ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Michael, thanks for the excellent video.
Question: As the video starts, you have the shot with a bit of blank film and the rest of the color negative. Your blank film is nearly white. The film base in all the C41 films I use is very orange. How did you shoot this so that you get white in the negative film base? Is it just white balance in the camera?
Might be in your other tutorials, but I couldn't find #1 or #2.
I've experimented with this myself. I got my best results by using a color head to give a cold blue light, then shoot with the DSLR.
edge100
Well-known
Michael, thanks for the excellent video.
Question: As the video starts, you have the shot with a bit of blank film and the rest of the color negative. Your blank film is nearly white. The film base in all the C41 films I use is very orange. How did you shoot this so that you get white in the negative film base? Is it just white balance in the camera?
Might be in your other tutorials, but I couldn't find #1 or #2.
I've experimented with this myself. I got my best results by using a color head to give a cold blue light, then shoot with the DSLR.
Its a combination of moving the exposure until *just* before clipping, and then backing it off a bit (to avoid clipping the reds) and also WB.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Thanks. That was fast.
Can you add a link to your tutorials #1 and #2?
Can you add a link to your tutorials #1 and #2?
edge100
Well-known
With all due respect, who cares? I'm telling you the Autograph LightPad works. In fact, I've linked to two albums full of images showing you this, and I've got literally thousands of other frames confirming this.
Whether or not an LED is accurate to some particular specification is of no relevance here; the whole negative is illuminated by the same light source, and the colour is corrected to the blank film itself. What matters - I would think - is whether this method can produce good scans. And I believe I've convincingly demonstrated that it can and does.
edge100
Well-known
Unfortunately, they were posts on my old blog, now lost to history.
For an updated take, I suggest this:
http://lamfoto.net/2016/01/16/digitizing-negatives-mirrorless-camera/
(Dave and I have worked iteratively on this process, and his method is more or less the same as mine).
edge100
Well-known
So my scans - made with an LED source - are good in practice but potentially not good in theory???
calebarchie
Established
Everybody has their own standards. I personally have seen the effects of poor CRI with my plusteks faulty light source. It is also easily observable with a CD.
It's not a matter whether it is correct or not but about achieving the highest standard.
edge100
Well-known
I'm asking you for your opinion of my scans. I don't doubt one iota of the theory you've described
But my point is: does it matter in practice? I contend, based on thousands of scanned frames, is that the Lightpad is more than sufficient to make outstanding scans of all subjects.
calebarchie
Established
I said everyone has their own standards. That depends on what "Practice" is, for everyday folk, most probably not at all.
edge100
Well-known
So I'm left to conclude that you think my scans are, in fact, excellent and that your discussion above is largely academic? Does that just about capture it?
I'm always amazed at the ability of Internet forumites to extol the theoretical impossibility of that which has been clearly demonstrated to them.
calebarchie
Established
Sorry? I think you are taking this too personally, I have not even looked at your scans.
I have however looked into DSLR scanning options, while they can produce excellent results it's not the thing for me.
EDIT: I am not "DrMcCoy" if you are getting confused here...
mfogiel
Veteran
Originally posted by edge100
"I don't follow.
I've tested my D800 'scans' against a 9000ED, an X1, and a Heidelberg drum scan (can't recall the model).
The DR and resolving power of the D800 exceed that of the 9000ED; that is, I can perceive more detail on the D800 shot. It's not massive, and if you have a 9000ED, good on you. Then again, a D800 has a warranty and detaches from the copy stand for use as a camera, too. Can't do that with your 9000ED, can you?/QUOTE]
I am not trying to contradict you - I am more than willing to change my opinions when faced with hard facts, the point is, that IN THEORY this does non make any sense, hence my interest. I am glad to have CS9000, particularly for MF, but a day will come when it will die and it won't be possible to fix it, so I am very much on a look out for alternatives. To get back to my original question: my B&W 35mm scans come out at around 37 MB, say 35 MB of cleanly resolved information, so no wonder a D800 would trump it, but aren't you confused with the resolution comparison of bigger formats? Or perhaps you are stitching the MF neg scans? Have you compared crops from an image size equivalent to a 1mx1m print from a 6x6 negative ( about 20x enlargement) ?
Another question: would it make more sense, in your opinion, to use a camera with a sensor without the AA filter? And more: would a repro lens ( enlarging lens or copy lens for close up) enhance further the result?
Thanks for your patience.
"I don't follow.
I've tested my D800 'scans' against a 9000ED, an X1, and a Heidelberg drum scan (can't recall the model).
