Krzys
Well-known
I am planning on shooting Portra NC 160 & 400 in New Zealand late July and in the run up to the trip I will be knocking off some test rolls to make sure I'm sold on the idea. I will also be trying some VC and Ektar.
In the last few days I have been scanning some old Kodak Gold 400 and Fuji Superia and find that obtaining correct color balance is difficult at best. I use an Epson V700 with Vuescan, lock the base color on some unexposed film and such then try and work in photoshop with the bluey green gunk scans which are produced.
If you are pleased with your c41 scans then please detail your method on scanning and color correcting. Note that I am not concerned about sharpness or resolution on this topic. Just dynamic range/contrast and color balance.
In the last few days I have been scanning some old Kodak Gold 400 and Fuji Superia and find that obtaining correct color balance is difficult at best. I use an Epson V700 with Vuescan, lock the base color on some unexposed film and such then try and work in photoshop with the bluey green gunk scans which are produced.
If you are pleased with your c41 scans then please detail your method on scanning and color correcting. Note that I am not concerned about sharpness or resolution on this topic. Just dynamic range/contrast and color balance.
amateriat
We're all light!
How does that cliché go..."I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you?" 
Kodak Portra, in my experience, is one of those films you could almost scan well in your sleep. The qualifier here is that about 80% of my experience scanning the film over the last eight years has been via Minolta 35mm scanners and either VueScan or Minolta's own drivers (yes, really). The only flatbed I have to compare this with is a UMAX PowerLook 2100XL, which does almost as good a job, but which I mostly use for enlarged contact sheets where 35mm is involved.
Your workflow generally seems sound; do understand that Kodak Gold, decent as it is as a cheap n' cheerful color-neg film (I've been shooting a lot of Gold 200 for a little lark of a project lately), don't confuse or conflate it with Portra films just because it all comes from Great Yellow Father.. There's actually a reason why you pay more for a roll of the latter than the former.
Just shoot one roll each of Portra 160NC and 400 (you didn't mention whether you're shooting 400NC or VC, but I suggest NC to maintain consistency), and scan according to your workflow. Then come back with some results, and we'll see how things shake out.
- Barrett
Kodak Portra, in my experience, is one of those films you could almost scan well in your sleep. The qualifier here is that about 80% of my experience scanning the film over the last eight years has been via Minolta 35mm scanners and either VueScan or Minolta's own drivers (yes, really). The only flatbed I have to compare this with is a UMAX PowerLook 2100XL, which does almost as good a job, but which I mostly use for enlarged contact sheets where 35mm is involved.
Your workflow generally seems sound; do understand that Kodak Gold, decent as it is as a cheap n' cheerful color-neg film (I've been shooting a lot of Gold 200 for a little lark of a project lately), don't confuse or conflate it with Portra films just because it all comes from Great Yellow Father.. There's actually a reason why you pay more for a roll of the latter than the former.
Just shoot one roll each of Portra 160NC and 400 (you didn't mention whether you're shooting 400NC or VC, but I suggest NC to maintain consistency), and scan according to your workflow. Then come back with some results, and we'll see how things shake out.
- Barrett
Ranchu
Veteran
I wish I could help you. I tried a bunch of software for a v500 and wound up tossing all of it for a Nikon and Nikonscan it was so frustrating. What sold me on the Nikon was that it samples the film stock color before the scan. That's ideal, imo. I'm also not entirely convinced that color correction works all that well with neg film. It has the color masking in it unlike slide. Could be just me.
Last edited:
arseniii
Well-known
I am only satisfied when my film was shoot and processed within 2 days. The colors are so much nicer when the film is developed right away after it's done. As for the process I use CoolScan IV and Photo Shop CS to controll color balance and saturation...
1. Freshly processed 400NC:
2. 2 weeks old 400NC not as good as 1:
1. Freshly processed 400NC:
2. 2 weeks old 400NC not as good as 1:
Last edited:
Fujitsu
Well-known
... umm what?
