don_essedi

I thought there might be a chance of that on that roll due to the shooting conditions. After some testing, I think the 'dark and dingy' scans are due to the "output color space" being set to something other than "Device RGB", probably Prophoto which I use for some scanning. So, operator error. Rescanning the first example above this morning with output set to Device RGB resulted in a scan similar looking to the 2nd example. After converting both to positive, the results do not differ. I made raw scans with the settings Color Negative, Image, and Slide, then also scanned with the "Save With Film" set. The look of the scans may be different, but conversions of them with Color Perfect are very similar.

Yes, the sample is dark and dingy, in fact much of the roll is that way and I am not sure why, but underexposure seems part of the issue. The conditions: a massive thunderstorm was approaching in late afternoon. Normally the scans are not dark and dingy. Same roll

I can do both by selecting raw scan and also an inverted tiff 16 or 8, or jpeg, make all the settings available in Vuescan Pro I want, click 'scan' and both files are written. Or, I can do only the raw scan and load the raw file into the scanner and make the inverted file at a more convenient time, or a can load the file into sw whose purpose is to invert such scans into a positive. Just played with an old version (3.5) of Picture Window Pro and got a better conversion than in Photoshop, but the CF Systems plugin is better (click and it is done).

The Vuescan raw file isn't for display, but for archiving the negative as a digital file. For display, I load it into Photoshop and CF Systems' Color Perfect plugin (I assume Negative Lab Pro is used for the same purpose, but I haven't tried it yet), to get (to quote Digitaldog) "A scan that actually looks like the scan operator actually wants in the first place". In fact, at the same time I do the raw scan (both from the same pass), I can create a jpeg, or a tiff (16 or 8 bit) with all the adjustments necessary, including sharpening, color corrections, grain reduction and anything else, and send it to a printer, but instead I just make a small index file so I can see the positive in the Lightroom catalog because I own Photoshop and Lightroom and prefer to do post in those apps rather than any scanner software. The odds of there being a new scanner on the market better than my Nikon is about zero, however the odds of improvements in image editors is highly likely. No need to rescan, just load the raw file into the new improved image editor. If my scanner dies, I'll have to use a digital camera for 'scanning' 35mm film. Like sjmurray (above) every image in my portfolio is from a Vuescan raw file, as are all but one of mine in the NW forum (the one is in Snowjob and was shot with a Fuji X-e1 and a Minolta 24mm lens). Whether gamma 1.0 is the correct designation or not matters little to me. I'm looking to eliminate as much effort as possible in doing post on film files. Doing it on the example I posted (which only needs a few clicks on the gamma, lightness and shadow sliders in CP to finish it) means I would have to mess with elimiinating a magenta cast and some blown highlights in the white jacket, but I don't have those issues doing it my way.

The User Guide: VueScan User's Guide What is in the Guide is all I know about Vuescan. Appendix A, File Formats may be useful. I find Vuescan raw useful as a digital archive of the negative. The odds of buying a better scanner than the V is rather low these days, so what I have is what there will be. At the same time as producing the raw, I also create a small jpeg as an index image or "contact" file for reference. North Coast Photo makes good quality digital files.

I didn't post to this thread too defend Ed Hamrick's description of his sw, but to offer advice to the OP. FWIW, here's a vuescan raw file (reduced for display) and what resulted when it was inverted by the Color Perfect plugin, otherwise, no adjustments by me. raw Color Perfect

According to the User Guide "The image gamma value is 1.0 when there are two bytes (16-bits) per sample...Raw files saved with gamma 1.0 will look dark, but this is normal." My scanner hardware is a Nikon V which is 14 bit, its maximum bit depth. I know what you're saying and don't disagree. I've never worked with scanners that are commonly used by photo service shops (for example a Noritsu), but asking the shop for 16bit depth gamma 1 tiffs with no conversion to positive and no 'corrections', what they would produce is what Ed Hamrick calls a raw file.

Vuescan raw files are 16bit depth tiffs, gamma 1, without inversion to positive and without any scanner image settings applied. Ask scanning providers whether they can provide such scans and for how much. Vuescan itself is not necessary to produce such files, or, locate any film user groups in Minnesota and see if someone has a mf scanner and would do you a favor.

I don't carry a lot of kit and I don't like camera bags, either. I may have two cameras and an extra lens, plus the usual stuff -- cleaning supplies, whatever "tools" (such as a coin for some battery caps) are needed, a small lighted magnifier, a meter. They are carried in a soft sided insulated "lunch box" with an old t-shirt separating the cameras and lenses, with the tools etc in it in a zippered soft "pencil box". I have a very old belt pouch from my old packpacking kit that I used to hang from the suspension straps. containing little things that I'd rather not have to take the pack off to get to. I clip it to my belt. It easily holds a camera (like a Konica Hexar af), and a few items. The "lunch box" usually stays in the car. I've used them in the high desert in mid-summer without problem. No 'opportunist' is interested in a kids lunch box, unlike a carmera bag. I've never had it stolen.

I was referring to Karim's distinction between photographers and non-photographers. In the past I've responded the same way to distinctions made about 'artist' and 'non-artist' photographers. I take a photo because I want to see what captured my attention. Being concerned about the "technical aspects of photography", artistry, or even of being a photographer is unnecssary and irrelevant to taking pictures, at least for me. Regards.

I recognize I'm a "non-photographer" as I am only interested in taking pictures. This has been liberating. Thx.

You'll have to buy a lens, battery, and a card in order for it to take pics.

Problem regarding the Wikipedia definition of art is it is all about the artist, not the "artworks".

I would not like to see No Words become Critique. As it is NW is entertaining and pleasant.

Pittsburgh

I guess Leica makes the digital camera I want (and a couple lenses), but I'd rather pay down the mortgage with the money instead. Rather have the return of maybe six discontinued films than a digital back.

Or worse, a camera that critiques.