Preview much better than scan V700

[offtheroad]

No matter what settings I use in the "Configuration" I get very red image s from neg's. These negs are over 30 years old. Here are my settings"
Professional Mode
Film with holder
48-bit color
300 dpi 4x6
Trimming ON (but not sure what trimming is?
all other settings off except for DIGITAL ICE in the case of very dirty negs or scratched.
Configuration: ColorSync SF_T Epson Prefection V700
Adobe RGB
Display Preview using monitor compensation
Auto Exposure in the middle of Low & High

I tried other Source (scanner) like Epson standard or bypassed these settings and went with Color control Gamma 1.8 but like I said the images were contrasty and red. There not good with current setting but getting a bit longer tonal range.
One last thing my previews look much better than the final scan why would that be?

[The Crofter]

Might be worth send a strip to Peak Imaging or similar and see what their prints are like. If they come back ok then more investigation into your V700 is required, if not then the negs may have had a colout shift and you may need to correct in PS. In my experience the preview is not as good as the final scan so that is odd.

[offtheroad]

Thanks much for the speedy reply. I just scanned some newer negs (only 20 years old) and they match the preview much better. What are your thought on my settings?

[The Crofter]

I use an 8990 but settings are similar. Not sure about "Configuration: ColorSync SF_T Epson Prefection V700" but someone else will chime in on that one. Just wondering if 48 bit will be lost if only scanning at 300dpi. Worth a try at a lower resolution and will speed things up as well. Is your monitor calibrated and what other display preview options do you have ?.

[offtheroad]

Thanks for the reply. 48bit comes in at 16 bit and I think I did a test at 24 but it comes in at 8 bit, As far s what other calibration options. There are a wide range from Epson standard to all different cameras. I just figured since that matches the scanner I have. Yes my monitor is calibrated in the consumer level. I don't have a calibrator to stick on my monitor, if thats what you mean. My lodgic on the 48 bit was, that the images are so badly faded and color cross over I was thinking I need all the data I can get. Then when I correct them in photoshop I'll have more data to throw away. Yes I eventually down size them to 8 bit. So there was no difference in scan time from 48 to 24 bit. Is my logic flawed thinking I'll have more to work with at 16bit tha 8bit since the film is so faded and crossed over?

[bez]

Sometimes the colours are way off after first loading a film. With a newish neg (you can assume the colours are ok) try drawing a manual marquee round a single frame, zoom in on the preview and refine the marquee carefully, then hit the Auto button – you should find the colours snap into place, although you’re not necessarily going to use the histogram the scanner thinks is correct.
Preview and scan should be very similar in terms of colour, contrast etc. but obviously not the amount of detail.
I have No Color Correction selected (ICM Off) which gives me good results.
Scan in 16bit (48) then reduce to 8 after you’ve done all the editing.

[bez]

ps. I rarely do batch scans, nearly always single frames, but this may be much too slow for you.
I have never yet selected an output size (print) and dpi, but always scan at Original Size at an appropriate dpi; generally 4800 (or 3200) for 35mm, 2400 for MF. You can resample/resize after editing, although again I appreciate this may be too time consuming for your purposes.
Using my method you can print to any size from a single file, by scaling the output from Photoshop without resampling.

[The Crofter]

If you are trying to recover as much detail as possible than I would suggest moving from 300 dpi up to 1200 (at least) and as Bez says you can always discard information at a later date. Obviously there is a time penalty but do you want to have to do this all again at higher res in the future ?.

[offtheroad]

Thank you all. I'm now 350 neg's into my thousands to go. I'll try some of your ideas.

[Kevgermany]

On the resolution, 6x4 at 300dpi is scanning at 1800dpi.

I've always had problems getting decent colours fom negs. The colour balancing algorithms rely on a decent white point in the neg to set the balance properly. Epson scan has some options for restoring colours (it's part of the ice package, but has a different name) and I've fond this helpful in slide scanning where the colours have gone. But it does give rather oversaturated results. Better than the faded shifts, though.

My old negs (and some are also 30 years old) scan OK.

One trick you can try on the histogram is to adjust each channel separately. Move the black and white adjusters until they're just outside the range in the film, by the same amount on each channel. Then go through the channels again and adjust finely for highlight/shadow colours, then do the same for the mid tones with the grey sliders. However having said that, I prefer Bez' approach - scan unadjusted and do the editing in the photo editor.

Settigns - look OK, but I'm assuming you have it set to film type transparency/negative (or similar).

[The Crofter]

Sorry Kev but that is not true...

300 dpi will always be 300 dpi no matter how big the image, however your file dimensions will be 1800 x 1200 px.

[Kevgermany]

Sorry Kev but that is not true...

300 dpi will always be 300 dpi no matter how big the image, however your file dimensions will be 1800 x 1200 px.

Sorry, missed this before.

To print at 300dpi, with a 6x4 image and assuming 1 pixel in the image to 1 pixel im the print, you need to scan at 1800dpi on 35mm film (roughly - assuming the film is 1.5"x1"). Hence my somewhat abbreviated comment. I guess we're saying the same thing...