The DR and resolving power of the D800 exceed that of the 9000ED; that is, I can perceive more detail on the D800 shot. It's not massive, and if you have a 9000ED, good on you. Then again, a D800 has a warranty and detaches from the copy stand for use as a camera, too. Can't do that with your 9000ED, can you?/QUOTE]
I am not trying to contradict you - I am more than willing to change my opinions when faced with hard facts, the point is, that IN THEORY this does non make any sense, hence my interest. I am glad to have CS9000, particularly for MF, but a day will come when it will die and it won't be possible to fix it, so I am very much on a look out for alternatives. To get back to my original question: my B&W 35mm scans come out at around 37 MB, say 35 MB of cleanly resolved information, so no wonder a D800 would trump it, but aren't you confused with the resolution comparison of bigger formats? Or perhaps you are stitching the MF neg scans? Have you compared crops from an image size equivalent to a 1mx1m print from a 6x6 negative ( about 20x enlargement) ?
Another question: would it make more sense, in your opinion, to use a camera with a sensor without the AA filter? And more: would a repro lens ( enlarging lens or copy lens for close up) enhance further the result?
Thanks for your patience.
edge100
Well-known
I explained why.
Yes, for MF and LF, I stitch (which I clearly stated above).
For 35mm, the D800 pulls at least as much info as the 9000ED, and has better DR.
And re: the AA filter, you're right.
kuzano
Veteran
Keep low expectations...
Keep low expectations...
I am a diehard, but flatbed scanning "KICKED MY A__!!"
HUGE PITA.
But I finally realized the problem. My expectations were far too high.
After 4 new scanners, I realized that I actually expected high quality results, so I use labs and often drum scans for occasional scans.
I do not have, nor will I devote the time for the results obtainable by consumer scanners, particularly flat bed. My expectations can only be met by someone with much more expensive equipment than I am willing to buy, and who does scanning for a living, or as a part of his/her job.
Drum scans are surely expensive until you factor in equipment cost and time spent. If the difference is a salable piece of photography vs. just so/so forget scanning at home. :bang:
Keep low expectations...
I am a diehard, but flatbed scanning "KICKED MY A__!!"
HUGE PITA.
But I finally realized the problem. My expectations were far too high.
After 4 new scanners, I realized that I actually expected high quality results, so I use labs and often drum scans for occasional scans.
I do not have, nor will I devote the time for the results obtainable by consumer scanners, particularly flat bed. My expectations can only be met by someone with much more expensive equipment than I am willing to buy, and who does scanning for a living, or as a part of his/her job.
Drum scans are surely expensive until you factor in equipment cost and time spent. If the difference is a salable piece of photography vs. just so/so forget scanning at home. :bang:
edge100
Well-known
The answer is in this thread.
Scanning does not need to be a trade off between ease of use, cost, and quality.
vbsoto
Established
I've been scanning a back catalog of negatives which obviously is my only option for getting digital files. In contrast, I have film cameras but rarely shoot film now because of the convenience. I don't think I could return to a film only workflow for new work. I do enjoy the scanning process periodically time permitting and the enjoyment of seeing old work. I used a Epson 3170 for years until it broke and now have an Epson 4490 ICE function. I've used both VueScan and Epson scan software. Both produce best results with frame by frame adjustments prior to running the batch. Figure 10 minutes of prep for each batch run.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
This is a tricky question, and has been from the dawn of photography.
My take: No photograph is a true measure of the light values of the scene. Produced by the scene, but not a straight measure of the scene. B&W has a curve (with a toe and a knee). Color is much more complicated, our photo-gear produces good color because of good engineering. Films have personality, so does a DSLR (often with options for rendering style). It's not just a clean measurement of the scene.
Are the colors in your photo accurate? No, they aren't. They've been massaged by a process or a response curve or both. So to an extent, I'll agree, who cares if it's theoretically accurate?
The important question to me is: Do the colors in your photo deliver on your photographic (artistic) intent? Obviously, when trying for a realistic rendering, if the colors are "off" that won't be an effective photo. Of course, colors that are really "off" can produce an intentional non-realistic rendering that works.
The scans by @edge100 look pretty good to me. Good resolution, sharp, realistic renderings, and none of the color or tonality looks "off."
I do suspect there are color theory violations when we use white balance to correct for the film base, use an imperfect light source, and just invert the data (which has been gamma encoded). And, we aren't doing specific calibrations for each film stock. I suspect a shot of a ColorChecker might not be "accurate." I suspect that if we were shooting for a catalog or archival shots for a museum, we would have a better chance getting accurate product colors with a major brand DSLR than by using this process on C-41 film. Mini-labs had good engineering for producing color that customers would accept. Shooting a negative with a DSLR doesn't have the benefit of that engineering.
I believe the people at ColorNeg have addressed these theory questions with considerable skill, but they disclaim using their product with DSLR pseudo-scans, only with "flat" scanner scans. I would love to see a software product which would use their math on DSLR pseudo-scans.
I've experimented with a process pretty much like yours. Here's sample, not too bad, but not perfect, and it didn't take much work.
My take: No photograph is a true measure of the light values of the scene. Produced by the scene, but not a straight measure of the scene. B&W has a curve (with a toe and a knee). Color is much more complicated, our photo-gear produces good color because of good engineering. Films have personality, so does a DSLR (often with options for rendering style). It's not just a clean measurement of the scene.
