[dsmithhfx]

So I just try to insure that my slides and negatives are as clean as possible, and I just resign myself having to clone out the dust spots in post.

I find that a judicious blast of compressed air prior to scanning gets rid of almost all the dust* (and usually there's a lot more on the scanner glass than the negatives). What method are you using?

* still wind up doing some spotting in PP.

[Swift1]

Colton, I have to agree with pretty much everything you wrote. Except for DSLR scanning. These days I "dupe" everything 35mm with my DSLR. For medium format I still use my Epson 4990, scanning at 2400ppi.

I've found that I cannont invert Ektar, either. I get way too much cyan and I can't get rid of it. Even using Epson Scan, tans and light browns have a purple hue and I have to correct in post.

I too don't care for VueScan or especially Silverfast. Epson Scan does everything I need. I've turned off ICE and the auto dust reduction. ICE blurs images too much and the auto dust reduction feature adds artifacts that look like slivers of glass. So I just try to insure that my slides and negatives are as clean as possible, and I just resign myself having to clone out the dust spots in post. And yes, the levels and curves in Epson Scan can be quite effective. Often times in post all that I need to do is some very light sharpening and curves adjustment.

I've never disagreed with DSLR scanning, I just can't do it.
Regarding Ektar, I can usually get pretty balanced (but flat) scans from Epson Scan. I'm getting better at inverting myself in Ps.
Here's one that was scanned as a positive and inverted. I think I did pretty good.

Zenza Bronica ETRSi
Zenzanon MC 40/4
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

Whether you are using scan software or inverting yourself, it's all a matter of getting the dark, mid, bright points set correctly in each of the 3 color channels, and then adjusting the tone curve to personal taste. If done right, you shouldn't need anything more than Levels and Curves for all color balance setting.

[dsmithhfx]

[ibid]

[skyer]

Thank you.
Last year I did this write up on my scanning method,
Scanning Color Film | Photography by Colton Allen

I've learned more about the process since, and I am planning on doing another write up in the future.
I have played with scanning as a positive and then inverting in Ps, but have never tried DSLR scanning. Because of the setup involved with DSLR scanning, it is pretty much a physical impossibility for me.
Interestingly, with the positive scan-invert after method, I have got really good results except with Ektar. I've had a hard time inverting Ektar, and usually get better results using Epson Scan.
IMO, Epson Scan is actually very good software, once you turn off all the Auto settings. I very much prefer Epson Scan to both Vuescan and Silverfast.
You should try doing all color setting and corrections using only Levels and Curves. You might be surprised at what you learn.

I am sorry for the delayed reply. I have read your article on scanning, it's interesting. It's a pity though that I don't have Epson V500-V750. I could have bought one but I still don't shoot on MF and for 35mm Epson scanners are not very good as far as I know. However I will be waiting for your updated method of scanning.

[cooltouch]

I find that a judicious blast of compressed air prior to scanning gets rid of almost all the dust* (and usually there's a lot more on the scanner glass than the negatives). What method are you using?

* still wind up doing some spotting in PP.

I've never used compressed air. Perhaps I should start using it. If it gets rid of the really tiny particles of dust that tend to accumulate in the corners of slides, then I probably should. Instead I try to keep at least one clean lens brush around. And I keep my slides and negatives stored in archival sleeves, which I think helps as well.

---------- Post added 12-12-15 at 03:06 AM ----------

I've never disagreed with DSLR scanning, I just can't do it.
Regarding Ektar, I can usually get pretty balanced (but flat) scans from Epson Scan. I'm getting better at inverting myself in Ps.
Here's one that was scanned as a positive and inverted. I think I did pretty good.

Whether you are using scan software or inverting yourself, it's all a matter of getting the dark, mid, bright points set correctly in each of the 3 color channels, and then adjusting the tone curve to personal taste. If done right, you shouldn't need anything more than Levels and Curves for all color balance setting.

That's actually a very well balanced pic. I can spot a touch of cyan, but hardly objectionable. I've never tried setting the points in the color channels you're describing. I guess I should give it a try. I note that the above image was taken with your ETRSi. Anymore these days, when I'm shooting color with my ETRSi, I'm shooting Portra 160. I find its colors to be saturated and the grain to be vanishingly small. It's the closest I've gotten to slides with a C-41 emulsion. Here's a couple of shots from a couple of years ago. ETRSi, 75mm f/2.8, Portra 160. The first shot is a close-up to show detail. The second shot I've included to show how nicely saturated the reds are.

