Like   #9
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,906
QuoteOriginally posted by Nuff Quote
OK, but looked at the above photo, especially left shoulder and hair over the shoulder and tell me that it's not underexposed? The noise shows it is. The way it's exposed the hair supposed to be totally black, since there's no detail there. I'm pretty sure the negative is very thin in that area. It's a 6x7 neg and there's noise everywhere. My 35mm scans have less noise on V700. Photo was shown above, I commented on what I see.
The film is correctly exposed, it's the scanner that is trying to make the neg averagely well exposed. The Canon Canoscann 9000F acts the same.

Lee, when i use ... (what software it is ? .... ah yes !) Silverfast, by default, when i do "preview" to select the area i want to scan in the film, the software always decide spontaneously to do some "adjustement" (curve, contrast, exposure).

What i found to be the best results is : choose the appropriate film selection, then cancel all those auto adjustement to set them to the scanning set-up to default. I mean, no changing or adjustement.

Eventually, if the scan software allows it : increase the exposure but not by the curve, but by a cursor, that is with the film selection section. It will increase the light the scanner emits to "see" the film.

If you disable all the auto adjustement, you will remove the color cast. The scanner will scann according to a routine pre-made by the manufacturer to render in the most real way possible the film.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nuff Quote
Who cares what the print is like? They are manipulated by the person who seats in front of frontier and dialed the way he likes. He adjust the photos to HIS liking. Not yours. To what he believes it's right.
Why not do what you think is right?
You can ask the lab to not do any kind of change during the scanning, that's what i do, and hence what i have on my screen is exactly what is ging to be printed, whether it's a film source or digital file.


Nuff, seriously, why are you so bad-tempered ? If you are having a bad day, just don't throw all your wickedness on the people of this forum, would you.
04-11-2014, 05:35 AM - 1 Like   #10
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mississippi, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 545
QuoteOriginally posted by fuent104 Quote
Could you possibly be more condescending? Not every choice you disagree with is a mistake. Some of us know how to make exposures.

I have an Epson flatbed, and I can't get it to make sharp scans of negatives, period. I believe the lens is not focusing in the correct place.
Give a read of this.........
Using Variable Height Holders for Epson Scanners

They're trying to sell you something but I can't find the original article I read
The negative carrier can be 'Shimmed'. I use a 3170 and had some focus problems early. Playing with different thickness of Paper, I found that using a thickness of 'Construction Paper', Shimmimg under both ends of the film holder, gave me better scans. It took several attempts but once I found the correct thickness I've had consistent results. I keep my 2 Shims with the carrier and just place them on the scanner deck before scanning.
There are Statements on the Boards saying that scanner DOF is huge, this isn't really true.
Hopes this helps.

---------- Post added 04-11-14 at 08:12 AM ----------

Found the site that I originally read......

Epson flatbed scanners: 2450 Photo, with a little about the 3200

Go down to Focus and Spacing.

Old knowledge but still useful.
04-11-2014, 06:48 AM   #11
Pentaxian
LFLee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,249
Original Poster
Thanks guys... the photo store develop prints using negatives, hence I believe the prints are as close as the colors should look like for a particular film. And I believe it is true since my portra prints color are different than my Fuji prints. hence why I wanted to "color to match the prints".

Thanks for the link too. I follow this: Saving a Portra 400 Digital Film Scan - The Phoblographer
but I think I mess up the step in changing the tone of the scanner (v500), where he adjust the blue, green and red channel.

will give it another try for sure.
04-11-2014, 06:48 AM   #12
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
I photographed a negative with my K-30 and did the color manipulation in Aperture. I think this is called "DSLR scanning". It went pretty quick and the results were nice.
04-11-2014, 07:03 AM   #13
Pentaxian
LFLee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,249
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
I photographed a negative with my K-30 and did the color manipulation in Aperture. I think this is called "DSLR scanning". It went pretty quick and the results were nice.
I know that process. But then I really want to get the 'film color' without too much 'digital manipulation' (I know is pretty weak to say so reg. the whole neg-digital process ).

I like the colors from Fuji pro 400h, so really want to get that color out from negatives...

