Dave1959
Scan comparison
By doing this, I basically vindicated my Epson v500 scanning workflow. At the far left, VueScan's automatic settings, with digital ICE and 10 passes. At center, Epson Scan's automatic scan, with digital ICE. At right, my standard workflow of 10-pass scan with VueScan stored as RAW, with conversion to positive via ColorNeg plugin in PhotoShop. No sharpening has been applied. All are scans of the same Ferrania Solaris FG-Plus 100 negative, which appears properly exposed and was shot with an Olympus IS-3 DLX camera.
My take:
1: VueScan did a good job with color correction considering there is no channel for Ferrania Solaris. This was using an old 3M film channel, likely to be closest to the current Solaris film. Sky is a proper sky blue, the clouds are white. The curve is funny, though, as much of the pic looks overexposed, but the duck's head looks black. Noise is very low. Wouldn't make a very good print, but might be correctable if enough info is present in the 16-bit TIF.
2: I'm not pleased with Epson Scan's version of this. Exposure/curve was much better than VueScan, but there's a definite magenta cast. Because it made only two passes (one was ICE), noise is very high. Would make a passable 4x6 print for sure with some color correction, wouldn't make as good a big print as 8+ megapixels would normally indicate.
3: Color is good, curves look properly chosen. ColorNeg has a channel for this film, and it was used. Sky is proper blue and smooth. Exposure looks correct, and noise is very low. Would make as good a print as this combination of scanner, film, and camera could do. Would certainly make a fine letter-sized print, especially with a little bit of unsharp mask. Easily the best of the three, and what I have been doing anyway.
Scan comparison
By doing this, I basically vindicated my Epson v500 scanning workflow. At the far left, VueScan's automatic settings, with digital ICE and 10 passes. At center, Epson Scan's automatic scan, with digital ICE. At right, my standard workflow of 10-pass scan with VueScan stored as RAW, with conversion to positive via ColorNeg plugin in PhotoShop. No sharpening has been applied. All are scans of the same Ferrania Solaris FG-Plus 100 negative, which appears properly exposed and was shot with an Olympus IS-3 DLX camera.
My take:
1: VueScan did a good job with color correction considering there is no channel for Ferrania Solaris. This was using an old 3M film channel, likely to be closest to the current Solaris film. Sky is a proper sky blue, the clouds are white. The curve is funny, though, as much of the pic looks overexposed, but the duck's head looks black. Noise is very low. Wouldn't make a very good print, but might be correctable if enough info is present in the 16-bit TIF.
2: I'm not pleased with Epson Scan's version of this. Exposure/curve was much better than VueScan, but there's a definite magenta cast. Because it made only two passes (one was ICE), noise is very high. Would make a passable 4x6 print for sure with some color correction, wouldn't make as good a big print as 8+ megapixels would normally indicate.
3: Color is good, curves look properly chosen. ColorNeg has a channel for this film, and it was used. Sky is proper blue and smooth. Exposure looks correct, and noise is very low. Would make as good a print as this combination of scanner, film, and camera could do. Would certainly make a fine letter-sized print, especially with a little bit of unsharp mask. Easily the best of the three, and what I have been doing anyway.