Author Topic: damn Vuescan, damn it to hell. (Read 17649 times)

This-is-damion · « **on:** January 18, 2012, 09:48:31 PM »

I hate it.

After a basic success today, every time I scan anything its giving me 66dpi images..... I have it set to 400dpi scan resolution, output to 4x6 Inch. Its not giving me that

What am I doing wrong?

Overall seems clumsy and generally a bit shit...I'm sure its not as Ive seen other people use it... must be me...

help me.....

sapata · « **Reply #1 on:** January 18, 2012, 09:53:24 PM »

Sorry I can't help you, I had it before and given up ... I thought it was a bit complicated so I went back to the old Epson software since then...

chris_n · « **Reply #2 on:** January 18, 2012, 10:04:37 PM »

same here, i'm getting better results with the epson software. i tried liking vuescan, but it just wasn't happening for me.

Late Developer · « **Reply #3 on:** January 18, 2012, 10:23:00 PM »

Hi Damion.

I'm no "expert" but I do use VueScan 100% of the time.

On the "Input" tab I use: 16 Bit Gray (sic) / Preview Resolution 800dpi / Scan Resolution 1600dpi
On the "Output" tab I use: Printed Size = Scan Size (rather than going for a specific output size.

It produces some big TIFF and RAW files (whichever you choose) but I edit the files produced using CS3 and then save a resized copy for web, etc - and sharpen as the final step.

It's a bit long-winded but it works for me and it means I have a large file if I feel like printing to A4, 24 x 16 or whatever....

Hope this helps.

Paul.

This-is-damion · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2012, 06:17:49 AM »

And are you able to scan the 12 frames at once then "scan from preview" I love that feature but seems a bit temprememtal.

I will try and replicate your settings and let you know how I get on.

Thanks

Late Developer · « **Reply #5 on:** January 19, 2012, 09:00:57 AM »

Putting a tick in the "Batch Scan" box will do the trick if you want to scan all negs on the carrier.

However, because I often shoot different images at different aperture/shutter speed settings and in different lighting conditions, I find the settings in the "Colour" tab don't get the best out of every photo. Therefore, I tend to do a "Preview" of everything then look at each image separately, adjust the settings in the "Colour" tab and scan each neg individually. Then again I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I don't trust technology any more than I understand how it works.....

Pete_R · « **Reply #6 on:** January 19, 2012, 03:24:38 PM »

Quote from: This-is-damion on January 18, 2012, 09:48:31 PM

I hate it.

After a basic success today, every time I scan anything its giving me 66dpi images..... I have it set to 400dpi scan resolution, output to 4x6 Inch. Its not giving me that

Stick with it, it's worth it when you find the settings that suit you.

Might be a coincidence but 6 x 66 is (almost) 400. It sounds like it's dividing the scan resolution by the size of the print. Not sure why it would do that but I agree with LD that setting the output to be 'scan size' should fix it. That's what I use.

Worth noting that Vuescan will configure itself for your scanner - that is, it only shows options that are applicable to your scanner so what you see may not be what someone else sees. I have two scanners and the options I get are very different with each. Doesn't help when someone else says 'I use...' and you can't see the option.

Pete_R · « **Reply #7 on:** January 19, 2012, 03:33:17 PM »

Quote from: Late Developer on January 19, 2012, 09:00:57 AM

However, because I often shoot different images at different aperture/shutter speed settings and in different lighting conditions, I find the settings in the "Colour" tab don't get the best out of every photo.

Your right Paul, but if you treat the scan as a raw file, to be processed later, then you're only interested in getting a full range of tones from the neg and it's possible to get Vuescan to do that without making adjustments for every neg. It will, in fact, adjust itself for each neg but it obviously won't take into account how YOU want the image to look. I have saved settings for a number of different types of scan. For instance, I have one for my Ridgeway images which are all shot on the same film in the same camera etc, but may have different density ranges. I don't adjust anything, just scan each neg and then do what I want with the file using PSP later.

Late Developer · « **Reply #8 on:** January 19, 2012, 04:34:55 PM »

Hi Pater.

That sounds interesting. Can you post any screen shots for the "standard" RAW settings. I use a V750 (not sure what you use) but I should be able to figure out with a bit of fiddling if you could get me started....

I actually like VueScan. Epson software is okay but I find VueScan easier, somehow....

Francois · « **Reply #9 on:** January 19, 2012, 04:49:08 PM »

There are only two things I like better on Vuescan: Deep scan for dense negatives and the size of the program which allows me to scan much bigger images without running into memory issues.

