Color film scans (vueScan + Epson v600)

rockall87 · May 13, 2018

Hi all,

as per thread object, I'm trying to scan a Kodak ColorPlus 200 roll via Epson v600 scanner + VueScan software. It's my first color film roll ever, but I've already scanned a couple of BW 120 film rolls in the past. However, I'm still quite inexpert to get the best results with this workflow.

Before I get the questions, please let me do a premise. I always shot in digital, mostly preferring BW to color since I feel pretty uncomfortable to interpret it. This is why, after waiting for years, I started shooting analog, since I wanted the film leading (or helping) my color interpretation.

Having said that, as we all know, even with analog - and especially with film scanning - there is always a subjective interpretation of colors left to the author. But still, I would like (at least) to keep the different features of any single film, so I can eventually choose which fits to me in terms of colors, grain and "general mood".

So, despite the quasi-zero editing I leave to my scanner - thanks to the several vueScan options you can set - I would like to have, after my post-production in Photoshop, a kind of "fidelity" to the film colors, if that is still possible. So I can say "Ok, this is Kodak, this is Fuji, etc."

The problem is, since the scan you get from vueScan is a flat RAW TIFF with zero white balance, I need to make several regulations in PS to get a quite good image. But how can I know if that image is still related with the film I used or, since I'm moving levels/curves here and there, I'll get the same result with any film?

Therefore, please see below 2 pictures, where #1 is from vueScan+pp in PS, and #2 is a straight scan using the Epson software, where the automatic exposure correction was enabled.

#1

#2

Now, as you can clearly see, #2 is like has been shot with an iPhone, in terms of colors and saturation and it's very good to me. I really like the skin tone, since it's actually very realistic. On the other hand, the noise is very high, since the software pushed the image to increase focus and contrast probably.

#1, instead, has quite good green but the skin tone is too pale to me.

What I would like to know, at this point, is which might be more true with that film. Of course, #2 is too "modern" but if the scanner was able to do it, that means the you can at least reach something similar with your raw scan...but I tried everything and can't reach that skin tone (at least).

Please let me know what do you think about it.

Thanks!

D Cox · May 13, 2018

If you take pictures of a scene like this on film, and then make colour prints in the darkroom, you make a test print first of a part of the image. (Not the whole image because paper is expensive.)

After processing, you look at the test and decide whether you like the colour balance. If not, you change the colour filters in the enlarger and make another test.

You make the final print with the setting that you think looks best.

Exactly the same applies when you convert the image to digital. You adjust the colours until you think they look good. There is no absolute correct answer for a photo of a natural scene.

The only time there is anything like a "correct" answer is when you are copying a piece of artwork. In this case, you would include a Color Checker in the picture, and ideally also calibrate your monitor, printer and paper.

RedFox88 · May 13, 2018

rockall87 said:
Hi all,

as per thread object, I'm trying to scan a Kodak ColorPlus 200 roll via Epson v600 scanner + VueScan software. It's my first color film roll ever, but I've already scanned a couple of BW 120 film rolls in the past. However, I'm still quite inexpert to get the best results with this workflow.

Before I get the questions, please let me do a premise. I always shot in digital, mostly preferring BW to color since I feel pretty uncomfortable to interpret it. This is why, after waiting for years, I started shooting analog, since I wanted the film leading (or helping) my color interpretation.

This is a myth/fallacy. Scanning color film with manual color adjustments with every expose is an exercise in frustration and in the end is time lost. It'd be like going back to horse and buggy to have a better ability to steer the vehicle.

rockall87 said:
Having said that, as we all know, even with analog - and especially with film scanning - there is always a subjective interpretation of colors left to the author. But still, I would like (at least) to keep the different features of any single film, so I can eventually choose which fits to me in terms of colors, grain and "general mood".

Can all be added to digital photos with filters

rockall87 said:
So, despite the quasi-zero editing I leave to my scanner - thanks to the several vueScan options you can set - I would like to have, after my post-production in Photoshop, a kind of "fidelity" to the film colors, if that is still possible. So I can say "Ok, this is Kodak, this is Fuji, etc."

Depending on software, it can have programmed profiles for every step and speed of film

rockall87 said:
The problem is, since the scan you get from vueScan is a flat RAW TIFF with zero white balance, I need to make several regulations in PS to get a quite good image. But how can I know if that image is still related with the film I used

You can't unless using film profiles

rockall87 said:
or, since I'm moving levels/curves here and there, I'll get the same result with any film?

Somewhat

rockall87 said:
Therefore, please see below 2 pictures, where #1 is from vueScan+pp in PS, and #2 is a straight scan using the Epson software, where the automatic exposure correction was enabled.

