kshapero
South Florida Man
Usually get scans from my C41 film at Costco. Around 3.5 megs in size. like to hear from folks what software you post process with. I do not like to post process much because I like to let my shots speak for themselves, but sometimes I just screw up on lighting and need to touch it up. I shoot mainly, 65%, B&W.
thomasw_
Well-known
When I do any work on scanned negatives, I use Photoshop.
imush
Well-known
I no longer even ask for scans anywhere, just send it to mpix and scan the film myself. I only use mpix scans as a preview to see which shots are worth scanning. Then I use vuescan with Coolscan IV. Usually I do no post-processing beyond maybe some unsharp mask in vuescan. I have no commercial software besides vuescan, so use gimp when I need to do some minimal adjustment.
The consumer film processing services (I used to use shutterfly) have lately become very inconsistent with their film handling. I guess that with falling volume, they no longer care about the quality. Same with scanning, but I am now more concerned about having the film developed properly and back in my hands undamaged.
Shutterfly develops ok, but then throws the strips of film loose in a large envelope to be stuffed by the Brooklyn mail carrier into my building mailbox. It is often damaged, I suspect as a result of the often violent nature of this last manipulation. Shutterfly's scans have lately become worthless too.
Mpix sends me a whole uncut roll in a nice little box. Their scans are generally better too, but I still prefer to scan myself.
The consumer film processing services (I used to use shutterfly) have lately become very inconsistent with their film handling. I guess that with falling volume, they no longer care about the quality. Same with scanning, but I am now more concerned about having the film developed properly and back in my hands undamaged.
Shutterfly develops ok, but then throws the strips of film loose in a large envelope to be stuffed by the Brooklyn mail carrier into my building mailbox. It is often damaged, I suspect as a result of the often violent nature of this last manipulation. Shutterfly's scans have lately become worthless too.
Mpix sends me a whole uncut roll in a nice little box. Their scans are generally better too, but I still prefer to scan myself.
kshapero
South Florida Man
1. photoshop seems like overkill for what I want to do.
2. Imush, I am pretty satisfied with Costco's scans and don't really have time for your method albeit a good one. Would like to have some inexpensive software that allows simple adjustments that don't wash out the image. maybe i am a candidate for some freebie. Still like to hear some other experiences.
2. Imush, I am pretty satisfied with Costco's scans and don't really have time for your method albeit a good one. Would like to have some inexpensive software that allows simple adjustments that don't wash out the image. maybe i am a candidate for some freebie. Still like to hear some other experiences.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Lightroom. If you want a powerful freebie, try The Gimp, though the GUI is bewildering at first. If you want a quickie freebie, IrfanView is great for adjusting brightness, contrast, and other basic things.
imush
Well-known
gimp is the open source software that can do more than you ever need. Just like photoshop (well, maybe not; it is a matter of ideological warfare between open source and photoshop diehards). But anyway, more than enough for your described purposes: http://www.gimp.org
Tuolumne
Veteran
Google Picasa 3. New release just out. Free and can't be beat. Works with jpg, tiff, bmp, and many raw formats. Give it a try. You will like it.
/T
/T
JonR
Well-known
Photshop Elements is by far the easiest and does not cost much - I would definately suggest that one to start with. For most users it will be enough and the "extra" functionality in the full Photoshop package combined with Lightroom is more for professional users.
Gimp etc are free but Photoshop Elements is so much easier to work with so I would suggest you take that cost.
Jon
Gimp etc are free but Photoshop Elements is so much easier to work with so I would suggest you take that cost.
Jon
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
I use bridge to organize jpgs, and then open them via the camera raw plugin for photoshop.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Picasa makes all of these packages look hard by comparison. The Picasa learning curve is about 15 minutes, maybe less if you've used any post-processing program previously. It also takes seconds to correct a photo in Picasa vs minutes to dozens of minutes in other packages (at least in my experience). The time you will save post-processing with Picasa makes it the choice for me. The new version also comes with the best photo previewer I have ever used on Windows.
/T
/T
dexdog
Veteran
Another vote for Picasa 3. Great program, and its free. Astoundingly simple to use, yet gives decent results.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I do nearly all my photo work in Linux, mainly with the GIMP; and XnView is fine for batch conversions and certain other things. In Windows I have a good deal of free software, including the small but excellent PhotoFiltre.
ully
ully
For organizing and simple fixes I use Faststone free software and for more control I use Corels PaintShopPro(PSP) and Picasa.
OldNick
Well-known
I will second the choice of Photoshop Elements. It has most of the advantages of the full PS package, at much less cost. PSE 6.0 and above even include a RAW converter to use with the better digital cameras.
Jim N.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
If you're running Windows, paintdotnet is free and pretty sweet.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Faststone Image Viewer is my main workhorse, and I use GIMP for any major stuff. Have been trying Photo Scape. Haven't decided if I like it better or not. There is also GIMP Shop--a version of the GIMP that has more of a Photoshop user interface.
Rob
Rob
kshapero
South Florida Man
wow a lot of software out there.
Tuolumne
Veteran
I'll second that. I had no idea. And everyone seems to have a different favorite. But MY favorite is still best.
/T
mh2000
Well-known
>>I do not like to post process much because I like to let my shots speak for themselves...
this is like saying, "I don't do a test strip in the darkroom, I just guess at the exposure and however it turns out is fine because the photo will speak for itself even if it is too dark or washed out etc," or "using multigrade filters or graded papers is cheating so I never use them."
Post processing is part of the process and is required for actually getting your photos to look "correct" and inline with your vision... it is not "cheating!"
I think all scans need to have a minor curve adjust, levels and appropriate sharpeing. Your scanner applies some curve to your scan which will never match your negative so you have to correct that, same for levels. In the A->D conversion you lose actual sharpness and you need to intelligently use a sharpening filter to gain back the original impression of sharpness.
PS is obviously best, but expensive, the Corel option looks good (I haven't used it) and GIMP is very good. Elements is kind of crippled (duh... they want to sell more PS)... GIMP is full feautred.
You really need a real curve tool IMO and Elements doesn't have one. Since it is free, just get GIMP and read a few tutorials and you'll do fine (I think the interface is harder for seasoned PS users than for new users).
I also don't get scans of my c41 b&w... rather get real prints for the proofs and scan my own for better quality... all the photoCD scans I've gotten are way too agressively compressed.
this is like saying, "I don't do a test strip in the darkroom, I just guess at the exposure and however it turns out is fine because the photo will speak for itself even if it is too dark or washed out etc," or "using multigrade filters or graded papers is cheating so I never use them."
Post processing is part of the process and is required for actually getting your photos to look "correct" and inline with your vision... it is not "cheating!"
I think all scans need to have a minor curve adjust, levels and appropriate sharpeing. Your scanner applies some curve to your scan which will never match your negative so you have to correct that, same for levels. In the A->D conversion you lose actual sharpness and you need to intelligently use a sharpening filter to gain back the original impression of sharpness.
PS is obviously best, but expensive, the Corel option looks good (I haven't used it) and GIMP is very good. Elements is kind of crippled (duh... they want to sell more PS)... GIMP is full feautred.
You really need a real curve tool IMO and Elements doesn't have one. Since it is free, just get GIMP and read a few tutorials and you'll do fine (I think the interface is harder for seasoned PS users than for new users).
I also don't get scans of my c41 b&w... rather get real prints for the proofs and scan my own for better quality... all the photoCD scans I've gotten are way too agressively compressed.
Shareware from LemkeSoft... GraphicConverter on my Mac for many years. Frequent updates and many more features than I use... even includes a nice file browser.