Are the colors in your photo accurate? No, they aren't. They've been massaged by a process or a response curve or both. So to an extent, I'll agree, who cares if it's theoretically accurate?
The important question to me is: Do the colors in your photo deliver on your photographic (artistic) intent? Obviously, when trying for a realistic rendering, if the colors are "off" that won't be an effective photo. Of course, colors that are really "off" can produce an intentional non-realistic rendering that works.
The scans by @edge100 look pretty good to me. Good resolution, sharp, realistic renderings, and none of the color or tonality looks "off."
I do suspect there are color theory violations when we use white balance to correct for the film base, use an imperfect light source, and just invert the data (which has been gamma encoded). And, we aren't doing specific calibrations for each film stock. I suspect a shot of a ColorChecker might not be "accurate." I suspect that if we were shooting for a catalog or archival shots for a museum, we would have a better chance getting accurate product colors with a major brand DSLR than by using this process on C-41 film. Mini-labs had good engineering for producing color that customers would accept. Shooting a negative with a DSLR doesn't have the benefit of that engineering.
I believe the people at ColorNeg have addressed these theory questions with considerable skill, but they disclaim using their product with DSLR pseudo-scans, only with "flat" scanner scans. I would love to see a software product which would use their math on DSLR pseudo-scans.
I've experimented with a process pretty much like yours. Here's sample, not too bad, but not perfect, and it didn't take much work.
kj_
Member
A busy weekend has mostly kept me away from the Internet. I've checked this thread a few times, but no time to write anything until now.
I'm amazed and thankful for all the great input. So many thoughtful replies and a lot of valuable insights in this thread. I almost feel like replying to each entry individually, but that's obviously not practical for anyone.
I guess my key takeaways so far are:
- Don't underestimate the tedium.
Almost everyone brings up the amount of time scanning takes. I need to include that in my planning and in the structure I chose. I also need to find a feasible way to identify what negs to scan, instead of always aiming for entire rolls. The idea of shooting the film strips with my phone and then inverting the results sounds like an interesting approach to this issue.
- There are few absolute truths
I probably shouldn't be surprised by this, but writing the original post I expected there to be some pretty clear answers to some of the questions. Obviously that's not going to happen. Like everything in photography (and life in general) choices in approach and equipment depends on many factors. Tradeoffs between quality, resolution, price, convenience, speed etc makes the decision matrix enormou and a great choice for one person might be awful for another. It's also pretty much impossible to know for sure without getting your feet wet. I would've never known wether I like or dislike shooting rangefinders (love), medium format (like) or pro SLR:s (dislike) without trying. Likewise I probably just need to give scanning a go at a level that seems reasonable and adjust from there.
- Dust will be an issue
No further comments.
I'm sort of closing in on a decision, or at least a starting point. I'll keep reading as long as anyone is writing as well as keep you posted on the wetting of my feet.
Regards / KJ
I'm amazed and thankful for all the great input. So many thoughtful replies and a lot of valuable insights in this thread. I almost feel like replying to each entry individually, but that's obviously not practical for anyone.
I guess my key takeaways so far are:
- Don't underestimate the tedium.
Almost everyone brings up the amount of time scanning takes. I need to include that in my planning and in the structure I chose. I also need to find a feasible way to identify what negs to scan, instead of always aiming for entire rolls. The idea of shooting the film strips with my phone and then inverting the results sounds like an interesting approach to this issue.
- There are few absolute truths
I probably shouldn't be surprised by this, but writing the original post I expected there to be some pretty clear answers to some of the questions. Obviously that's not going to happen. Like everything in photography (and life in general) choices in approach and equipment depends on many factors. Tradeoffs between quality, resolution, price, convenience, speed etc makes the decision matrix enormou and a great choice for one person might be awful for another. It's also pretty much impossible to know for sure without getting your feet wet. I would've never known wether I like or dislike shooting rangefinders (love), medium format (like) or pro SLR:s (dislike) without trying. Likewise I probably just need to give scanning a go at a level that seems reasonable and adjust from there.
- Dust will be an issue
No further comments.
I'm sort of closing in on a decision, or at least a starting point. I'll keep reading as long as anyone is writing as well as keep you posted on the wetting of my feet.
Regards / KJ
edge100
Well-known
All valid points.
On the other hand, I wouldn't shoot a commercial job with colour negative film. Interpretation of the negative has always been a part of shooting negatives, whether they were wet printed or otherwise. There is no objectively "correct" colour from a negative; there is only interpretation, which may or may not be true to what the manufacturer intended.
A commercial job, shot on film, to me suggests reversal film and a colour managed scanning workflow. Which, incidentally, is entirely compatible with DSLR scanning (IT8 targets work just as well here).
jnclde
Established
Buy yourself a Pakon f135 and enjoy your time shooting rather than scanning. The quality is there. And if you really want to high resolution you can use software like blow up 3. Or if the negative is that great you can get it done.
The latest image are all my samples from the Pakon.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/80442584@N07/
The latest image are all my samples from the Pakon.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/80442584@N07/