Juey Chong Ong wrote: > > On Sunday, Jan 4, 2004, at 01:27 Asia/Singapore, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > > scanning color Kodak 100 gold negs - arrrggh! > > I have a 1640SU Photo also, and I find that you need to do massive > color correction when scanning color negatives. I think that's the norm > with "primitive" equipment. When I use my friend's Polaroid Sprintscan > 4000 which is a 4000ppi film scanner, I have to do the same thing. > > The quickest way to correct the color in the Epson is to use the Auto > setting. But you have to make sure that you select only the area of the > negative you're scanning, and include some of the black border as well. > That allows it to establish a black point.
I've always done that, Juey - although it wasn't for the reasons you mention, I like a black border and full frame for aesthetic reasons, when the neg merits it - and i can't see to crop on the scanner anyway :) > > I prefer to do a 16-bit raw scan (although I seriously wonder if the > data from the 1640 is even worth of 16 bits) and bring it into > Photoshop for the grunt work. > > --jc Actually, it turns out that the scanner is not as much to blame for the first couple of things I did as the negs themselves... While other stuff I scanned that was Kodak Gold still needed color correction (and I used the auto and then fiddle a bit more.) the two shots of mine that I was serious enough about to send to the contest appear to have not been fixed properly - thats the only thing I can figure. they are 2 1/2 years old, have been stored in the dark, etc., but were too far off from what they should be for it just to be the scanner. If I'd made the finals with one of them, I would have had to send the negative so a good thing I found this out before I sent them off. and then there were the ones I tried to "improve" by not using the negative holder. :( ann