Pete_R · « **Reply #10 on:** January 19, 2012, 05:31:19 PM »

Quote from: Late Developer on January 19, 2012, 04:34:55 PM

That sounds interesting. Can you post any screen shots for the "standard" RAW settings. I use a V750 (not sure what you use) but I should be able to figure out with a bit of fiddling if you could get me started....

These are the color settings (which are the ones that are going to matter) for my Ridgeway pics (XP2 film) and for Ektar scans. Only real difference is the colour balance option is changed as I found the Auto levels worked better on Ektar. The values I use are pretty much default. If you want other settings, I'll post those too.

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2012, 07:29:07 PM »

I may be missing something, but, I downloaded VueScan 9.0.75 - trial only and it doesn't seem to have anything close to this level of adjustment. Perhaps I'm missing something. My results were not good!

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2012, 07:49:45 PM »

People, it's worth pointing out that you can export your Vuescan settings, save them to a file and then email them to someone so that they can import them at their end. Leon emailed me his and after 10 years (almost) of not liking Vuescan I'm finally warming to it. Have used it exclusively for the last year and it works for me.

BTW, this works Mac -> PC and the other way round.

Late Developer · « **Reply #13 on:** January 19, 2012, 08:11:36 PM »

1) Hi Francois. What's "deep scan" and how do you set it up, please? I'm intrigued......

2) Thanks Peter and Phil. My screen looks more like Phil's but I'm going to give Peter's settings a go. There is a profile for Ektar pre-loaded on (9.073) but my scans come out poo (technical term) using it.

3) Hi Ed - what is this magick of which you speak? Export settings.....save to file.....import at their end....? I am but a simpleton in this regard. Have you a diagram?

Francois · « **Reply #14 on:** January 19, 2012, 08:50:05 PM »

On version 9047, it's actually called Multi Exposure (they changed the name). What it does is make multiple passes to capture as much information as possible. Needless to say it's only visible in Expert (More) Mode

Pete_R · « **Reply #15 on:** January 19, 2012, 09:10:16 PM »

Quote from: Late Developer on January 19, 2012, 08:11:36 PM

2) Thanks Peter and Phil. My screen looks more like Phil's but I'm going to give Peter's settings a go. There is a profile for Ektar pre-loaded on (9.073) but my scans come out poo (technical term) using it.

I think that's for the original Ektar. Didn't work for me.

Pete_R · « **Reply #16 on:** January 19, 2012, 09:15:46 PM »

Quote from: Phil Bebbington on January 19, 2012, 07:29:07 PM

I may be missing something, but, I downloaded VueScan 9.0.75 - trial only and it doesn't seem to have anything close to this level of adjustment. Perhaps I'm missing something. My results were not good!

Phil, it's probably just that these are the settings your scanner supports. Vuescan adjusts itself to suit the scanner. What scanner are you using? Mine's a Epson 4990.

Also, there is an option to show more or less settings. A button at the bottom near the scan button. Maybe you have it set to show less options.

Edit: I would take your colour balance off manual and select auto, white balance or neutral. You'll probably get better results.

Pete_R · « **Reply #17 on:** January 19, 2012, 09:21:44 PM »

Quote from: Late Developer on January 19, 2012, 08:11:36 PM

3) Hi Ed - what is this magick of which you speak? Export settings.....save to file.....import at their end....? I am but a simpleton in this regard. Have you a diagram?

Put's on mask to look like Ed...

It's in the File menu. Load and save options. You can save all the current settings to a file and then pull them back later. I've got about 10 different set ups saved for different film types, document scanning etc.

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #18 on:** January 19, 2012, 10:50:57 PM »

Peter, I have the Epson V750

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #19 on:** January 19, 2012, 10:53:38 PM »

I think I need to spend a little more time taking a look at it - mine just looks very odd by comparison!

Pete_R · « **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2012, 08:33:55 AM »

Quote from: Phil Bebbington on January 19, 2012, 10:50:57 PM

Peter, I have the Epson V750

I guess that's the difference then Phil. Paul says his settings are more like yours (back up the thread a bit) and he uses the 750 as well so the 750 must have different options and these are reflected in how Vuescan configures itself.

Francois · « **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2012, 06:18:37 PM »

I never realized I could save profiles... sure beats re-checking everything every time!

samantha · « **Reply #22 on:** January 21, 2012, 10:34:41 AM »

Quote from: This-is-damion on January 18, 2012, 09:48:31 PM

I hate it.

After a basic success today, every time I scan anything its giving me 66dpi images..... I have it set to 400dpi scan resolution, output to 4x6 Inch. Its not giving me that

What am I doing wrong?