Krzys
Well-known
grainy_shadows
Established
can someone confirm this? if so, i will get my films process asap from now on.
Krzys
Well-known
I call bull****. Unless film is left in a hot car or microwave then it shouldn't matter.
Arjay
Time Traveller
That's a rather courageous claim. Color changes in exposed film will only occur is the film is stored in unfavorable conditions over an extended time. If you are careful about never storing film (exposed or not doesn't make much of a difference) at elevated temperatures and maybe even store it in the fridge after exposure, then there should not be any color changes.
Another aspect - of course - may be your color memory that is fading: After a while, you won't remember the colors of the actual scene any more, and so you might not be able to tweak the colors so that they precisely match what you saw at the time of capture.
Looking at the two pictures, there is a significant difference in light quality between the two: The first was shot out of the shadow, and into a normal, rather unproblematic scenery. The second was shot while standing in direct light into a back-lit scene. Lens physics lets me assume that the second picture might possibly contain light scattered inside the lens which reduces contrast and color saturation. So you probably can't blame this on the film.
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
I also would disagree with this. I also disagree with those who believe that developing b/w film for an extra five seconds makes a difference.
DabCan10
Established
Back on topic...
I have a V700 and I hate to say it, but after trying many different methods and adjusting in PS afterwards, I find the dreaded "auto exposure" seems to get it pretty good most of the time with only some small tweaks needed in PS afterwards. I'm sure many will disagree with me though.
I have a V700 and I hate to say it, but after trying many different methods and adjusting in PS afterwards, I find the dreaded "auto exposure" seems to get it pretty good most of the time with only some small tweaks needed in PS afterwards. I'm sure many will disagree with me though.
benlees
Well-known
Actually, I do the same thing.
Works very well, I find. The V700 does well with 120 c41 films.
Krzys
Well-known
I would rather experience to be given on software...rather than hardware. No doubt I am going to be told that the v700 is terrible for 35mm a hundred times. I just came from a Canoscan 8400f....so the v700 is heaven to me.
tammons
Established
I have issues with Vuescan as Its the most counter-intuitive scanning software I have ever used.
And that is coming from drum scanning.
Good results is 95% in the profile you are using.
To do it properly you need to do a custom profile in vuescan and then you should get superb result.
Silverfast does okay with my drum scanner, but the Aztek software does much better with negatives for some reason.
Better profiles I guess.
With the Epsons I actually get easier good negative results with epsonscan than I do silverfast.
These are not critical scans though.
Lately I tried out a Primefilm 7250 pro3 and got easier/better results from negative film than most anything else I have used lately.
Just set the correct profile (which are mostly generic), turn on Roc and scan to 16 bit tiff, then minor correct in PS.
And that is coming from drum scanning.
Good results is 95% in the profile you are using.
To do it properly you need to do a custom profile in vuescan and then you should get superb result.
Silverfast does okay with my drum scanner, but the Aztek software does much better with negatives for some reason.
Better profiles I guess.
With the Epsons I actually get easier good negative results with epsonscan than I do silverfast.
These are not critical scans though.
Lately I tried out a Primefilm 7250 pro3 and got easier/better results from negative film than most anything else I have used lately.
Just set the correct profile (which are mostly generic), turn on Roc and scan to 16 bit tiff, then minor correct in PS.
Last edited:
Gradskater
Well-known
1. Develop at home with the unicolor c-41 kit.
2. scan with a 7300 plustek opticfilm at 1800 dpi
3. Use silverfast software. A lot of people don't like this program, but once I got used to it, it wasn't difficult to get good scans. I find that color film is waaay more sensitive to correct exposure than black and white film, and cheap film really can look pretty bad if underexposed. I overexpose whatever film I grab from the local drug store by at least half a stop. That seems to help with the noise, and if all else fails, there is noise ninja.
