Trouble scanning slides

[sherwindu]

I am trying to scan in 35 mm slides on my Epson RX 500 scanner. My three
choices are basically no color correction, Epson's ICM control, or use color
control.
The first two options produce very dark scans, like snow scenes where the snow
looks grey. The color control option seems much better than the others,
although it
produces pretty flat looking colors. I am scanning at anywheres from 300 dpi,
and
up, with no improvement. The scans look better on the monitor, but appear
washed
out when printing them. I have been using Canon and Kodak heavy matte finish
paper. Is there something in this process that is contributing to poor color
rendition?
I am using ink from atlantic inkjet, who seem very reliable. The Epson RX 500
is a
color photo printer using 5 color and 1 black cartridges.

Sherwin D.

 

[bmoag]

Presuming you realize this machine will not yield high quality scans of 35mm
originals you need to give it all the help you can:
Make sure the slides are as clean as possible.
Scan at a much higher dpi than 300. Your really should scan 35mm originals
at 2400 dpi.
Use either Epson ICM or make minimal adjustments through the scanner driver.
You need to use a program to tweak the image after you scan it: this is true
of most scans of high quality film originals done with high end dedicated
film scanners.
Save your original scan in a lossless format like tiff.
Most simple photo programs have automatic settings that do a fair job of
normalizing color, contrast and saturation. Many ask you to point to
something in the picture that should be white. Roxio, Microsoft and other
publishers have programs of this ilk.
You can do much better yourself, but it requires learning how to use a photo
editing program and a little about color management. Adobe Photoshop
Essentials is the best place to start (you will probably never need to go
further).
Good luck.

 

[sherwindu]

Presuming you realize this machine will not yield high quality scans of 35mm
originals you need to give it all the help you can:
Make sure the slides are as clean as possible.
Scan at a much higher dpi than 300. Your really should scan 35mm originals
at 2400 dpi.

Didn't find this in the Epson Manuals, but in web documentation. I am now
using
it as my default dpi value.

Use either Epson ICM or make minimal adjustments through the scanner driver.

Epson ICM gave me dark views on my monitor. I don't think they translate
over
to the print, which is controlled by separate parameters. I found that the
display
gamma gave me the most control. For some reason, Epson does not allow a
value
of 2.0. It seems to default to 1.8, resulting in a darkened image on the
monitor. When
I increased it to the next higher value, 2.2, the image on the screen
appeared normal. For
a similar reason, I found selecting color control with a display gamma of 2.2
seemed to
produce the right amount of brightness on the prints, whereas their value of
1.8 produced
dark prints.

You need to use a program to tweak the image after you scan it: this is true
of most scans of high quality film originals done with high end dedicated
film scanners.
Save your original scan in a lossless format like tiff.
Most simple photo programs have automatic settings that do a fair job of
normalizing color, contrast and saturation. Many ask you to point to
something in the picture that should be white. Roxio, Microsoft and other
publishers have programs of this ilk.
You can do much better yourself, but it requires learning how to use a photo
editing program and a little about color management. Adobe Photoshop
Essentials is the best place to start (you will probably never need to go
further).

I played around with Arc Soft Photo Impression (which came with the printer),
and
found I could enhance the photo. In my case, brightness was the defect, but
using the
brightness correction seemed to wash out the colors. Maybe, some combination
with
the contrast would have offset this, but I'm not sure the result would have
been true to
the actual photo image. It seems like the display gamma control gave a more
accurate
change in the brightness.

Thanks for your inputs. I really fault Epson on this for not providing
adequate documentation
on the controls built into their scanner program and printer. They could
have at least explained
the effect of changing them, and which one is recommended, for what purpose.
Epson help
line did give me a better feel for what ICM is intended to do. I saw no
value in it, since my
monitor did not match any of their list and displayed the same no matter
which one I selected.
I think ICM is only useful to provide information to their programs to
display the images
properly on your computer monitor, and does nothing to improve the scan image
file itself.
With the above mentioned corrections, I am now seeing much better results.

Sherwin D.

 

[Winfried]

Thanks for your inputs. I really fault Epson on this for not
providing

adequate documentation

Read a book about digital darkroom work.
Do you blame the manufacturer of you car if you do not know how to
drive because you have no driving licence?

Another point.
You use Kodak and Canon papers and a third party ink.
Do you really believe that the default settings of an Epson will give
you good results?
The default settings are optimized for Epson papers and inks. Stay with
these until you know how to handle this scanner/printer-combo.

Winfried

 

[Peter D]

Another point.
You use Kodak and Canon papers and a third party ink.
Do you really believe that the default settings of an Epson will give
you good results?
The default settings are optimized for Epson papers and inks. Stay with
these until you know how to handle this scanner/printer-combo.