Overall seems clumsy and generally a bit shit...I'm sure its not as Ive seen other people use it... must be me...

help me.....

it will divide the res setting by the output size, giving you a smaller res. Bit retarded but to overcome it just make the res and output size as big as possible to get a good raw file, then do all other adjustments to size in Photoshop. I'm not a highly technical user but I love Vuescan. Far more control than the Epson software. I will never go back!

LT · « **Reply #23 on:** January 21, 2012, 10:35:48 AM »

I get the same options as Peter on mine - I use an old epson 3200 scanner.

I have to say I really like vuescan for the control it gives me over the scan. If I try to use silverthingy or the epson software I get totally terrible scans to work from. I have a range of scan settings saved for various situations - scanning prints, MF negs, LF negs, scan for web, scan for print, colour, black and white etc. I just goto file menu and select load options - then choose the right ones for the job.

The quality of Vuescan sharpening is also way beyond what is available using the other software - which I find creates too much grain and halo - they Vuescan version is very subtle.

My ONLY complaint about Vuescan is that every time I want to use it, there is a new version to download, and sometimes it isn't really better than the old one - something will change without being obvious and I have to relearn how to deal with it.

I think the key to successful vuescanning is to get to grips with the preferences options. once you do that, it becomes much easier to deal with.

My other vuescan tip (works for me anyway) is to include some neg rebate and some white area (outside the neg) in your scan selection. this way, it sets these as the 0 and 255 points and the neg is left with detail throughout (provided it has been dev'd and exposed properly), THEN tweak the histogram sliders to the edges of the graph. THEN deal with contrast in photoshop as you see fit. It makes sense to me to work this way as it is how I work in the darkroom - expose and dev film so there is plenty of available detail, then deal with contrast using split grade printing.

don't give up on it though, once it makes sense to you, vuescan is a really good option.

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #24 on:** January 21, 2012, 02:25:14 PM »

Quote from: Peter R on January 19, 2012, 09:21:44 PM

Put's on mask to look like Ed...

It's in the File menu. Load and save options. You can save all the current settings to a file and then pull them back later. I've got about 10 different set ups saved for different film types, document scanning etc.

Peter, cheers for answering this one and might I say how devilishly handsome you're looking today

BTW, this is the only second time since FW started 6 years ago that I knew something connected to photography that Francois didn't. I'm thinking of taking out a full page ad in B&W Photography to tell everyone how awesome I am

Francois · « **Reply #25 on:** January 21, 2012, 03:15:54 PM »

Feel free to basque in the glory

I won't mind a single bit...

It just goes to show how much I've used the thing in the past

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #26 on:** January 21, 2012, 03:28:36 PM »

OKay, Leon. You have encouraged me to go back and take another look and I seem to have done better this time - pondering whether to buy the thing. I have only ever used the Epson software and I find it okayish - perhaps it's time to jump in and spend the relatively modest sum that it costs as I reckon people might spot that watermark that the unregistered version imparts

Pete_R · « **Reply #27 on:** January 21, 2012, 03:43:18 PM »

Quote from: leon taylor on January 21, 2012, 10:35:48 AM

My ONLY complaint about Vuescan is that every time I want to use it, there is a new version to download, and sometimes it isn't really better than the old one - something will change without being obvious and I have to relearn how to deal with it.

Do you mean it automatically checks for a new version and then makes you download it? Mine doesn't even check.

Quote

My other vuescan tip (works for me anyway) is to include some neg rebate and some white area (outside the neg) in your scan selection. this way, it sets these as the 0 and 255 points and the neg is left with detail throughout (provided it has been dev'd and exposed properly), THEN tweak the histogram sliders to the edges of the graph.

A quicker way of achieving the same thing is to NOT include the rebate and set the black and white points to 0%. It then adjusts itself to accommodate the full range of tones in the image. Basically it's setting the points to the edges of the histogram as you're doing manually.

One feature in later versions that makes this easier is the Buffer option. This makes the program ignore a percentage of the scan area around the edges. This allows you to set the scan area to slightly larger than the negative but have the program set its black and white points using the image area only. I have the buffer set to 10% and that seems to be about right so I don't have to be too fussy about the crop but can rely on the program to still set the black and white points correctly.

LT · « **Reply #28 on:** January 21, 2012, 05:00:42 PM »

peter - I check for the updates myself - I paid for them, so feel its a bit ridiculous not to get them, but it does sometimes throw things out for a while.

I've had too many scans clip important info to allow vuescan to make decisions for me re setting black and white points. Maybe the newer versions are better at this - I'll give it a go again - Thanks for the tip. Not that it really matters for me as I only ever scan for web display these days.