If colors look wonky, I will use the global color correction tool, but generally outdoor sunlight is easy to get right. It's that indoor and mixed lighting that throw everything off. Scan flat, with pretty low contrast. I deepen the shadows and blacks later. I find this is easier than trying to get the contrast exactly right when scanning.
4. Import into iphoto and tweak it from there, mainly playing with the histogram sliders. I don't have a lot of time to post process images, and I find for my needs iphoto is enough.
That it, and I am pretty happy with my results. Here is a high dynamic range picture from my buddies surprise birthday party last weekend. Ektar 100 film.
2. scan with a 7300 plustek opticfilm at 1800 dpi
3. Use silverfast software. A lot of people don't like this program, but once I got used to it, it wasn't difficult to get good scans. I find that color film is waaay more sensitive to correct exposure than black and white film, and cheap film really can look pretty bad if underexposed. I overexpose whatever film I grab from the local drug store by at least half a stop. That seems to help with the noise, and if all else fails, there is noise ninja.
If colors look wonky, I will use the global color correction tool, but generally outdoor sunlight is easy to get right. It's that indoor and mixed lighting that throw everything off. Scan flat, with pretty low contrast. I deepen the shadows and blacks later. I find this is easier than trying to get the contrast exactly right when scanning.
4. Import into iphoto and tweak it from there, mainly playing with the histogram sliders. I don't have a lot of time to post process images, and I find for my needs iphoto is enough.
That it, and I am pretty happy with my results. Here is a high dynamic range picture from my buddies surprise birthday party last weekend. Ektar 100 film.
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
The V700 is more than sufficient for most (!!) 35mm. The key is to have flat film and a properly adjusted (height) film-holder. The Epson software is actually very very good for C41 films, less hassle than Vuesan and a Nikon Coolscan.
SamStewart
Established
Actually, I do the same thing.
Works very well, I find. The V700 does well with 120 c41 films.
me too. it works well i find.
imokruok
Well-known
The V700 is more than sufficient for most (!!) 35mm. The key is to have flat film and a properly adjusted (height) film-holder. The Epson software is actually very very good for C41 films, less hassle than Vuesan and a Nikon Coolscan.
Good to hear on all of those tips. My V700 is on the way, and I'll give the stock holders a shot before shelling out for adjustable height. I have a fairly recent copy of Silverfast from my old 4490, but my impression is that if you're not going to learn all of its settings, it's just going to screw you over. Sure, the software has some serious capabilities, but if you leave everything on default it doesn't know what to do, and I am unable to devote my life to mastering the minutiae of scanning film.
stompyq
Well-known
I've run in to the same issues as the OP when it comes to scanning superia. Color balance is very difficult with it and i've been very rarely happy with skin tones. However i've been trying porta 160VC and it scans fabulously. Nothing to do and straight scans are near perfect. My advice is to shoot porta and not worry. It really is a great film.
P.S I've also tried ektar (on and off). It's easier than superia but the colors have too much popfor portraits. Sort of like velvia. Great for landscapes but not so for people. Stick with portra.
P.S I've also tried ektar (on and off). It's easier than superia but the colors have too much popfor portraits. Sort of like velvia. Great for landscapes but not so for people. Stick with portra.
DNG
Film Friendly
I also have the Plustek 7300 SE. I only select the film brand and ISO. With Superia 400, and BW400CN, I use Kodak Gold 400 for the settings. I use no other settings. Unless I scan to BW, then I put saturation slider to -50.. I don't see any difference in setting it up for Fuji Superia 400 over KG400 settings.. with both boxes checked for exposure and base filtering.
I find that doing any color color correction is easy enough in ACDSee Pro 3. It may scan a little off, but so what., it is easily corrected in a better photo edit program imo.
I scan to make 100mp TIFF file...usually around 5000dpi.
BW400CN has a much finer grain the Superia 400, but, Superia 400 to BW has that old time grain with nice detail for portraits.
Sample with Fuji Superia 400 to BW
