The Vuescan discussion thread...

trypdal said:
Could you show a phone snap of the negatives, backlit against a uniform white background?
Click to expand...
20220323_142440 by Madison S, on Flickr

Sorry I took so long, everything went a bit Pete Tong yesterday.
dmb said:
Most scanning software, vuescan included, has the option to choose the %s of a scan that will be set to full black and full white. Setting that too high can give an effect like on the lighter scan where dark areas on the sweater stand out as is lumping several levels together as full black. Not cropping the scan area to only include exposed areas can also cause the software's exposure algorithm to misbehave.
Click to expand...

I watched a couple of videos suggesting I include some of the rebate between frames, but the first image above was without any rebate at all. I also set the 'colour' tab to Neutral, and tried the None setting as well.
 
They look Under exposed to me. and slightly under developed.
With black and white scans including the rebate serves no useful purpose.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
They look Under exposed to me. and slightly under developed.
With black and white scans including the rebate serves no useful purpose.
Click to expand...

I must confess I did think they were a little thin (wish I was). Development wise I did what I would normally do, same agitation schedule, same type of agitations.
Wonder if my developers starting to die.

As for including the rebate, I did wonder if it'd make a difference but the RandomYouTuberDudeTM was adamant that it does. I shall, however, be happy to stand corrected since I trust you guys in all things filmy.
 
VirtualAdept said:
I must confess I did think they were a little thin (wish I was). Development wise I did what I would normally do, same agitation schedule, same type of agitations.
Wonder if my developers starting to die.

As for including the rebate, I did wonder if it'd make a difference but the RandomYouTuberDudeTM was adamant that it does. I shall, however, be happy to stand corrected since I trust you guys in all things filmy.
Click to expand...

Development looks fine, edge markings are distinct, normally those come out mid way between dark and light when correctly developed. Cropping colour negs to include ONLY the inter-frame space can be used to set the correct filtration to compensate for the orange background that is there as a built in filter for RA4 wet printing. Yes they do look a bit underexposed and that can lead to blocking up of blacks. Adjusting the allowed % of black point to very low, 0.1% or even 0 might help. That adjustment is not an option in 'None' setting for colour balance in Vuescan.
 
Longer development increases both density and contrast. It is difficult to distinguish if this is a part of the problem when they are well under exposed which seems to be about a stop and a half.
Very thin negatives give very little tonal range to work with, and are inherently more difficult to print. (And scan).
 
Thats a touch worrying then, as a roll of hp5 I shot in the same camera came out under exposed, but very obviously so.
 
What camera?, what battery in the exposure meter?, is it the correct one.?
Have you checked the exposure setting against another camera,. Exposure meter or phone app?
Under exposure is unlikely to be a shutter problem, over exposure might be.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
What camera?, what battery in the exposure meter?, is it the correct one.?
Have you checked the exposure setting against another camera,. Exposure meter or phone app?
Under exposure is unlikely to be a shutter problem, over exposure might be.
Click to expand...

EOS 30 using the built in meter, no EV adjustments.
Used both P and AV modes.
Batteries in it aren't super fresh, so I suppose thats my first port of call.
 
@VirtualAdept also worth a check that exposure compensation is actually set to 0, on EOSs of that vintage it did not automatically reset when you turned off the mode dial.
 
VirtualAdept said:
I've got one of the light meter apps, so I'll follow your advice when I shoot it next and make a note of the results
Click to expand...
Can you not just try it without a film in the camera? If it sets the iso automatically you can usually override that to set a fixed iso.
 
Peter B said:
You're not alone with things like that. I once turned my Bronica SQ on its side to take a shot in "portrait" orientation. :eek::eggface::asshat:
Click to expand...
I may have done the same with my RB67... with the rotating back... also, I only have the WLF for it... :confused:
 
Ok, so across various ISO settings, the camera was within a whisker of what the light meter app on my phone suggested, and I've found that to be pretty spot on in the past.
 
VirtualAdept said:
Ok, so across various ISO settings, the camera was within a whisker of what the light meter app on my phone suggested, and I've found that to be pretty spot on in the past.
Click to expand...
was the film out of date?
 
