Re: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan

[Michael Moore <miguelmas@qwest.net>]

Jim: I have a Minolta Scan Elite which I use for scanning color negs... I
don't use VueScan, just the Minolta software, but the way I take my scans
into PShop is the key to my success... I had the same problem with
apparently flat scans as well, until I started to scan the neg directly into
PShop as a linear file, this means that your scan software does not make the
reversal to give you a positive image... what you want is to have the full
blown neg with all its info come directly via TWAIN in PShop... you then do
an Image>Adjust>Invert, which will give you a positive image... the ones I
get at this stage are all too bright and apparently flat, but when I go to
Inage>Adjust>Levels and adjust the sliders, or as I recently discovered, use
the droppers to set my white, black and mid points, the picture pops almost
magically into adjustment... A good book on all this is Photoshop 5 & 5.5
for Photographers by Barry Haynes and Wendy Crumpler, published by New
Riders. Costs about $55 (less at Amazon) It explains from a photographers
point of view how to use PShop and has good coverage on color calibration
and scanning as well as using Levels and Curves. Good Luck, hope this helps.

Mike M.

Jim Sharp wrote:

> I have a Minolta Scan Dual I purchased recently, mostly with the thought
> of using it with color negative film for web work. It was inexpensive
> and I assumed it would be adequate for my intended use. I have been
> using Vuescan with it and have been basically pleased with how it's
> worked out with one exception. - Color saturation.
>
> It seems no matter what I try my scans come out "flat" for lack of a
> better word. They just don't seem to have much color,  yet the negatives
> are fine when printed using a standard photographic process.
>
> I can fix this to a large degree in Photoshop, but it's tedious and
> difficult to keep the color balance correct, especially with skin tones.
> No matter what I try, even a low $$ photographic reprint still looks
> much better to my eye.
>
> I'm pretty new to all this and I can't help but think there is something
> basic I'm missing... Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> --
> Jim