Photo_Smith
Well-known
How would you be balancing? just moving sliders until it looks right? sorry I took it you were defining a white point rather than guessing.
edge100
Well-known
Middle grey eye dropper tool or LR colour temp eye dropper.
No guessing involved (but lots of assumptions, it seems).
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Quote:
Remember that colour negs don't actually have a particular 'look', per se; these are not slides we're talking about. It's up to us to balance to taste.
The way the colours are translated to the print is objective by the use of quadrant diagrams, so the RGB values of your negative are mapped to the output values of the paper, both are measured objectively and although you personally can make subjective judgements photo engineers very much measure, plot and target those RGB values in the negative to give values on the target paper. (I'm talking C type)
So the LAD aim system uses R 0.80 G1.20 B1.60 which give a value in the final print of Munsell 4.5 (16%) and the photographic paper is engineered to make sure the output is correct.
edge100
Well-known
It must be torture to reduce photography to a set of numbers. Do you actually look at prints, or do you just walk around with a colorimeter in hand, making sure everything jives with what Fuji and Kodak prescribe?
Photo_Smith
Well-known
No need to be nasty, colour is science, people involved in making film and cameras have to work things out for you, if you want to be obtuse I'm going to pop you on ignore.
Photography is multi faceted, if you're uninterested don't post.
edge100
Well-known
Would you do that for little old me?!?
edge100
Well-known
Wow, that's rich.
You come on here lecturing me about how specific films have to look a certain way because that's how the films were made, and then claim that I should be more nuanced? Give me a break.
If you want to reduce photography to a set of values, then so be it. I don't. What I want is an image that is aesthetically pleasing. I choose films that get me into the ballpark of what I want to achieve, and then I go from there. For example, while I could probably balance Ektar to look like Portra 160, it would be extremely difficult because of the inherent properties of Ektar. That said, I'm in no way restricted to what Kodak says is the "correct" look for Ektar.
Again, this is completely different with slide film; there, you get what you get. If you're scanning it, you get some flexibility, of course, but if you're projecting it, you're stuck with what the film actually looks like.
Neg film allows us the additional control of the printing stage (whether that 'print' is on paper or JPEG); I find it ludicrous to think that we shouldn't use that control to sculpt an image that suits our individual aesthetic preference, in order to remain slavishly adherent to some set of values set forth in Rochester or Tokyo.
Once again, pro labs like RPL do this all the time. Different photographers have the choice of different looks, despite the fact that they're all shooting the same films (though from what I can tell, they're pretty much all exposing 400H at 50 à la Jose Villa, at the moment). This implies that, despite your best efforts, the film community has decided to leave the art in photography.
With respect to this thread, the point was this: how can one get pleasing colour from colour neg scans? I have a video on YouTube describing my own process (which seems to have been fairly well received, for what that's worth), and it involves VueScan, CP, and Lightroom. This method produces - on virtually every well-exposed negative I've thrown at it - excellent, pleasing results. Are they numerically equivalent to those prescribed by the manufacturers? To be clear: I DON'T CARE. I like the prints, and that's all that matters.
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
Agreed!
Anyway, thanks for all the help. I'll keep messing around with it a bit and hopefully will be able to improve my results.
That said, I threw a few different negatives at Epson Scan last night and was actually quite pleased with what I was getting. I let the scanner preview on "auto" and then set the histogram and input/output like this:
(no clipping on the histogram, grey set at 1, and the input/output at maximum values).
Doing that pretty consistently gave me an image that I only needed a few seconds to tweak in Lightroom to be 90% there (and only using the "white balance" and "tint" sliders). And I tried this on 4 negatives of all different lighting conditions.
Seem pretty promising to me...
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Quote
You come on here lecturing me about how specific films have to look a certain way because that's how the films were made, and then claim that I should be more nuanced? Give me a break.
I NEVER stated that-Glad I put you on ignore because the BS in your post has nothing to do with my post.
For the record I agree with most of what you write, except you obviously can map the colours in a negative film you can interpret that how you will but that isn't the same as saying 'colour negative has no correct colour' that is wrong
I don't as a lab owner and a photographic scientist need your obvious 'labs can print to your preference' of course they can-that wasn't what my post was about (I can tell it went right over your head)
Not a very intelligent post "beat my chest' Mr Edgy.
When you have a basic grasp of what I write you'll be able to understand the process I describe-until then bye
You come on here lecturing me about how specific films have to look a certain way because that's how the films were made, and then claim that I should be more nuanced? Give me a break.
I NEVER stated that-Glad I put you on ignore because the BS in your post has nothing to do with my post.
For the record I agree with most of what you write, except you obviously can map the colours in a negative film you can interpret that how you will but that isn't the same as saying 'colour negative has no correct colour' that is wrong
I don't as a lab owner and a photographic scientist need your obvious 'labs can print to your preference' of course they can-that wasn't what my post was about (I can tell it went right over your head)
Not a very intelligent post "beat my chest' Mr Edgy.
