Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

[scovell001]

Really enjoying Joanna's scans in both normal & Tim's boosted shadows comparison. I feel like I've taken some LSD!

[gary mulder]

Very informative to see what is possible with various scanners. Now I can determine if my own scans are subject to improvement ore it's just the limitation of my hardware. Thanks !

[timparkin]

Really enjoying Joanna's scans in both normal & Tim's boosted shadows comparison. I feel like I've taken some LSD!

The Epson's take a fair amount of setting up for scanning at this level so I imagine this is probably normal for them. I spent about a week optimising my Epson to get the best results and there a lot of bum scans along the way..

I've had a play at seeing just how far you can go with the scanners and the results are below..

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tr ... r-push.jpg

This is really taking things to extremes. You can't see some of these details on a lightbox and only just see them if you hold the transparency up to the sun.

Tim

[Joanna Carter]

Ok this is getting difficult on an iPhone I will have to find another café with WiFi when I've got my laptop with me. Tim, do you have any free time after Tuesday next week? I'd like to pop over if possible. Please let me know via SMS to my mobile, it's the cheapest way to comunicate from outside the UK

[timparkin]

Ok this is getting difficult on an iPhone I will have to find another café with WiFi when I've got my laptop with me. Tim, do you have any free time after Tuesday next week? I'd like to pop over if possible. Please let me know via SMS to my mobile, it's the cheapest way to comunicate from outside the UK

Hi Joanna,

The next few weeks are incredibly busy with the launch of my photography magazine and going on holiday - what did you want to come over for? (I hope you don't take the scanning stuff personally).

Tim

[DJ]

Putting on my diplomacy hat....

I want to take a moment to address some differences in colour balance on these images...

For the uninitiated, you will see we have two scans here from two very similar scanners, and you will no doubt see differences between Joanna's and Tim's scan using the Epson V7x0 scanner. The major contributory cause of this is the colour management and scanner profiling, it may also be exacerbated by browser issues for folk using browsers which are not ICC aware.

Joanna's and Tim's scanners have been profiled in different ways, Joanna profiles her scanner with a Faust IT8 target and the Monaco EZ-Colour profiling software, Tim's was profiled with a very different Hutcheson HCT target, and Profilemaker Pro software. The immediate differences in colour you will see relate to the different capabilities of the scanner target and profiling software, I point this out now to avoid anyone thinking any one person's scanner is "wrong" or any other inferences of that kind You will also notice slightly different colour balance from Ian's scan and from Tristan's.

As we are lucky enough to have two scans from Tim, one from the drum scanner and one from the Epson, two scanners with very different strengths and capabilities, but both images with pretty much identical colour balance, this should highlight to you the role that profiling has played ( and allow me to re-iterate my point that it is the scanner we're profiling, not the media ).

Each of those operators who contributed a scan have provided an image with slightly different colour balance, as each operator has profiled his/her scanner with a different target and/or software.

I'm referring here only to the colour balance, the other aspects of a scanner's capability such as sharpness, DMAX etc, well that's a whole different argument

[Patrick Dixon]

Well, all I can say then, is that it would be interesting to know how the Howtek 7500 was profiled - 'cos that's the one that looks right. And I know what colour a garlic flower is.

[AbsolutelyN]

Patrick - my 7500 is not calibrated in any way. My monitor is reasonably well calibrated and the colour was matched (or attempted to be matched) by eye alone. I'm not a fan of super saturation so my scans probably reflect that. Cheers, Tristan

[Patrick Dixon]

Excellent! Sounds like no calibration is the way to go

[DJ]

/facepalm

[timparkin]

Well, all I can say then, is that it would be interesting to know how the Howtek 7500 was profiled - 'cos that's the one that looks right. And I know what colour a garlic flower is.

Do you know what a garlic flower looks like when it's in the shade on a blue day under a green leafed canopy using velvia though.

Anyway - more samples to keep people browsing..

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/sky-bridge.jpg

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/garlic.jpg

The order is Tristans 7500, Tim's Howtek, Ian's Imacon, Tim's Epson, Joanna's Epson..

Tim

[Patrick Dixon]

But if velvia's got such a horrid colour cast, why bother trying to 'accurately' colour profile at all?

Just go with the unrealistic colours you like, and call it 'art'.

[timparkin]

But if velvia's got such a horrid colour cast, why bother trying to 'accurately' colour profile at all?

Just go with the unrealistic colours you like, and call it 'art'.

Hmm... It isn't velvia that is introducing the colour, it's the blue from the sky lighting the white petals plus a little bit of green filtration from the green canopy. Velvia provides a colour boost that emphasises this. Velvia as a film is also slightly cool in nature so the cool colours do get emphasised a little more.

As for why I bother profiling, its because Fuji spent millions of pounds developing the colour response of the films they produce, I like that response and wish to use it as a starting point for my post processing.

Also, if you look at the garlic flower that is in the sun, it's leaves have no colour cast.

Finally, if you boost tristans saturation up to the same levels as the other pictures, you will see that the petals in shadow have a significant blue cast but not much green, however the petals in the sun have a slight magenta cast (an inevitable result of globally reducing the green cast caused by the foliage in the shade).

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/ga ... alance.jpg

Both myself and Ian have profiled three very different scanners between us and have acheived an almost identical colour - what are the chances of that happening if we all got it wrong.

I understand that you might not like the colour but that doesn't make it any less true to the transparency.

Tim

p.s. Here's another example of that horrible velvia colour cast.. can't even get the white paint right...
http://www.into-the-light.com/gallery/h ... ackdoorway

[DJ]

But if velvia's got such a horrid colour cast, why bother trying to 'accurately' colour profile at all?

You're not profiling the film, you're profiling the scanner. The "colour management" of the film was done by the chemist who designed it - daylight vs tungsten? etc etc.

Velvia IS highly saturated and sometimes garish, therefore if we put Velvia in front of a scanner, that's what we want it to see... Velvia!

Colour Management and profiling scanners is not meant to cancel out or neutralise your film choices, but rather to allow you to scan them accurately, by effectively neutralising the scanner

[Patrick Dixon]

I think I'll stick to B&W.