Do you need to do PS postprocessing after vuescan?

[GeorgeEE]

Hi,

I'm fairly new to scanning. I own a Canon FS4000 and use it with
Vuescan. I've grown acustumed to do LEVELS correction and white
balance with PS on most of my scanned pics since they are always off
(sometimes a litte off, sometimes a lot). I always use the advanced
workflow as suggested in Vuescan help but it seems that I can't get it
right, since I assume that there should be no need to do any
processing after Vuescan.

Please help. What am I missing?

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Please help. What am I missing?

Vuescan is meant to require a lot of post-processing in PS. Otherwise it
would be a picture processing program like Photoshop or Silverfast and
that's an absolute no-no with the folks around here.

And yes, I *am* frustrated. Any 89 euro digicam is better at getting
those bl**dy colours right than a 1000 euro scanner with a 2000 euro
computer and sophisticated scanning software - any scanning software,
for that matter.

Ralf

 

[Stormfrog]

Hi,

I'm fairly new to scanning. I own a Canon FS4000 and use it with
Vuescan. I've grown acustumed to do LEVELS correction and white
balance with PS on most of my scanned pics since they are always off
(sometimes a litte off, sometimes a lot). I always use the advanced
workflow as suggested in Vuescan help but it seems that I can't get it
right, since I assume that there should be no need to do any
processing after Vuescan.

Please help. What am I missing?

Actually... there is no RIGHT colors when scanning slides. It's all up
to you to decide what colors you want the picture to have. If you raw
scan an image the colors are very dark and the picture looks generally
messed up. When you post-process (which you have to do with an
untouched raw scan) in PS there seem to be no "correct" values for
getting the colors correct. The only thing you can do is to try to
remeber how it looked in reality and try to work towards that with the
various tools in PS. Scanning slides is one hell of a jobb if you are
picky with the colors.

I am working with a 600$ scanner and I only get a slightly better
result from my old NikonScan LS-1000 (which isnt worty even a penny
today) when scanning "finnished" slides that I dont intend to touch up
in PS. (It seems that it's only when you scan RAW there is any
difference between expensive and cheap.)

*also frustrated*
P.S. I totally agree with Ralf, if I spent the money on a Digital
Camera instead I would get picture quality no slide scanner in the
world can compete with.

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

P.S. I totally agree with Ralf, if I spent the money on a Digital
Camera instead I would get picture quality no slide scanner in the
world can compete with.

This is not what I've said. I was talking of the colours only.

Seeing the general picture quality of current digital cameras
(resolution, contrast range etc.) I wouldn't want to be buried with one.

Ralf

 

[bmoag]

I have been using this scanner since it came out and have tried it with
Vuescan and Silverfast.
I did not find Silverfast worth the $200 investment, but that may be due
more to the technical limits of the scanner than the software.
I only find Vuescan useful sometimes but not for scanning all materials all
the time compared to the Canon software.
In my experience the Vuescan parameters generally, but not always, yield
better transparency scans than the Canon software, particularly color
fidelity.
The opposite is generally true in my experience for negative materials. Even
with multiple scan passes the images tend to be grainy and much too flat, no
matter what parameters are used. Too much Photoshop processing is required
to yield a good image and it shows. This may also be due to technical limits
of this old scanner rather than the Vuescan software.
If you are not satisfied with the results from Vuescan simply try using the
Canon software for a particular image.
It is the results that count rather than dogged adherence to one piece of
software or another.
Regardless of whether you use Vuescan or the Canon software all images
benefit from some degree of processing (white point, levels, curves,
whatever) for aesthetic more than technical reasons.