When you have a basic grasp of what I write you'll be able to understand the process I describe-until then bye
edge100
Well-known
I love when people say "I'm ignoring you", and then turn around at the next opportunity to demonstrate the precise opposite.
You win photography. Whatever you need to help you sleep at night.
'Photographic scientist' is the funniest thing I've read all day. Do they give out Nobel Prizes or that? Are there international Photographic Scientist conferences that you go to to discuss the latest and greatest in measurebation technology? Where you and your pals can reduce "Behind the Gare St-Lazare" to the sum of its grey scale parts?
And BTW, there is no 'correct' look for neg film. There is only what the manufacturer recommends.
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
Alright, can we be done with this ^^^ now? It's derailing an otherwise useful thread...
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Patrick T you're nearly there, I'm not sure I'd use the Colour restoration setting as that is for faded prints an Epson Auto special.
Your workflow is similar to my own with Epson scan.
Your workflow is similar to my own with Epson scan.
valdas
Veteran
Despite the heated tone of this discussion between Photo_Smith and edge100 I agree with some arguments of both. Yes, i care more about the look of the scan that I like (vs "true one"), but I would be interested to see what was realy meant to be seen as a positive image the way the film was made.
Mark C
Well-known
There certainly were photographic scientists with a variety of names and titles, and degrees in the field. I know a number of people with those degrees and have learned a tremendous amount from them. Their way of looking at issues can be different than you are used to and I have butted heads with a few because of this, but have found that it is almost always worth trying to understand the information they are presenting.
edge100
Well-known
The point is: this doesn't exist. There is no "meant to"; there is only the interpretation of the printer, which may or may not match the recommendations of the manufacturer.
The film - by contrast - has a specific characteristic tone curve.
When dealing with a positive, that's it; that's your final product.
When dealing with a negative, you have another layer of interpretation which has ALWAYS been part of the process.
edge100
Well-known
I get what you're saying (as an actual scientist with an actual advanced degree).
I'm not sure we're getting much of that here, though.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
All renderings of negatives are interpretations, I'm not stating that people shouldn't print to an aim that they are satisfied with quite the opposite in fact
That said I'd like to point out that colour happens in the user it doesn't truly exist in a physical sense, so dyes must be normalised to be representative of the human visual response which has been mapped and plotted by Munsell, CIE etc.
My point being in order for you to interpret the dye set in any film it had to conform to a standard, we have a user here who has stated that negatives have no standard rendering-which is false.
If they didn't computerised minilabs wouldn't be able to have MBL channels to match too colour would vary widely and a neutral print would be evaluative rather than an objective measurement.
Colour negatives are half of any given process, they normally but not always have a mask which makes critical evaluation with the naked eye impossible (Ok very very hard)
So I'm not saying you can't print or scan to any colour you wish, just if you want others to enjoy your vision you might have to develop a grasp of the colour chain and how things like correct processing (to prevent cross curves) scanning to retain colour numbers in your film; even profiling your monitor or calibrating your printing set-up will help you achieve those goals.
Please don't berate people for putting forward the ideas and technology as 'just being interested in numbers' rather than prints-the two are not mutually exclusive in all cases.
valdas
Veteran
I understand this, but there is a reason there is a Portra 160NC vs VC. And there are many many different films. If all is left to my interpretation, this variety does not have any sense. Therefore I assume those films are made to give some unique look. At least some key characteristics should be targeted, no?
edge100
Well-known
This user claims only that the final rendering of the film is, as you correctly (for once) point out, an interpretation by the person doing the printing/scanning.
Nothing anyone (certainly not me) should be taken to imply that the films themselves do not have representative tone curves and different mask colours that you correctly (for once) point out can greatly complicate visual interpretation of the negative.
But even if it's a mini lab doing the developing (which is completely standardized) and printing, the end product is still an interpretation, made in the mind of a computer programmer in some far off land (who I'm sure gives the keynote at the Photographic Scientist convention).
Also, I thought you were ignoring me?
edge100
Well-known
I am not convincedWell, maybe (I say maybe as don't know) there is no 100% target color match, but there is a reason there is a Portra 160NC vs VC. And there are many many different films. If all is left to my interpretation, this variety does not have any sense. Therefore I assume those films are made to give some unique look. At least some key characteristics should be targeted, no?
Of course. The FILM has a characteristic that, all other things being equal, will render different results in print than any other film. That Ektar is not Portra 160 is not Portra 400 is not 400H is not in dispute.
What IS in dispute is that for A GIVEN FILM, the final look is - AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN - a product of both the native characteristics of the film (and the paper) as well as the interpretation of the negative by the person doing the printing.
Negative are not positives. This is our tautology of the day. Negatives are not positives.