Auto exposure correction is basically auto levels which even with a digital raw files has mediocre results

rockall87 said:
Now, as you can clearly see, #2 is like has been shot with an iPhone, in terms of colors and saturation and it's very good to me. I really like the skin tone, since it's actually very realistic. On the other hand, the noise is very high, since the software pushed the image to increase focus and contrast probably.

#1, instead, has quite good green but the skin tone is too pale to me.

What I would like to know, at this point, is which might be more true with that film. Of course, #2 is too "modern" but if the scanner was able to do it, that means the you can at least reach something similar with your raw scan...but I tried everything and can't reach that skin tone (at least).

Please let me know what do you think about it.

Thanks!

Mitrajoon · May 14, 2018

If I'm missing your point, I apologize in advance, but just to build on D Cox's reply, a scan will require additional processing, unless you as the "artist" determines you like it the way it is. Whether using a scanner or an enlarger to produce your image, making a final version will require work. Ansel Adams would spend days or weeks in the dark room getting an image the way he wanted. And he often changed the prints he made over time as his/customers' taste changed. Adam's most famous quote: "The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance".

mdmarqphoto · May 14, 2018

To me #2 has too much green in it and it doesn't look natural for the scene. On an overcast day I would expect the face to look more pale as it is in #1, and the color of his jacket looks more accurate (to me anyway). I think #1 could use a small saturation boost though.

sybersitizen · May 14, 2018

rockall87 said:
... since the scan you get from vueScan is a flat RAW TIFF with zero white balance, I need to make several regulations in PS to get a quite good image.

Maybe you don't if you can get the VueScan color settings at their best first.

rockall87 said:
... please see below 2 pictures, where #1 is from vueScan+pp in PS, and #2 is a straight scan using the Epson software, where the automatic exposure correction was enabled.

I also have VueScan, and one of my scanners is the Epson V500. I've found that the Epson software is phenomenal at getting the colors 'right' with no effort on my part, while VueScan requires much tweaking to reach the same point.

What I did was to adjust VueScan's settings to come as close as possible to the Epson colors so I don't have to fiddle much in PP.

rockall87 said:
What I would like to know, at this point, is which might be more true with that film.

That's a whole different thing. How would you judge what's true? Would you have a professional print made? Would that reproduce true colors, or colors based on a particular lab's equipment and procedures? Under what light would you view the print to make the comparison with what you see in your software?

You say you like the Epson colors in your examples better (and so do I). I suggest you not worry about a 'true' reference, but see if you can get VueScan to give you a more Epson-like result without PP.

graybalanced · May 14, 2018

rockall87 said:
The problem is, since the scan you get from vueScan is a flat RAW TIFF with zero white balance, I need to make several regulations in PS to get a quite good image. But how can I know if that image is still related with the film I used or, since I'm moving levels/curves here and there, I'll get the same result with any film?

Color negative film was never designed to be used on its own. It was designed to be used in conjunction with a specific process for printing. The look was always supposed to be the combination of the film and the paper.

If you want to know what a particular color neg film is "supposed" to look like, shoot some good reference shots and send it out for printing at a good lab. When the prints come back, use those as reference for correcting future scans of that film.

Although I scan color negative film, I have not done that because I never think about the film type when correcting. I take the scan and make it look as best I think it can. Often that ends up communicating the film type anyway, since of course the image will naturally look best under corrections that are consistent with the film type it was shot on.

You may be over-thinking it. You are concerned with an image "still related with the film I used," but in my view it is difficult for a color negative image to ever escape that relationship. A color negative image will always be defined and limited by the capabilities of the dye layers of the film it was shot on (you can only scan the colors that are there), it is not going to look like it was shot with a Nikon sensor or whatever. As long as the corrections are within a realistic range, the characteristics of the film are going to be in the image. If an image no longer looks like a color negative scan, it was probably pushed too far.

rockall87 · May 14, 2018

graybalanced said:
Color negative film was never designed to be used on its own. It was designed to be used in conjunction with a specific process for printing. The look was always supposed to be the combination of the film and the paper.

graybalanced said:
If you want to know what a particular color neg film is "supposed" to look like, shoot some good reference shots and send it out for printing at a good lab. When the prints come back, use those as reference for correcting future scans of that film.

Thanks, this is a good suggestion. Actually, I should do the same with my BW negs as well. I agree with you, and I knew that judging a negative from a scan was a bit inadvisable...but since I'm still new, I wanted to try all the different opportunities.

Also, I'm not doing scans as final step. To me is just a cheap and quick way to check my negatives, using the best for sharing and then, if I'm doing something serious, I'm gonna print them properly.

graybalanced said:
You may be over-thinking it. You are concerned with an image "still related with the film I used," but in my view it is difficult for a color negative image to ever escape that relationship. A color negative image will always be defined and limited by the capabilities of the dye layers of the film it was shot on (you can only scan the colors that are there), it is not going to look like it was shot with a Nikon sensor or whatever. As long as the corrections are within a realistic range, the characteristics of the film are going to be in the image. If an image no longer looks like a color negative scan, it was probably pushed too far.