VirtualAdept said:
This one was by about six months, the hp5 that underexposed a long way wasn't
Click to expand...
I would expect a black and white film to be fine even a couple of years out of date, unless kept hot or damp.
 
I'll be scanning a ColorPlus film that AG devved for me, shortly. I plan to scan it "normally" with Vuescan, but I'd also like to experiment with inverting by hand, and/or with CNMY. Vuescan allows me to choose multiple ways to get the scans, so I can get both JPEGs and TIFFs, but AFAIK both would have the same inversion applied. To get a "positive". unconveted flat scan, I'd have to change the settings and scan again. :(

However, I think I can also choose a RAW scan. If that really is what it says, I presume the image would not be inverted. @StephenM as the only person I know for sure who uses RAW from Vuescan, have yu ever edited direct from the RAW file, and if so, can you confirm, please? Also I think @Andysnap also edited RAW scans (with LR IIRC) back in the day. Any advice, Andy? I'd presumably be using Capture One Pro, then Affinity Photo, then CNMY (if I actually get that far).

Thanks fort any advice...
 
ChrisR said:
I'll be scanning a ColorPlus film that AG devved for me, shortly. I plan to scan it "normally" with Vuescan, but I'd also like to experiment with inverting by hand, and/or with CNMY. Vuescan allows me to choose multiple ways to get the scans, so I can get both JPEGs and TIFFs, but AFAIK both would have the same inversion applied. To get a "positive". unconveted flat scan, I'd have to change the settings and scan again. :(

However, I think I can also choose a RAW scan. If that really is what it says, I presume the image would not be inverted. @StephenM as the only person I know for sure who uses RAW from Vuescan, have yu ever edited direct from the RAW file, and if so, can you confirm, please? Also I think @Andysnap also edited RAW scans (with LR IIRC) back in the day. Any advice, Andy? I'd presumably be using Capture One Pro, then Affinity Photo, then CNMY (if I actually get that far).

Thanks fort any advice...
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

The Negative Lab Pro website has a guide on how to export a RAW DNG file using Vuescan: https://www.negativelabpro.com/guide/scanning/#vuescan-raw-dngs

I use Lightroom, and I can edit the DNG directly in that (although I use Negative Lab Pro to invert it [or Grain2Pixel in Photoshop previously]). I would expect that other applications would allow the same editing of the RAW file.

Don't forget that you can save your settings in Vuescan, so you can easily switch between methods as required.
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
Hi Chris,

The Negative Lab Pro website has a guide on how to export a RAW DNG file using Vuescan: https://www.negativelabpro.com/guide/scanning/#vuescan-raw-dngs

I use Lightroom, and I can edit the DNG directly in that (although I use Negative Lab Pro to invert it [or Grain2Pixel in Photoshop previously]). I would expect that other applications would allow the same editing of the RAW file.

Don't forget that you can save your settings in Vuescan, so you can easily switch between methods as required.
Click to expand...
Thanks Nige. From that guide, it looks like there may be issues with the way I was hoping to do it. It says, set Media to Image (rather than Negative), include a small amount of the negative in the Preview, and Lock Exposure. I'd guess that the first step might be optional for a RAW file (it shouldn't be doing post-process steps IMHO); the second step might be OK, but Lock Exposure is not what I'd want for a "normal" scan. I'll experiment, but I might have to do the normal scan, identify a strip of 6 with some useful candidates for the experiment and re-do that strip with the different settings.

The film is nothing special, just a test film for the gift Pentax P30, so worth an experiment or two!
 
ChrisR said:
Thanks Nige. From that guide, it looks like there may be issues with the way I was hoping to do it. It says, set Media to Image (rather than Negative), include a small amount of the negative in the Preview, and Lock Exposure. I'd guess that the first step might be optional for a RAW file (it shouldn't be doing post-process steps IMHO); the second step might be OK, but Lock Exposure is not what I'd want for a "normal" scan. I'll experiment, but I might have to do the normal scan, identify a strip of 6 with some useful candidates for the experiment and re-do that strip with the different settings.