---------- Post added 04-11-2014 at 10:21 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Nuff Quote
Who cares what the print is like? They are manipulated by the person who seats in front of frontier and dialed the way he likes. He adjust the photos to HIS liking. Not yours. To what he believes it's right.
Why not do what you think is right?

I never liked the prints I was getting and I do not get prints, it's a waste of time and I (or anyone) looks at them.

The above photo, the grain is large, the photo is way underexposed, once again, bad exposure. Why? Well, you probably didn't use incident meter, but the built in one. That was fooled by the sun and there you go. Wasted exposure.

Why was the cast green or blue? Sounds like white balance issue and the light was blur or green. Sounds like you didn't use filters on film to correct that issue in the first place.
They fix the white balance on the machines... You need to learn how to use photoshop or lightroom.
hm... but I believe the store I use print from negatives (because as I want them to re-print, they ask me to send the negatives back)...

anyway, I want to 'minimize' the tweak in LR or PS I think make this scanning process a headache.

I don't mind your harsh comment, as you do have some nice photos in your flickr stream, which kind of backup your expertise in this matter... and there must be something I can learn from you.
04-11-2014, 07:33 AM   #14
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by LFLee Quote
I think I found out the single reason why people don't shoot film anymore:

The scanning process is &^@$_#*(!

why in the world would someone design a scanner to difficult to use!!!

I really would pay someone to just teach me how to scan to get the correct colors!

sorry for the rant! I can't seem to get the colors on screen to match the color in prints! uggh...
If you think scanning color negatives is hard, try printing the old-school way without a color analyzer! If the scanning software as a profile for the orange mask, scanning is much easier. VueScan doesn't have profiles for any new films. I've e-mailed the guy before and ask why the hell not and no reply.
04-11-2014, 11:34 AM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
QuoteOriginally posted by Nuff Quote
OK, but looked at the above photo, especially left shoulder and hair over the shoulder and tell me that it's not underexposed? The noise shows it is. The way it's exposed the hair supposed to be totally black, since there's no detail there. I'm pretty sure the negative is very thin in that area. It's a 6x7 neg and there's noise everywhere. My 35mm scans have less noise on V700. Photo was shown above, I commented on what I see.
What I'm saying is that, perhaps the exposure was a choice. That could be a stylistic thing. A higher exposure could have caused more of the image to be blown out. Secondly, whether your information was correct, the original poster in the thread started this thread essentially asking for help and information. In that instance, it is not necessary to be negative towards his or her abilities.

---------- Post added 04-11-14 at 11:37 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by thazooo Quote
Give a read of this.........
Using Variable Height Holders for Epson Scanners

They're trying to sell you something but I can't find the original article I read
The negative carrier can be 'Shimmed'. I use a 3170 and had some focus problems early. Playing with different thickness of Paper, I found that using a thickness of 'Construction Paper', Shimmimg under both ends of the film holder, gave me better scans. It took several attempts but once I found the correct thickness I've had consistent results. I keep my 2 Shims with the carrier and just place them on the scanner deck before scanning.
There are Statements on the Boards saying that scanner DOF is huge, this isn't really true.
Hopes this helps.

---------- Post added 04-11-14 at 08:12 AM ----------

Found the site that I originally read......

Epson flatbed scanners: 2450 Photo, with a little about the 3200

Go down to Focus and Spacing.

Old knowledge but still useful.
Thanks a million! I really appreciate these resources, and I will check them out. I'm not sure if my model has a focus adjustment, but I sure hope it does. It breaks my heart every time I scan film and it's not sharp, then I look through a loupe and it is sharp.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
balance, camera, carrier, color, epson, exposure, film, focus, image, information, issue, manipulation, medium format, negatives, noise, people, photo, photograph, print, process, read, scanner, scanners, scans, thickness
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Continuous Shooting, Exposure Bracketing, Interval Shooting etc in B Mode! kamayok3 Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 02-12-2014 01:45 PM
technical obstacle using monitor as background - strange shadow. Help! Nass Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 04-12-2012 03:07 PM
is the built-in hood an obstacle? noou Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 05-23-2011 08:27 AM
2nd Biggest Landslide in Canadian History bikecoboss Photographic Technique 8 08-11-2010 08:03 PM
Biggest snow storm in 30 years hamidlmt Post Your Photos! 12 12-23-2008 06:23 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:10 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top