How do you know this to be so?
Thank you

 

[Winfried]

How do you know this to be so?
Thank you

OK, let's start with the basics.
There is no general norm for inkjet paper or ink.
Normally each printer-driver/ink/paper combination gives us different
colors.
The differences may be small or big, but they exists.
To handle this you need a colormanagement workflow. But for beginners
without any experience in digital darkroom work, I do not recommend
colormanagement.

"normal" users (i.e. without a colormanagement workflow) just select
the typ of paper in the printer driver. If the drivers knows this
paper, the driver can optimize the output.
But I cannot imagine, that an Epson printer-driver is optimized für
Canon or Kodak papers.
Of course you can change the driver settings and have success with
other papers and inks.
But for the beginning and for beginners:
Don't change too many parameters at one time.

Winfried

 

[sherwindu]

Read a book about digital darkroom work.
Do you blame the manufacturer of you car if you do not know how to
drive because you have no driving licence?

To use your analogy, would you be happy with a car manual that did not
identify every driver control on the dashboard, and explain it's function?
Epson should at least do the same for the parameters they display on their
scanner interface.

Another point.
You use Kodak and Canon papers and a third party ink.
Do you really believe that the default settings of an Epson will give
you good results?
The default settings are optimized for Epson papers and inks. Stay with
these until you know how to handle this scanner/printer-combo.

I'm sorry, but this variation in types of paper is probably more advertising
hype, than real differences. From what I see in the stores, the real
differences
are the brightness value of the paper, it's weight, and finish (matte, gloss,
semi-gloss).
Again to use your automobile analogy, your car doesn't know what brand of
motor oil you put in it, as long as it's the correct weight, and of similar
quality.
Printer manufacturer's would like you to think there is something special
about
their paper and ink, but if you are using good quality materials, you should
not
see differences in results.

 

[Winfried]

To use your analogy, would you be happy with a car manual that did not
identify every driver control on the dashboard, and explain it's function?
Epson should at least do the same for the parameters they display on their
scanner interface.


I'm sorry, but this variation in types of paper is probably more advertising
hype, than real differences. From what I see in the stores, the real
differences
are the brightness value of the paper, it's weight, and finish (matte, gloss,
semi-gloss).
Again to use your automobile analogy, your car doesn't know what brand of
motor oil you put in it, as long as it's the correct weight, and of similar
quality.
Printer manufacturer's would like you to think there is something special
about
their paper and ink, but if you are using good quality materials, you should
not
see differences in results.

Just some points:
- To archieve good results with a scanner and a printer you need some
knowlegde. And I assumed that you have just little knowledge in this
field.
- Papers and inks differ. Of course you can get good results with third
party papers and there are many third party papers I tried with good
success. But I had to adjust the settings in the driver or to use an
ICC-profile. Papers and inks are not standardized like motor oil or
gasoline.
- I advise you to keep the problem simple and not to change too many
parameters at one time.

Winfried

 

[Peter D]

How do you know this to be so?
Thank you

OK, let's start with the basics.
There is no general norm for inkjet paper or ink.

Actually there are standards that fall within close parameters -- your
imagination notwithstanding.

But I cannot imagine, that an Epson printer-driver is optimized für Canon

or Kodak papers.

It may (or may not) be. It won't be "optimized" for "Kodak paper" but it
will be optimized for "photo paper". Or "glossy photo paper". Or "premium
glossy". Or "semi-gloss paper" or "semi-luster paper". And a myriad of other
options.

In my office I have an Epson and a Canon. The Canon replaced my HP. The
Epson is mostly for printing on CD/DVDs. They get used for double duty
depending on whether one or the other runs out of ink or where I last left
paper in the trays.

So far, I've been using HP and Kodak photo paper and a brand of bright white
I can't recall the name of in all three of them with similar results (each
has a different age and is a different quality and thus produce (expected)
different results). I've also used Avery paper from promo packs, the paper
packs that came with each printer, and assorted papers found on sale. All
without regard to matching brand to printer. As long as I match each
printer's setting to the _type_ (not _brand_) of paper, it works.

When I examine the manufacturer's info that comes with a printer, not even
they make the claim you make. Each one "recommends" their own brand of paper
(pretty much a given) without suggesting in any way that to not do so
results in inferior results. One would think that, if this were true, they'd
stress the point in order to maximise their sales. They don't.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

Actually there are standards that fall within close parameters
-- your imagination notwithstanding.

Please elaborate by providing a link or two.

If you've studied the patents for several inkjet printing methods (one
of the most patented fields), you'd know that there is an intricate
balance between ink formulation and receiver material coating.
Short term superficial testing do not qualify as elaborating ...

Bart

 

[Peter D]

Please elaborate by providing a link or two.

If you've studied the patents for several inkjet printing methods (one
of the most patented fields), you'd know that there is an intricate
balance between ink formulation and receiver material coating.
Short term superficial testing do not qualify as elaborating ...