I think you missed my point here. It's the opposite: I want to keep that relation, not remove it. I don't want digital or another specific look. What I would like to get is an objective process where I finally get a mood which reflects the film characteristics and from which I could set the final steps to get my interpretation. I'm in the way of get it, playing with curves and levels with a minimum change of colors. I think the hardest thing is the white balance, since that heavily affects your final picture.

But since we are talking about a scanning and not a printing, probably the only thing I'll be able to recognise for each film, will be its grain, since colours might be too susceptible to external factors...me first.

rockall87 · May 14, 2018

sybersitizen said:
That's a whole different thing. How would you judge what's true? Would you have a professional print made? Would that reproduce true colors, or colors based on a particular lab's equipment and procedures? Under what light would you view the print to make the comparison with what you see in your software?

My concern is not getting "true" or "realistic" colors, since that will never happen.

I rarely like my color digital shots and probably this could depend from the infinite freedom you have with a RAW file. I always try to not change color saturation, and let the White balance only to define the general mood of the image. But still, those colors don't say anything to me. I needed a constraint, a background limit that could lead me to a direction. Hence the film, or better still, different kind of films where I could find a satisfaying color mood, less arbitrary, more ~~realistic~~ contingent.

sybersitizen · May 14, 2018

rockall87 said:
sybersitizen said:

rockall87 said:

What I would like to know, at this point, is which might be more true with that film.

Click to expand...

That's a whole different thing. How would you judge what's true? Would you have a professional print made? Would that reproduce true colors, or colors based on a particular lab's equipment and procedures? Under what light would you view the print to make the comparison with what you see in your software?

Click to expand...

My concern is not getting "true" or "realistic" colors, since that will never happen.

This was what you wrote:

"What I would like to know, at this point, is which might be more true with that film."

My reply was directed toward your use of the word true in that comment.

rockall87 said:
I rarely like my color digital shots and probably this could depend from the infinite freedom you have with a RAW file. I always try to not change color saturation, and let the White balance only to define the general mood of the image. But still, those colors don't say anything to me. I needed a constraint, a background limit that could lead me to a direction. Hence the film, or better still, different kind of films where I could find a satisfaying color mood, less arbitrary, more ~~realistic~~ contingent.

Ultimately I don't really know what you're looking for. But again, you did say you like the Epson color, so again, you can try to make VueScan come closer to matching that without PP. This is one of the configurations I used for an earlier project with a slide scanner (yours will be different!):

tassienick · May 14, 2018

rockall87 said:
Please let me know what do you think about it.

Thanks!

I shoot a lot of film and scan it all myself, and I'll try and be as blunt as possible.

I spend much, much more time editing my film work than digital, especially trying to get colours right. The oft repeated line that shooting film is great because you don't spend any time on a computer is a myth.

Colour balance when scanning is a nightmare.

Scanning software is a nightmare.

rockall87 · May 15, 2018

Thanks for your suggestions.

Sorry, I said "true" but it was related with the film, so I didn't mean "absolute" true. I meant reaching what "true" colors are for that particular kind of film. It might be convoluted, I know

Slideshow Bob · May 15, 2018

The vuescan one doesn't look too bad, in terms of detail. The Epson software is pretty awful (I have it with a V500). I think the biggest problem is that you have an either/or issue, but vuescan is certainly going to provide better quality scans. The V600 is better than my V500, but how well does it do repeat scans? If I scan the same image twice, I get distortions that make it impossible to overlay one scan over another to make a final image. What I'm thinking here is that (if it's really worth your time to go through all this) you could combine 2 scans, one from VueScan (which you use for luminance information), and one from EpsonScan (which you use for colour). That sounds like a lot of pointless work to me, but it might get you the result you're looking for.

Have you tried photographing your negatives and doing the reversal in Photoshop? It actually works quite well if you use the right process. You need to take several shots (I use 9, 3x3 bracketed sets), but the result is very malleable once you get it into Photoshop, and since you can shoot raw, you get a lot of tools for non-destructively adjusting the colour. I actually find it's much faster to work this way than it is to scan the negs. All you need is a good macro lens, and a lightbox or LED light panel.

sybersitizen · May 15, 2018

Slideshow Bob said:
The vuescan one doesn't look too bad, in terms of detail. The Epson software is pretty awful (I have it with a V500).

Awful in what way? I too have the V500 and find that Epson's software delivers great color with no effort at all.