[Swift1]

I am sorry for the delayed reply. I have read your article on scanning, it's interesting. It's a pity though that I don't have Epson V500-V750. I could have bought one but I still don't shoot on MF and for 35mm Epson scanners are not very good as far as I know. However I will be waiting for your updated method of scanning.

What scanner are you using?
I don't really agree with the general opinion that Epson Flatbeds are not good with 35mm. Like anything, they do have their limitations, and need to be used within those limitations.

This is a test print for a print that someone is buying from me. It is from a 35mm Ektar negative that was scanned on an Epson V750 at 3200dpi. The final print will be 12"x18" @250ppi.

The top image is the entire frame, the lower image is a crop that will print at the same size/res as the final print.

---------- Post added 12-12-2015 at 10:09 AM ----------

That's actually a very well balanced pic. I can spot a touch of cyan, but hardly objectionable. I've never tried setting the points in the color channels you're describing. I guess I should give it a try. I note that the above image was taken with your ETRSi. Anymore these days, when I'm shooting color with my ETRSi, I'm shooting Portra 160. I find its colors to be saturated and the grain to be vanishingly small. It's the closest I've gotten to slides with a C-41 emulsion. Here's a couple of shots from a couple of years ago. ETRSi, 75mm f/2.8, Portra 160. The first shot is a close-up to show detail. The second shot I've included to show how nicely saturated the reds are.

I used to really like Portra 160, but nowadays I prefer the colors of Ektar and Portra 400. Portra 160 is fantastic film, but I find the color palette to be very Norman Rockwell feeling. I've been thinking about shooting some more soon.

[cooltouch]

Heh. I don't have a problem with Norman Rockwell. I like his color palette.

[Eyewanders]

On the issue of dusting... I bought one of these a year or two ago. It's loud like a vacuum, but I've not bought a can of compressed air since.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001U899HQ?keywords=air%20duster&qid=144995...r_1_32&sr=8-32

[cooltouch]

Interesting. Something to keep in mind, I suppose. Honestly, I could use something like that to blow the crap out of my computer keyboards. This one I'm typing on right now, the Enter key is kinda wonky cuz I think something got underneath it. I take it it sucks also, or does it just blow? The description at Amazon isn't all that clear. And if it just blows, does it have a filter of some sort so it's blowing clean air?

OK, never mind. I just read some of the reviews. It blows only. Odd that it's called a "Metro Vacuum."

[Eyewanders]

Interesting. Something to keep in mind, I suppose. Honestly, I could use something like that to blow the crap out of my computer keyboards. This one I'm typing on right now, the Enter key is kinda wonky cuz I think something got underneath it. I take it it sucks also, or does it just blow? The description at Amazon isn't all that clear. And if it just blows, does it have a filter of some sort so it's blowing clean air?

OK, never mind. I just read some of the reviews. It blows only. Odd that it's called a "Metro Vacuum."

Yup, blows only. It's a big ol duster essentially. I wouldn't want to be "sucking" up my negatives on the flatbed.
I originally bought for PC/laptop repair - I was a systems analyst for a bunch of years.

[dsmithhfx]

[drmoss_ca]

MP, Macro-Elmar M 90/Summarit 35, Fuji Superia 400, Unicolor Presskit in the motorised Rondinax, Hasselblad X1 scans:





















Chris

[Swift1]

I just posted a new scanning article on my website. I made a new thread in the scanning sub-forum, but I figured y'all here might like it.
Getting the most from color negative film with your Epson flatbed. | Photography by Colton Allen

Here's the final image from the article,

Contax G2
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 35/2
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V750-M Pro

[deepbluish]

I've read your article about your scanning process and I have a question. Shouldn't you move the black slider for R, B and G channels past the small peak at the far left side of every histogram? To my understanding, this small peak present in all three channels actually represents the black part of the frame which is not really part of the image. If I'm correct, then the real black point should start immediately after that small peak. Actually, in the blue channel for this image above, the black point is the furthest away from the far left peak in comparison the the R and G channels. Right?

[dsmithhfx]

I just posted a new scanning article on my website

This is a good article. Some people may find it helpful to use non-destructive adjustment layers in Photoshop, e.g. I use multiple curve adjustment layers with masks to select out shadows and highlights in luminance transfer mode, and a separate curve adjustment layer in color transfer mode (be warned that adjustment layers will 'bulk up' the file size). Another point is that you may want to output different files specific to printer characteristics and screen viewing. As regards the latter, be prepared to be very surprised (and not in a good way) when viewing the output on different displays.

superia 800@400, epson 1660: