Do you post process scanned film before publishing online?

[fixbones]

I was just wondering, do you guys post process your scanned film images before sharing/displaying it online? .... basic things like curves, contrast, saturation.....

Reason i am asking is because i thought i read somewhere that images usually loose a little colour saturation and contrast in the process of scanning from negative...... true?

 

[nobbylon]

I find that most of my film scans benefit from a levels adjustment. The only film camera that doesn't seem to need much is my Nikon F100. maybe the metering on it is just better. The Leica's I have and an FM2 all appear nicer after a tweak!

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

About all I ever do, is the usually required touch of USM.
Dave.

 

[furcafe]

I have the scanner software (Vuescan) set to do as little as possible, so I still need to post-process, actually more than I do for most digital raw files because everything is less automated (I could set up some Photoshop actions, but haven't bothered) & I shoot a wide variety of films. Usually that means both minor levels & curves adjustment, plus whatever cloning, cropping, etc. is required. Also, anything going on the web gets re-sized, is converted to sRGB color space, & has USM applied.

I don't think scanning inherently reduces saturation & contrast, it has more to do w/your scanning software settings & workflow, which are all somewhat analogous to the traditional development & wet printing process.

 

[rogue_designer]

I tend to scan pretty flat to preserve highlight and shadow detail.

So I'll have a high-res tiff master scan, and from that I'll make adjustments to white and black point (if needed), and contrast. (This is true for both color and BW, only adding any color balancing to the steps, if needed)

Then once I decide on the output size, I resize, apply the appropriate amount of sharpening, and apply the correct colorspace.

 

[dmr]

Usually levels, sizing, and a little cropping only. I very seldom have to sharpen.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Whatever it takes. Sometimes nothing; sometime half an hour. Usually (well) towards the lower end of this range.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ianglean]

I only do crop, straighten and some retouch to fix scanner limitations.

 

[Tuolumne]

Usually tweak jpgs in Picasa 3.

/T

 

[Avotius]

I do indeed do post processing to 99.9% of my images be they digital or scanned film. I don't subscribe to the whole "purity" of the image and frankly you just got to adjust a photo, that's just part of what photography is so dont worry about adjusting photos here and there, especially the scans, it can be the difference between a so so shot and a selling one.

Also getting a really really good scan of a negative is hard work, it doesn't mater if you have the best machine in the world for doing it, the squishy human bit behind the computer will ultimately determine what comes out of the negative and you never will get all the information in that negative onto a computer so just find what you like and then post process it.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I extensively post process every scan, doing the same work on it that I would have done in the darkroom. Curves are needed because my scanner gives flat scans from negatives, and also to adjust contrast and density as you would with different exposure and paper grades in the darkroom. I then do dodging and burning to balance the tonality using curves adjustment layers. I spend hours on each image, just as I did in the darkroom. Photoshop is faster, but lets me be much more obsessive about perfection.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Same as Chris. I'd never post a 'raw' scan. I enjoy making decisions after the 'capture.' It's like deciding on paper grades, development techniques, paper types, printing techniques (lith, platinum, etc.). Especially if we're talking about B+W, i don't believe a photograph is any less genuine when you do that sort of work on it. It's already 'unreal' when you strip away the color.

With color pictures, if you've chosen the film stock, you've made an 'editing' choice no different from changing things in post....

Are you concerned about this?
http://lenscratch.blogspot.com/2009/04/too-much-photoshop.html

 

[MaxElmar]

Well either you process it - or the dang computer processes it for you. I'd rather be the one to mess it up. Same reason I usually use a manual camera. We are way far away from the photographic purists world by the time the images make it to the internet. Might as well work it.

Dust/scratch removal (if starting from b/w film), then levels, saturation/color correction, white balance correction, monochrome conversion w/digital filtration, duotone, tritone, and finally, after pixel dimensions are established, sharpening. Sometimes just the first and last of those. I will use digital ICE to reduce retouching on color materials. I will also use Neat Image on high ISO digital images if necessary.

 

[mfogiel]

The raw scan is just the starting point, as I scan myself, and just try to get complete tonal info to start with. I do 99% B&W classic silver film.
Then I normally do the following:

- eliminate 95% of the photos, and with the remaqining I :

- crop
- usually boost local contrast a bit (20,60)
- check the tresholds
- adjust the levels on basis of the tresholds
- adjust the curves
- adjust brightness and contrast, sometimes also locally, e.g. to add some sparkle to the eyes
- burn and dodge, sometimes just as I would do in a darkroom, sometimes also with a higher precision using masking tools
- spot the dust

 

[Twigs]

I do.

My Epson 4490 gives very flat scans (and is also very slow), my work around is to first do a quick low res scan (only the frames I think are interesting), adjust the curves in GIMP, and then with the shape of the histogram of the final result in mind, rescan the frame accordingly at higher resolution. Back in GIMP with the hi-res TIFF, I clone out the dust, dodge and burn (this could take hours!), curves, resize and save.

For online purpose I do not sharpen, as Facebook and flickr apply a crazy amount of sharpening automatically. I've even seen people blurring the image before posting so it will look just right after the server side processing. 🙄 I'm not sure if the RFF gallery sharpen or lower the jpeg quality.

Back to the OP, I think that depends on how you shoot, develop, and scan. For me, I expose/develop for a very flat negative, and then scan for a slightly more contrasty file, and post-process to get the contrast I want (usually more).

 

[Morca007]

My scanner doesn't give me much flexibility, but I get the flattest scan I can from it, and then go to work:
-Crop
-Minor dust cleaning w/ healing brush/clone brush
-Levels adjust to meet white/black points
-Resize and save for web

 

[kitaanat]

In my opinion, the file after scanner is much lower contrast compare to the final print from the darkroom process. For me I'll adjust only the "level" to set the white/black point. I usually scan larger than a film because I want to have the film's edge in my picture (you can see some of my scanned picture in the RFF's gallery). I use this film edge as the white/black reference point and make the level narrower a little bit.

I use the scan file for checking the quality of the picture like a proof sheet and resize to aprox. 500x300 30-40% jpg quality for RFF and 1024x1500 for my flickr)
No other post process done in my picture because I prefer darkroom print rather than the ink jet printer and I like to leave it as close as to the film & silver print.

Anat.

 

[denmark.yuzon]

i do tweak some levels.. contrast, brightness.. sometimes sharpness.. since i shoot mostly black and whites.. i seldom do color post processing.. only when the occassion calls for colors. then i would use color negatives..

 

[HuubL]

Mostly a little cropping, sometimes levels, and always resizing before converting from TIFF to JPEG. But I'm not a purist puritan and when I feel it will improve the image I'll do anything from sharpening, contrast, color, cloning, filtering up to "noise" reduction!

Tell me which one you like better. After scanning (Nikon Coolscan 5000) to TIFF:
#1 (cropped, resized, converted)

#2 (levels, contrast, cloned, resized to 2400px, de-noised, sharpened, resized to 1200px, converted)

BTW, Yesterday I uploaded two images to my Blog to compare a true digital camera photo to a film photo of this winter scene. Click the orange Blog icon below.

 

[StanSmith]

When you post and allow your pictures to speak for you, wouldn't you want to make it is as presentable as you can? When I show my b/w prints I take the time to dodge/burn, tone, spot and all that.