The film is nothing special, just a test film for the gift Pentax P30, so worth an experiment or two!
Click to expand...
I think the lock exposure setting is so that a full roll / strip of negatives will be rendered the same, rather than individually. I only use the lock exposure checkbox on the first scan.
 
The input tab on VueScan is where to select using a saved raw file rather than the scanner. Having done that, all normal settings for curves, film type and whatever are available - you're scanning as per usual just skipping using the scanner.

I've probably had dumb luck passing the DNG file into my software, as, as far as I can recall, it simply worked. That said, my software is (from choice) old. I usually save raw files simply to let me play with the normal settings, as I have found that film type can have a significant effect - some black and whites scan better if I say that the film is a colour negative, usually Ektar I think.

I do start with one possibly significant advantage as I'm using large format. It takes a hit in scan times (and file sizes), but I don't have to worry overly about detail and resolution.
 
Well, I'm completely boonswaggled! Trying to scan a colour film for the first time in a couple of years (Kodak ColorPlus 200). I was expecting the colours to be a little bit "off", but everything's away by a country mile! Brightness, colour, contrast. Generic colour was rubbish, none of the Kodak presets were even close, best I can get is a Konica preset and that's still awful

I also scanned a frame as a RAW (insisted on .tiff rather then .dng). Opened it in Affinity Photo, fund the Develop Persona, but realised I had no idea what to do next. Apparently there's a Curves adjustment in the Tones Panel (I was planning to try the trick of inverting the curves in each of the 3 colour channels) but I couldn't find it. Now I remember why I usually get Filmdev to do my colour film!

OK, clearly I do need to do a lot more reading about Affinity Photo, which I've only really used to make panos. But I should be able to do better with Vuescan, surely?
 
Not being a colour photographer, I don't worry too much about getting exact matches with reality; in fact, I've never been dissatisfied with any of my scans from colour negative film. I only use Fuji NPS160 (or a similar name - you can tell colour isn't my metier).

I would expect scans from colour negative to be always at least close to reality. Is Fuji somehow easier, or am I just either very lucky or have abysmally low standards?
 
In the Vuescan Updates, thread, @Terrywoodenpic has achieved much better results than I have:
Terrywoodenpic said:
As I have not scanned any colour negs recently with Vuescan and my old Minolta DualScan 2.
And as people are saying in this thread that they are having trouble getting the colours right, I thought it time to give it a try with the latest version.
The first neg that came to hand was one of my late wife's shots of my Grand daughter taken over twenty years ago on her Olympus X2 using Kodak Gold 400 v2.
it is rather soft and grainy but that was the way it was.

This is straight out of vuescan using the appropriate settings. however it is about a 50% crop of the original, using vuescan.
Both have been reduced for the web in Photoshop with one spotted with the healing rush and a border added. but no colour corrections at all.



The colour is rather better than the enprint made for her at the time.



View attachment 349595View attachment 349596
Click to expand...
I don't know if the better results were affected by Gold 400 v2 being one of the available presets?
 
ChrisR said:
Well, I'm completely boonswaggled! Trying to scan a colour film for the first time in a couple of years (Kodak ColorPlus 200). I was expecting the colours to be a little bit "off", but everything's away by a country mile! Brightness, colour, contrast. Generic colour was rubbish, none of the Kodak presets were even close, best I can get is a Konica preset and that's still awful
Click to expand...
OK Overnight I have realised, this was a test film, it might not be the scanning/scanner/Vuescan that's entirely at fault here (in fact, I've only scanned the first few frames, and I was having some shutter problems at that time). Will investigate further.
 
Well that's a bit weird. I came back to continue scanning this film, and all was well! Seems the Plustek was having a sulk; it does do odd things from time to time (this particular example, showing increasing problems perhaps related to its age).

Bad scan:

2203EP30CN02 Bad scan.jpg

Good scan:

2203EP30CN37 Good scan.jpg

Both Pentax P30 in Program mode, SMC Pentax A 50/1.7 on A setting.

So, I just have to remember, when the scanner does something really weird, try again tomorrow!
 
I'm new to talkphotography, so please be gentle...

I'm using VueScan 9.7.87 on 64-bit Windows 10 to scan colour negatives from a Nikon Coolscan IV equipped with an SA-21 strip film adapter. Most of the time it works well, but occasionally I need to intervene and adjust the frame alignment manually.

