Why does my color photos turn out like this?

[justin_ng1]

Why does my color photos turn out like this? I scan them myself using my 9000f mark 2, developed by the lab. This is a roll of portra 400, doesnt look like one to me. Lab scans look better to me

 

 

[ben_hutcherson]

What specific problems are you having, and in what way do the lab scans look "better?"

 

The low contrast look is typical of Portra, although from your scans I'd guess that you're a bit underexposed and dealing with a "thin" negative.

 

I will also say that I scanned a LOT of film on my Canon 2400F(in fact I only retired it late last year) and the 9000F is many generations improved. I was never happy with the results I got with film from the Canon software, but was able to get some very good scans using Vuescan. My memory is a bit hazy since it's been such a long time, but I don't recall the Canon software offering much in the way of settings or customization for scanning.

 

Also, I do notice a few dust spots in your first photo. Dust is a never-ending enemy with scanning. Once again, your 9000F is many times newer than my 2400F, but I now have two scanners with ICE, one of which is contemporary to my 2400F and one of which is newer. ICE refers to both a hardware implementation(infrared scanning channel) and the software algorithms to use that to clean up the scan. I never found FARE to be as good as ICE-the hardware part should be pretty darn similar, but I've thought for a while that Canon made a mistake in going their own way rather than licensing ICE from Kodak. Even with good infrared cleaning, though, you can still expect to spend some time in Photoshop with the spot healing brush.

[rodeo_joe1]

Your scans have a strong blue cast. You need to adjust the colour balance in the scan software or create a better preset profile.

 

Vuescan may help, but the best thing you can do is include a colour swatch and greyscale card in the first frame of the film. A simple RGB+CMY+4 shades of grey card is enough to get you in the ballpark of correct colour.

 

It'll also help the developing lab to get any proof prints you order the right colour as well.

 

Tip: Go to a home decorating shop and pick up some paint sample swatches. They're free!

Stick them to an A4 card and you have your colour reference.

Edited June 15, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

[rodeo_joe1]

I posted this in another thread on another topic, but this is the sort of colour swatch you ought to include on every film.

[SCL]

Assuming you mean color balance, Rodeo Joe hit it on the head. I switched to Vuescan Pro years ago from various software packages, and haven't looked back. But you do need to individually color balance each photo IMHO.

[Wouter Willemse]

Scans need editing, also for colour. You can do it in VueScan while scanning, or afterwards. But some work is needed practically always.

As said above, fixing the colour balance on each photo is quite necessary (VueScan does make that easy) and typically scans also need some sharpening afterwards to get the best out of them. It takes time to learn how to get the best from a scanner; it's not a push-a-button-and-go thing if you want good results.

[ben_hutcherson]

It takes time to learn how to get the best from a scanner; it's not a push-a-button-and-go thing if you want good results.

 

No truer words have ever been spoken.

 

EVERY scanner has its own quirks and it takes a lot of practice to get the best out of them.

 

I like Vuescan partially because I have three different brands of scanner in active use and I have a unified interface across all three, but getting the best out of each one is honestly an ongoing learning process for me.

 

The value of the preview function can't be underestimated, esp. a fast low(er) resolution preview. Granted that's all relative since it still take a couple of minutes to preview a 4x5 at 600 dpi. Still, regardless of the size I spend time tweaking each individual frame albeit I consider it even more important than in larger formats since there's a significant time investment in actually making the scan. I have spent 20 minutes getting a 4x5 set up just right before clicking the "scan" button(which takes about an hour when I include infrared cleaning). Even then, I've rescanned negatives/transparencies when the scan didn't match what I see on the light table.

 

I find scanning to be much more of a dark art and black magic than the technical process it should be :)

 

All of that said, though, I find that I ALWAYS get better results with my own scans than with the typical automated lab scans. Lab scans made by a skilled operator on a drum scanner or high end flatbed are a different story-they always do better than I do(both due to their skill and equipment) but then that's an expensive proposition.

Edited June 15, 2017 by ben_hutcherson

[tomspielman]

This is an extremely valuable forum. I like the color swatch idea.

[Rick Helmke]

I may be missing something here but both images look over exposed and washed out. I'm not sure this is a scanning issue so much as a simple exposure problem.

 

Rick H.

[rodeo_joe1]

The highlights are a bit blown, but the problem is mainly the colour.

 

I took the liberty of lowering the blue curve and boosting saturation on one of Justin's images.

 

 

Looks much better to me, with no change in exposure.