Nothing above supports your claim that printing on an Epson printer with
Kodak or Canon paper produces inferior results to same on Epson paper, or
that Epson paper is specifically created with Epson inks in mind (an appeal
to imagination or the obvious doesn't count).
HTH

 

[rafe bustin]

Nothing above supports your claim that printing on an Epson printer with
Kodak or Canon paper produces inferior results to same on Epson paper, or
that Epson paper is specifically created with Epson inks in mind (an appeal
to imagination or the obvious doesn't count).

Of course you can use any paper in any printer.

Some combinations are know to work well, and
some are known not to.

There is no reason to assume that Epson papers
are *not* designed, first and foremost, to
work with Epson inks. Of course, even this
is misleading; HP and Epson both carry dozens
of types of paper, and some of these are not
made by HP or Epson.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Peter D]

Of course you can use any paper in any printer.

Some combinations are know to work well, and
some are known not to.

Exactly as I stated. In my own personal experience, the _quality_ and
_grade_ of the paper made the difference without regard to the _brand_.

There is no reason to assume that Epson papers
are *not* designed, first and foremost, to
work with Epson inks.

Not an assumption I'm making. I was simply asking for some actual evidence
to support the orignal claim. None was forthcoming.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

Nothing above supports your claim that printing on an Epson
printer with Kodak or Canon paper produces inferior results to
same on Epson paper, or that Epson paper is specifically
created with Epson inks in mind (an appeal to imagination or
the obvious doesn't count).

Here is some info you could have found yourself:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/additional_wir/WIR_Permanence_06_2000.pdf
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/is_t/WIR_ISTpresent_1998_10_20.pdf
(page12)
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist_2of3_04/WIR_IST_2004_11_MB_HW.pdf
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_Cheap_Inks_2003_10.pdf
I can't do the reading for you, so have fun with it.

And to give you some idea of the complex interactions between ink and
media, you could e.g. check out US patent 6,846,524 which says that:
"The pigment used in the ink receiving layer of this invention may
be light calcium carbonate, heavy calcium carbonate, kaolin, clay,
talc, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, zinc carbonate, satin white,
magnesium carbonate, magnesium silicate, magnesium sulphate, calcium
silicate, aluminum silicate, aluminum hydroxide, alumina sol,
colloidal alumina, an alumina or alumina hydrate such as
pseudo-boehmite, zeolite, silica, colloidal silica or plastic
pigment...".
And
"In this invention, thickeners, defoaming agents, foam suppressors,
pigment agents, release agents, foaming agents, pH regulating agents,
surface sizing agents, colouring dyes, color pigments, fluorescent
dyes, ultraviolet absorbers, oxidation inhibitors, optical stabilizing
agents, antiseptics, waterproofing agents, dye fixing agents,
surfactants and humidifying paper force strengthening agents, etc. can
also be added to the ink acceptance layer"

US patent 6,848,777 describes the combination of (a pigmented) ink and
medium, and they, amongst others, say:
"The aqueous carrier medium for the ink composition is water or a
mixture of water and at least one water miscible co-solvent. Selection
of a suitable mixture depends on requirements of the specific
application, such as desired surface tension and viscosity, the
selected pigment, drying time of the pigmented ink jet ink, and the
type of paper onto which the ink will be printed".

So, obviously the aquatic/solvent versus dye/pigment ratios, particle
size, the acidity, additives, etc. in the ink *will* react different
with the different media formulations (drying, gloss, lightfastness,
mechanical properties like absorption, scratch resistance due to
swelling, etc.).

Bart

 

[Peter D]

SNIP

Here is some info you could have found yourself:

I'm not in the habit of wasting my time attempting to prove that which I
don't believe.When I'm busy, I tend to leave the passionate pursuit of being
right to lesser beings such as yourself.

Anyway, I spent five minutes reading through the material (it's aobut all
the time I had to waste). Nada. Nice history lesson though.

As I said, produce proof that the Epson printer produces inferior results
based on _brand_ and I'll gladly say those three words you so obviously want
to hear -- "you were right". Otherwise, let it be. It doesn't much matter to
me anyway. I use my Epson with Canon, Epson, Kodak, and HP paper and the
only difference I can see is caused by the _grade_ and _quality_ of the
paper used. You may believe differently, but I'll use the judgement of my
own eyes over that of a total stranger any day of the week.
'Bye.
HAND.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

As I said, produce proof that the Epson printer produces inferior
results based on _brand_ and I'll gladly say those three words
you so obviously want to hear -- "you were right".

Why should I waste time proving the obvious to someone that's either
not interested in learning, or has a 'different' perception of quality
output?

Otherwise, let it be. It doesn't much matter to me anyway.

That much was clear, thanks for the confirmation.

Bart