While experimenting with the alignment issues, I have tried adjusting the "Frame offset:" value on the "Input" tab. On the "Prefs" tab, I have the units set to "mm" for the "Crop units:" and for the "Printed units:" but have concluded that these unit settings probably do not apply to the "Frame offset:" value. In fact, I am unable to figure out what units are used for the offset. The default value is 0 (zero) and clicking the up-arrow once changes 0 to 1.104. I imagined that clicking the down-arrow once would return value to 0, but it changes it to 0.307 and clicking it a second time changes it to -0.489. This is counter-intuitive.

I have no idea what the units are and using the up and down arrows yields unexpected results. In addition, if I try to manually edit the offset value, VueScan often changes what I have typed to another value that is close, but not identical. I guessed that the offset values might be handled internally in inches, but converted to mm for display, but that does not seem to be the case as far as I can figure.

Can anybody shed any light on how "Frame offset" actually works? I have asked Ed Hamrick for his comments and he got back to me really quickly. However, Ed tends to respond with short single-sentence explanations, and I'm still none the wiser.

Many thanks.
 
leicray said:
I'm new to talkphotography, so please be gentle...

I'm using VueScan 9.7.87 on 64-bit Windows 10 to scan colour negatives from a Nikon Coolscan IV equipped with an SA-21 strip film adapter. Most of the time it works well, but occasionally I need to intervene and adjust the frame alignment manually.

While experimenting with the alignment issues, I have tried adjusting the "Frame offset:" value on the "Input" tab. On the "Prefs" tab, I have the units set to "mm" for the "Crop units:" and for the "Printed units:" but have concluded that these unit settings probably do not apply to the "Frame offset:" value. In fact, I am unable to figure out what units are used for the offset. The default value is 0 (zero) and clicking the up-arrow once changes 0 to 1.104. I imagined that clicking the down-arrow once would return value to 0, but it changes it to 0.307 and clicking it a second time changes it to -0.489. This is counter-intuitive.

I have no idea what the units are and using the up and down arrows yields unexpected results. In addition, if I try to manually edit the offset value, VueScan often changes what I have typed to another value that is close, but not identical. I guessed that the offset values might be handled internally in inches, but converted to mm for display, but that does not seem to be the case as far as I can figure.

Can anybody shed any light on how "Frame offset" actually works? I have asked Ed Hamrick for his comments and he got back to me really quickly. However, Ed tends to respond with short single-sentence explanations, and I'm still none the wiser.

Many thanks.
Click to expand...
Interesting question! I'm not sure I've ever seen "Frame offset", so maybe it's limited to a subset of scanners... goes off to check...

In my copy, also 9.7.87 running on a Mac and connected to a Plustek 7500i, I can see no sign of a "frame offset" setting in the Input tab. However, I can see "Auto offset" in the Crop tab; it's a check box and is ticked, though I don't remember setting it.

What is "Frame offset" supposed to do?

BTW I usually set the frame alignment manually; with my Plustek it seems surprisingly variable. Sometimes this means adjusting each border, but generally if you hover the mouse near the centre of the frame (cursor changes), you can grab it and move it slightly sideways or up and down as a whole.

I have seen variants of the sort of behaviour with numbers that you describe, particularly up then down not getting you back to the same place. I agree it's annoying!

Also BTW Raymond, welcome to TP and to the very best bit, F&C!
 
I'm not sure but I think frame offset determines the place the first starts to scan from.
 
Never seen this on any of my scanners Online manual says

Input | Frame offset​

This option sets an offset for the start of the each frame on a film strip on the Nikon LS-30, LS-40, LS-2000, LS-4000, LS-8000, LS-9000 scanners, the Canon FS4000 when the strip film adapter is used, and the SprintScan 120 when the Medium Format adapter is used.

Use this option if there is some leader on the film strip, or if you’re scanning panoramic frames and need to scan what would otherwise be the gap between 35mm frames. This option can be either a positive or negative number.

The units for this option are normally millimeters, but this can be changed with the Prefs | Crop units option.

Standard Option: This option is displayed when the scanner is capable of frame offsets.
 