Slideshow Bob said:
I think the biggest problem is that you have an either/or issue, but vuescan is certainly going to provide better quality scans.

Better in what way? I have VueScan, but I use it primarily with a different dedicated slide scanner, which really does have awful native software.

absquatulate · May 15, 2018

as your scanning software, it has film profiles as an option, it takes a lot of the pain away.

absquatulate · May 15, 2018

tassienick said:
rockall87 said:

Please let me know what do you think about it.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I shoot a lot of film and scan it all myself, and I'll try and be as blunt as possible.

I spend much, much more time editing my film work than digital, especially trying to get colours right. The oft repeated line that shooting film is great because you don't spend any time on a computer is a myth.

Colour balance when scanning is a nightmare.

Scanning software is a nightmare.

I don't really have a problem using Silverfast, it makes it easy, I don't have to do much at all to get it right, but then I develop my own film, and getting that right makes it a lot easier.

Slideshow Bob · May 15, 2018

sybersitizen said:
Slideshow Bob said:

The vuescan one doesn't look too bad, in terms of detail. The Epson software is pretty awful (I have it with a V500).

Click to expand...

Awful in what way? I too have the V500 and find that Epson's software delivers great color with no effort at all.

No, the colour is not bad. But the detail is not good at all. It produces a lot of sharpening artefacts (even with sharpening turned down), and bright speckle pixels. The OP's second photo (viewed at 1:1) is a pretty good example, although probably sharpened more than I'd like personally.

sybersitizen said:
sybersitizen said:

I think the biggest problem is that you have an either/or issue, but vuescan is certainly going to provide better quality scans.

Click to expand...

Better in what way? I have VueScan, but I use it primarily with a different dedicated slide scanner, which really does have awful native software.

It's really just about how smooth a result the software produces. I find vuescan produces much more useable scans. But I still prefer to digitise with a camera these days.

sybersitizen · May 15, 2018

Slideshow Bob said:
sybersitizen said:

Slideshow Bob said:

The vuescan one doesn't look too bad, in terms of detail. The Epson software is pretty awful (I have it with a V500).

Click to expand...

Awful in what way? I too have the V500 and find that Epson's software delivers great color with no effort at all.

Click to expand...

No, the colour is not bad. But the detail is not good at all. It produces a lot of sharpening artefacts (even with sharpening turned down), and bright speckle pixels. The OP's second photo (viewed at 1:1) is a pretty good example, although probably sharpened more than I'd like personally.

Hmm, I'll have to check that out. I use the V500 mostly for scanning prints and other reflective media. I very seldom scan film with it - because it's a general purpose flatbed, its usable resolution is not very good for directly scanning film - so I might not have noticed a problem.

Slideshow Bob said:
Slideshow Bob said:

Slideshow Bob said:

I think the biggest problem is that you have an either/or issue, but vuescan is certainly going to provide better quality scans.

Click to expand...

Better in what way? I have VueScan, but I use it primarily with a different dedicated slide scanner, which really does have awful native software.

Click to expand...

It's really just about how smooth a result the software produces. I find vuescan produces much more useable scans. But I still prefer to digitise with a camera these days.

Slideshow Bob · May 15, 2018

sybersitizen said:
Slideshow Bob said:

sybersitizen said:

Slideshow Bob said:

The vuescan one doesn't look too bad, in terms of detail. The Epson software is pretty awful (I have it with a V500).

Click to expand...

Awful in what way? I too have the V500 and find that Epson's software delivers great color with no effort at all.

Click to expand...

No, the colour is not bad. But the detail is not good at all. It produces a lot of sharpening artefacts (even with sharpening turned down), and bright speckle pixels. The OP's second photo (viewed at 1:1) is a pretty good example, although probably sharpened more than I'd like personally.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I'll have to check that out. I use the V500 mostly for scanning prints and other reflective media. I very seldom scan negatives with it - because it's a general purpose flatbed, its usable resolution is not very good for directly scanning film - so I might not have noticed a problem.

Just to be clear, I'm only talking about scanning negatives. The V500 is good for reflective, and o.k for transparencies. Maybe it's something to do with the reversal process.

sybersitizen said:
sybersitizen said:

sybersitizen said:

sybersitizen said:

I think the biggest problem is that you have an either/or issue, but vuescan is certainly going to provide better quality scans.

Click to expand...

Better in what way? I have VueScan, but I use it primarily with a different dedicated slide scanner, which really does have awful native software.

Click to expand...

It's really just about how smooth a result the software produces. I find vuescan produces much more useable scans. But I still prefer to digitise with a camera these days.

Click to expand...

Nixvis · May 15, 2018

Good color rendition.

Color film scans (vueScan + Epson v600)

Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

absquatulate

Guest

absquatulate

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Active member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts