Scanning color slides & negs

<p>I'm using a new to me Epson 3200 flatbed. Trying to the best color I can. I find it difficult to get good color from my Velvia slides, in particular if the slides are underexposed say around 1 stop. Though underexposed, they still look great on a light table. Properly exposed slides seem to scan much more accurately. It's not a matter of shadow detail, but rather color casts. Any suggestions?</p>

<p>As for color negatives, I find that Epsonscan, Vuescan, and Silverfast all seem to do a pretty lousy job with color negs. The only way I've been able to get something close to reasonable is with something called Colorneg. This seems to get things close at least most of the time. Have you tried these programs and what do you think? Are newer flatbeds any better when it comes to color? Would scanner calibration help? </p>

<p>Software is not the problem. This is a very old, discontinued scanner (look at the computer OS requirements and software version bundled with it). Flatbed scanners are not the best choice for negative scanning, particularly for 35mm negatives; and this particular model comes with a "built in 4X9 transparency adapter". Those adapters were the lamest approach to negative scanning on a flatbed ever devised. Time to upgrade to a V700, or similar...</p>

<p>The basic design of the 3200 is the same as the V700, i.e. there is a light in the lid. Here is a review from when it was new:</p>

<p>http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Epson_3200/page_1.htm</p>

<p>My impression (from the web) is generally that the quality of the epson flatbeds has not improved much over the years. The 4990 is still regarded to be almost as good as the v700. I've seen side by side comparisons on the web with the 3200 and V700 and they were pretty close. The main drawback of the 3200 is that there is no ICE.</p>

<p>There is no magic formula for scanning color negative film. I've had good results with Epsonscan, Nikonscan and Silverfast, and at other times, results that make me bang my head on the wall.</p>

<p>Once you find the "formula" (right settings), your batting average will go up. The key is <strong>consistency</strong>. Each brand and type of film behaves differently. Settle on one or two emulsions that meet your needs, such as ISO 100 for landscapes and ISO 400 for people, flash and travel. Pick films that you can get when you need it and in the quantity you need. That usually means from a large store via the internet. To save on shipping, you'll want to get at least 10 rolls at a time - the more the better.</p>

<p>Get a good grey card, and possibly one of the Color Checker charts, which you can put into one of the frames when you shoot. You'll need to do this for each type of lighting you encounter, or for critical results. You can then click on the grey card in the scanner and get a reasonably good white balance, then use the same settings to scan the other images. With a Color Checker chart, you can use InCamera (or other software) to create a one-off profile, which balances colors over the entire spectrum, including shadows and highlights.</p>

<p>Slide film is a <strong>lot </strong>easier. Once you establish a profile, you can use it with any E-6 film - the dyes are the same, just in different proportions. Then "What you see is what you get." Subsequent adjustments are relatively minor.</p>

<p>For best results, your entire work flow needs to be standardized. Your monitor needs to be calibrated (usually every month or so) with a colorimeter or spectrophotometer. You need to use purchased or developed print profiles for each printer and type of paper you use. Images processed on a calibrated monitor can be printed commercially with good results. Just specify "No Adjustments" when you submit them to the lab.</p>

<p>That done, you need to practice, practice, practice.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rob,<br>

I am afraid William and many others are spoilt my infinite riches in this site! They can afford the latest and very best in equipment. I take a much more measured approach to my photography knowing my budget and limitations. I am using a scanner that is perhaps similar to yours, the Epsom 4490. I have only just started to shoot Velvia as a serious hobby. Compared to other slides it does appear to be fussy with the pro edition of Vuesoft. I read many a forum post from almost a decade ago stating how wonderfully Velvia scanned. I have not had similar luck with mine but continue to work with it. I find that the slides that are perfectly exposed and tack sharp offer excellent scanning. The underexposed slides or where a mixed scene had been caught. the blacks are a little less visible. However, I tend to only do the scanning through Vuesoft and perhaps very slight infrared cleaning. All the rest would be done at photoshop level.<br>

I am finding that Kodak Elitechrome seems to scan a little better.</p>

I also use the Epson 4490, and my results mirror Rob's. I get decent scans from 35mm slides of all types, 120 color negative, 120 Ektrachrome transparency, and all black & white films. But 35mm color negative scans usually suck. I will try that Colorneg plug-in.

<p>"They can afford the latest and very best in equipment."</p>

<p>Yeah, if only. I use two scanners, a Microtek Artixscan 1800f for MF and a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II, both of which are long in the tooth. My first scanner, now gathering dust, was an HP flatbed with a transparency scan adapater. It sucked, hence my post. I shoot mainly digital now but still do some occasional 35mm work and scanning of old 6X6 negatives. I like the Negafix feature of the Silverfast AI software, which helps in getting good scans of negatives. On the occasions when the scans are crappy, I've found it has more to do with film quality, not to mention occasional screw ups behind the camera.</p>

<p>It's easy to blame the software, but if you're getting consistently bad scans (seeing a sample might help us out here), it's time to look at the hardware...</p>

<p>Rob, I have an even older Epson scanner for 4x5, and a newer 4490 for quick MF scans (all scans in my portfolio are from either of these two scanners, except the 35mm stuff, which is from an old Canoscan dedicated scanner). It is probably not the scanner, but how you are using it. </p><p><br></p><p>For color negatives, I get good results by scanning them as positives, then inverting and correcting the color in Photoshop. I find the scanners don't understand the various colors of the base in negative films.<br></p>

<p>You need a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II scanner, or Coolscan 9000. Both analyze the orange mask on the negative (which varies between brands and film types - unfortunately no standard exists), and will give good color. I have both, and the 5400 II seems to do a better job, but they are both good.<br>

I had the 3200, now have the 4870, and tried the V700. Neither is significantly better with 35mm film than your 3200. A dedicated film scanner like the 5400 or 9000 however, is much noticeably better.</p>