Francois · « **Reply #29 on:** January 21, 2012, 09:44:28 PM »

Quote from: leon taylor on January 21, 2012, 05:00:42 PM

peter - I check for the updates myself -

You mean I've been hunting for this elusive checkbox all morning for nothing

This-is-damion · « **Reply #30 on:** January 22, 2012, 09:20:11 AM »

Im still in two minds, or just not yet experienced enough, I scanned some Tri-x negs from the Bronica and they scanned a treat - just lovely. Next I scanned some Fuji neopan 1600 and although they came out OK - they seemed a little wierd, lacking in contrast, slightly soft... Its possibly easier for me to show rather than try and explain, its still early and ive not yet had my coffee

Tri-x

Sid Paper by This-is-rice, on Flickr

Neopan

Paul Yeadon 2 by This-is-rice, on Flickr

gav paul 4 by This-is-rice, on Flickr

Does anyone scan neopan regulalry and have some settings they would like to share?

LT · « **Reply #31 on:** January 22, 2012, 09:30:43 AM »

they all good to me Damion? Maybe just need the white point setting to boost contrast slightly, but other than that ... look fine on my monitor?

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #32 on:** January 22, 2012, 10:15:10 AM »

Hey, Damion. They look fine on mine too!

This-is-damion · « **Reply #33 on:** January 22, 2012, 11:10:57 AM »

hhmmmm - maybe ill play around in PS a bit more.

just looked like they are lacking the punch of the top one.

Late Developer · « **Reply #34 on:** January 22, 2012, 11:21:52 AM »

Hi Damion.

Nothing that a "Layer/New Adjustment Layer/Levels" and a bit of tweaking couldn't bring forth - but they look like really nicely exposed negs - so you shouldn't have any problems.

Pete_R · « **Reply #35 on:** January 22, 2012, 11:37:47 AM »

Both the second and third ones have a small area of highlight (by the lamps) that reaches maximum value so the rest of the image looks a bit flat. Basically Vuescan has done what it needs to do. Now up to you to adjust as you would like.

This-is-damion · « **Reply #36 on:** January 22, 2012, 11:45:27 AM »

I've had a play and they look better already!

I admittedly need to work on my PS skills. Which leads on nicely to the next question.....

Paul - you mentioned "Layer/New Adjustment Layer/Levels" - Does that differ from adjusting the levels directly in the image ie. " Image>Adjustments>levels" Whats the benefit of making these adjustments on a new layer?

Late Developer · « **Reply #37 on:** January 22, 2012, 12:26:16 PM »

Quote from: This-is-damion on January 22, 2012, 11:45:27 AM

I've had a play and they look better already!

I admittedly need to work on my PS skills. Which leads on nicely to the next question.....

Paul - you mentioned "Layer/New Adjustment Layer/Levels" - Does that differ from adjusting the levels directly in the image ie. " Image>Adjustments>levels" Whats the benefit of making these adjustments on a new layer?

Hi Damion,

Either way, you're making exactly the same changes but with "Layers" you're making them to an additional layer that sits on top of the original file.

When you look at the "Layers" tab in PS (very bottom right hand corner) you'll see "Opacity" and "Fill" sliders. I am DEFINITELY not an expert on this but, if you fiddle with the aforementioned sliders between 0-100%, you will be able to adjust the amount of the Levels, Contrast/Brightness (or whatever additional layer you've created) to get it just how you want it before committing to the change by "Flattening" the image (Layer/Flatten Image).

You can build up as many Layers as you want - and return to any of them by clicking on the layer in the window bottom right corner - to tweak them individually and get the image just how you want it before settling on a final version and "Flattening".

You can Undo any change you make by clicking "Edit/Undo" if you decide you need to re-do whatever you did last. I don't think this works after you've hit the "save" button, though.

Incidentally, when you've finished all the other work and you're about to sharpen prior to posting, a separate layer for Sharpening is a good option as you can have a play with the opacity and fill sliders until you get the level of sharpening to your taste.

(There are, almost certainly, more experienced PS users on here who could provide mush more detailed and possibly better explanations but the above is my "cobbled-together over the years" Layers workflow).

Hope this helps.

Paul.

This-is-damion · « **Reply #38 on:** January 22, 2012, 12:40:38 PM »

Thanks Paul,

Makes sense! The only adjustments I usually make are levels but I can see how that would be needed on the odd occasion I really mess about with something.

You keep raising good points....Sharpening, I rarely do as i cant seem to make it look subtle...any tips on settings etc?