Thank you for the responses.

@RaglanSurf and @dmb are absolutely correct. "Frame offset" is an option only for a small number of scanners, one of which I happen to use. The value that is entered determines the location of the start of a frame, if adjustment is required.

The problem that I have described will probably only make sense to those who have tried to adjust the offset for one of the supported scanners.

I tried again the this afternoon to approach the problem by carefully deconstructing the individual steps. Instead, VueScan started inserting random numbers into the “Frame offset” value field while I’m trying to insert values from the keyboard.

My brain is beginning to hurt.
 
ChrisR said:
Vuescan problem?


I recently spotted a problem with some of my scans on the Plustek 7500i, using Vuescan Pro (version 9.7.76 initially). I had scanned a roll, and printed off a few candidates, preparatory to posting on twitter (my resolution this year). Close inspection of one print showed some really odd vertical line artefacts near some high contrast edges:

View attachment 345569

Blow up of image section

I’ve been in correspondence with Ed Hamrick, the author of Vuescan. He asked me to try older versions. So far we have established that the problem was certainly occurring early last year:

View attachment 345570

(When I first saw this feather image, I was very confused, but decided it must have been some sort of weird ice effect!)

The last version I could find that did NOT show the problem was 9.4.67.

Since my Plustek started to be a bit unreliable registering second passes (resulting in weird, sort-of-double-exposure scans), I have been scanning at twice the desired resolution and using the “reduce by 2” option in the output tab. Specifically, I usually want 2400 samples per inch scans, so I’ve been scanning at 4800 spi.

We have established that the problem occurs:
  • at 4800 reduced by 2
  • at 4800 not reduced
  • at 7200 reduced by 4 (which produces both vertical and horizontal artefacts)
  • at 4800 reduced by 4 (which only produced vertical artefacts)
The problem does not occur:
  • at 7200 not reduced
  • at 3600 not reduced
  • at 3600 reduced by 2
So all that is pretty weird. IMHO the problem is likely due to a change in the reduction/interpolation algorithm that allows non-native resolutions etc, but that is speculation and un-confirmed.

At the moment all is quiet from Ed; I haven’t heard if it’s my problem or Vuescan’s (I did do a scan with a trial version of Silverfast 8, but it didn’t allow me to select 4800, which I think is NOT a native resolution for the Plustek). I have just asked him a follow-up question.

My last roll I scanned as I used to, ie a 2400 spi scan with two passes, and it worked OK, so I may do that again today.

So, my advice? If you have been scanning with Vuescan Pro in recent years using non-native resolutions or the size reduction option, I would go back and look closely at some of your scans. These artefacts are generally not very noticeable at first glance (the feather above was an exception), generally just giving a feeling of surprising softness to the image. Look particularly for edges at a slant. I have found the problem in all sorts of images once I looked more closely!





I will keep you informed.
Click to expand...
And, nearly 3 years later, an email from Ed Hamrick this morning:

"We're reaching out to you today because we've just released VueScan 9.8.31, an update that directly addresses and resolves an issue that some of our users have encountered with the OpticFilm 7500i and OpticFilm 7600i scanners.

"A number of users reported experiencing unwanted vertical stripes when scanning at 7200 dpi with the OpticFilm 7500i and OpticFilm 7600i. After thorough investigation, we identified that this was due to an improper setup of SDRAM refresh within these scanners. We've tackled this problem in the latest update, ensuring that your high-resolution scans come out perfectly, just as you'd expect."

TBH I'm not sure that problem description exactly fits the evidence I adduced above, but still, it's impressive that they've finally found a fix and let me (and, presumably, others) know about it.

BTW I had not realised when I made my scans that 4800 samples per inch scans are actually scanned at 7200 spi and then interpolated to 4800 spi (likewise 2400 spi is actually scanned at 3600 spi and interpolated). I was going to write "software-interpolated", but I realised that I don't know whether software or some sort of firmware does it. I found this out doing some Raw scans of slide films last year, and since then I've been scanning at 3600 spi rather than 2400. The problem with registering on second passes that caused me to go down the route described above, seemed to no longer happen on my 7500i, touch wood!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top