Scanning PORTRA 160 VC

[frank_gary]

<p>I have been having trouble scanning some portra negative film. I am using vuescan and a Canon 9000F. When vuescan is set to use negative film the scans come out pale with low saturation and poor colors, if set to scans an image of the red channel is greatly exaggerated. You can see this in the attached images. When vuescan is set to scan is a negative I am using the embedded profile for portra film. I'm not sure if the issue is related to vuescan doing a poor job correcting for the negative film or if there's something else going on what are your opinions? I've also attached a digital image taken under the same conditions to demonstrate that the issue was not lighting or bad settings. My reason for shooting the Colorchecker is that it would help me get a calibration setting for lightroom that I could as a good starting place for my images. <br>

<img src="http://garysnaps.smugmug.com/Other/Pnetposts/NIKON-D803482652DSC3027/1224910623_YCdmH-M.jpg" alt="" /><br>

ColoChecker Shot with D80<br>

<img src="http://garysnaps.smugmug.com/Other/Pnetposts/Portra-160VC-Image/1224902983_2StAF-M.jpg" alt="" width="295" height="450" /><br>

Portra 160VC Scanned as Image<br>

<img src="http://garysnaps.smugmug.com/Other/Pnetposts/113Scan-110319-0027/1224899044_jF9uL-M.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Portra 160VC Scanned as Negative</p>

[starvy]

<p>VC as a film tends to favour red and yellow in my experience.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Are you doing a preview and then setting the controls? I have scanned this film for years (although there is a newer version in the last few years that I haven't yet tried--have a lot of the old stuff in the freezer) and have had no issues. If my profile was off for the newer film, I would just adjust my settings for the final output.</p>

<p>I don't use Vuescan or that scanner, but can you not adjust things to get a proper scan? I can scan cross processed film, positive to negative, on the negative settings and either put out a high contrast image or one that looks like it was neg film, so setting your output controls should be able to get a good scan for you.</p>

[frank_gary]

<p>I'm sure that I could adjust the settings but to be quite honest I'm not sure where to begin. I've been using mostly slide film scanned as image and saved as a digital negative so all my adjustments were in lightroom or photoshop. What I'm not sure of is if my exposure setting might be off or if there is a brightness setting that needs to be fiddled with. Or on the other hand maybe I need to spend quality time in photoshop I really don't know. </p>

[john_a5]

<p>Photoshop wont save a bad scan, it can make it look better, but you will be really stressing the pixels, as it were. But harsh transitions and banding are generally a side effect. You might get a reasonable image, but it certainly wont be optimum from your negatives.</p>

<p>Do you have "eye dropper" tools in Vuescan? In a case like this, you could use your "black" eyedropper on your black square and that should bring the preview to a density that is closer to what you want. The "white" or "gray" eyedropper could also help--sometimes these things hurt an image, but it should work with a chart like this. Once you get the scan density in the ballpark, you can start to make the adjustments to get it where you want it.</p>

<p>If you don't have eyedroppers, you can use the "levels" in the histogram of the preview scan to adjust--or the curve if you don't have the "levels" type control--I just don't know what tools you have. Anyway, in this case, I would drag the black point over so that the image gained density as a first step. Then, I would adjust the white point to get my white and then adjust the midtones with the middle point--this will require some moving back and forth with all points to find the optimum points for the negative. (These are the same things you would do even if you have the eyedropper tools, to refine and fine tune the scan parameters)</p>

<p>Scanners can make pretty good images from over or under exposed film ( I have an older portfolio piece that was made from film that looked clear to the eye!) So, you just have to play around. I always start with the black to get the density of the blacks in line, this will establish the anchor and give you a better place to start the rest of your adjustments.</p>

[wogears]

<p>The D80 shot is underexposed; the scan is overexposed. Have you tried the VueScan 'Advanced Workflow'? Have you adjusted the parameters in the 'Color' tab?</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Does the scanner come wioth Canon scan software and have you tried it?</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>When I look at the bottom scan, I see at the very bottom of that scan an area that appears to be properly exposed -- the table top? But most of the scan above it is washed out. And there is a clear demarcation between these two areas. If the actual scan is showing the same thing then something isn't set right. If it were me, I would look to find out why this is happening. Maybe the negative wasn't positioned correctly? The carrier isn't located exactly where it should be? If you can find out the answer to this, I'm thinking you'll probably find out why your scans are so washed out.</p>

<p>I am not familiar with the Canon 9000F, but by all accounts that I've read, it is a very good scanner, and I would have a hard time believing it can't handle Portra 160. I use an Epson 4990 for my Portra 160 scans, and it does an excellent job with no special sorts of correction required. I would expect the same performance out of the Canon, to be honest.</p>

 

[frank_gary]

<p>I believe I have found the problems. Vuescan was very worried about clipping blacks so I needed to set it to clip 1% of those (not to mention finding the correct graph to be looking at). Aside from that I was saving as a digital negative and when brought into Lightroom or Photoshop Camera Raw wants to set brightness to +50 which causes a lot to blow out. I have now built a preset that sets exposure, brightness, contrast and basically everything else to 0 along with applying a Camera Calibration that was built using the colorchecker program. I think it looks a lot better though I think I see a lot of grain or digital noise in the image as well. Does this look like a good starting point for going into photoshop to yall?</p>

<p><img src="http://garysnaps.smugmug.com/Other/Pnetposts/Portra-160VC-Image/1226153853_b4XSy-M.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="392" /></p>

[frank_gary]

<p>Ohh as for what is holding the chart it is a gloss bar stool. Lighting was provided by an SB28 pointed at the white ceiling at full power. Background is white seamless paper. I wouldn't read anything into the overexposure on the chair but of course things should be read of the chart. On the whole though I think I prefer scanning slides since I know at once if the problem whas my shot or my scanning.</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>A single mouse click in Photoshop curves - the white eye-dropper clicked on the white patch at the lower left - made an enormous difference.</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>Or would have if I had remembered to upload it.</p><div></div>