(might be easier if you can volunteer to simply do all my P/S work......)

Late Developer · « **Reply #39 on:** January 22, 2012, 01:25:04 PM »

Quote from: This-is-damion on January 22, 2012, 12:40:38 PM

Thanks Paul,

Makes sense! The only adjustments I usually make are levels but I can see how that would be needed on the odd occasion I really mess about with something.

You keep raising good points....Sharpening, I rarely do as i cant seem to make it look subtle...any tips on settings etc?

(might be easier if you can volunteer to simply do all my P/S work......)

Hi Damion,

Sharpening is a bit of a "black art" as there are so many ways to do it. Following some advice I received on this very forum, I believe, I use a two-step process which uses "Unsharp Mask". Tip: ALWAYS sharpen at 100% ("View/Actual Pixels").

Also, I tend to scan to TIFF or RAW rather than JPEG. Bigger files tend to be a bit more flexible with what you can do to them. You can also do the adjustments in 16/bit per channel before saving and then creating a JPEG by clicking "image/mode/8 bits" and then using the "file/save as" option.

1. First step (Filter/Sharpen/Unsharp Mask) is to move the "Amount" to 20 and the "Radius" to around 60 then click "OK"

2. Second Step (Filter/Sharpen/Unsharp Mask) - again - and move "Amount" to around 120 and the "Radius" to around 1.

I find that if I have the Radius above 1, the image starts to go a bit "gritty". As an average, I tend to use about 0.8.

If the image isn't pin sharp to start with, then I tend not to sharpen quite so much as all you're doing is creating higher contrast around the edges of the pixels for no good reason. PS Sharpening, to my non-technical mind, is just a trade-off between perceived sharpness and highly contrasty grain. Less, for me, is definitely more.

This is probably where Leon jumps in and tells us that this is why "proper" chemical prints have the ultimate edge over digi-ink-squirty-efforts. And he's 110% cast-iron right. But not all of us have (or can have) darkrooms or afford to have negatives printed by the guys at Silverprint - so life has to be full of such compromises.....

Incidentally, instead of "Unsharp Mask", many PS versions offer "Smart Sharpen" which seems a lot more subtle. Have a go with a variety of options. I know a number of photographers who swear by "High Pass" sharpening as that tends not to cause the "grittiness" I mentioned earlier.

There's an excellent and easily followable book called "Getting the Most From Photoshop" by Simon Joinson that has been a help to me in many respects. I just wish I had the time to read all of it and the techniques described.

This-is-damion · « **Reply #40 on:** January 22, 2012, 02:00:47 PM »

Cheers Paul.

That's been copied and pasted into a notes file!

Pete_R · « **Reply #41 on:** January 22, 2012, 02:42:28 PM »

Just to add to what Paul said. The major advantage of using an adjustment layer instead of working directly on the image is that no information gets lost in the changes you make. For instance, if you increase the contrast of the original, some detail that was previously some shade of grey may become pure white or black and any detail or texture is lost. If you then later reduce the contrast or maybe dodge or burn the area such that the tone becomes a grey again, the detail lost won't come back - it's gone. However, if you were to do the same thing using layers, the detail wouldn't be lost and would reappear.

Don't know if that's a good explanation or not.

Another way of thinking about it is, if you make changes to the original, any subsequent changes will only act on what remains after the first change. Whereas, if you use layers, the result is the sum of all the layer changes added together.

The upshot of this is, if you only make a single change, the result will be the same either way, but if you make subsequent changes, the results may be different.

Francois · « **Reply #42 on:** January 22, 2012, 02:47:05 PM »

Just to get back on the Neopan vs Tri-X thing, few people know that high sensitivity films usually have lower contrast than low sensitivity film. This could explain why you find the Neopan 1600 photos a bit soft.

On the other hand, for sharpening, if you're unhappy with most of the other simple sharpening techniques, you can always try this trick I use
http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=4087.msg47366#msg47366

A bit more complex at first... but I made mine into an action set for CS3 so it's almost just click & go.

edit: sorry, I got the wrong link...
Now corrected

Paul Mitchell · « **Reply #43 on:** January 22, 2012, 04:13:34 PM »

There are more documented ways to sharpen in PS than odds on winning the lottery... for what its worth my preferred method is...

Start by duplicating your image on to a new layer. Select that layer and go to Filter > Other > High Pass

Set it to between 1 and 2 pixels (1.5 I find OK)

Then set the layer blending to 'Overlay'

I find this method tends to sharpen the edges rather than large areas like the sky and it's non-destructive

Paul