Scanning color negative as opposed to slide film

Flyfisher Tom

Flyfisher Tom

Well-known
Local time
6:14 PM
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,975
I use slide film for color almost exclusively. Velvia and Provia are very easy to scan and maintain great color fidelity to what I remember at the scene.

I have, however, seen some pretty impressive scans of color print film lately, principally Reala and Superia.

see: http://www.mamiya7.com/document.php?id=401&full=1

In the few times I've tried scanning in color negative film, I've had mediocre washed out colors and blown highlights. The development prints looked fine, but the color fidelity was just missing in scanning. Granted, I haven't done extensive experimentation in this arena :eek:

What is your favored techniques on scanning color negative film? Any particular pitfalls or corrections (as opposed to slide film) to look out for? Or is it just a matter of spending more time boosting everything in PS (relative to slide film)?

Many thanks in advance.
 
I scan mostly color negative film, K-M SD IV. I never have any major problem getting an excellent scan as long as the negative is more or less properly exposed.

The only major suggestion I might make is attention to detail. Be sure your negative is clean when you scan it and the like. Tweak the exposure if necessary so you get a good balance of highlight and shadow detail.

I've found that multi-pass scanning helps to reduce noise in the dark (clear on negative) solids and bring out detail in overexposed highlights. This is not a cure-all. If there's no detail there, it won't bring it out. :)

We had some threads a while back that demonstrated that in some cases a B&W negative gave better scans if scanned as a positive, but with color negatives there's that orange mask to contend with, so it probably will not work very well trying that.
 
I find col negs work a bit better for me than slides for scanning, most of the time. Generalizing, I think it's because there's more latitude in the scale, more tonal range available. Slides are similar to digital images, with sharp dropoffs in either shadows or highlights, though a nicely balanced slide scans well.

The thing I've found to watch is the scanning software itself. The software that came with my Minolta 5400 clips both highlights and shadows in its default settings. Fortunately there are enough controls that I can adjust frames individually. Vuescan preserves a better tonal range for me, but the cols are not as well balanced and it doesn't do as good a job with cleanup, so for col work I tend to stick with the Minolta software and Digital ICE. For B&W scanning, it's the reverse. I almost never use the Minolta software for silver-halide B&W negatives. Too much clipping.

With Fuji C-41 films I get a very slight greenish cast after scanning but if I hit the AutoColor adjustment in Photoshop, the cols tend to balance nicely. The downside of col negs is there's no reference point. With slides you can compare the cols in the scan to the original slide.

I find the modern C-41 films very fine grained compared to what they were 20 yrs ago. And still cheap to purchase and have processed. If slides weren't so expensive to shoot, I'd probably use slide film more often.

Gene
 
GeneW said:
modern C-41 films very fine grained ... still cheap to purchase and have processed. If slides weren't so expensive to shoot, I'd probably use slide film more often.

Gene
Click to expand...

I agree, I love slide film (if for nothing else just because I love the 3-dimensional experience of looking at them on a lighttable). But C-41 is easier to find, cheaper and easier to have processed (especially while traveling).
 
Try Fuji Superia, the 1 or 200, I reached the conclusion that the dimage 5400 “likes” that best, I use a 16bit linier single scan with everything else switched off and usually have little to do in PS apart from cooling the colour a fraction (using Adobe RBG perceptive on the monitor, and setting a separate custom balance on each printer)
Be warned however it’s slow work, I’m only progressing 1or2% to that quality I wouldn’t want to do a full roll

PS it’s the first version of the scanner and latest version of the software and you still have to do the dust manually.
PPS I don’t mind a bit of grain in the shadows
 
Last edited:
Well, scanners like lower contrast, and negative film is much, much lower contrast than slide film. The major problem for me is that I have to spend more time getting the contrast and punchiness out of negatives than I do with slides. Of course, since I lose almost all shadow detail with slides it's an acceptable trade-off.

allan
 
kaiyen said:
Well, scanners like lower contrast, and negative film is much, much lower contrast than slide film. The major problem for me is that I have to spend more time getting the contrast and punchiness out of negatives than I do with slides. Of course, since I lose almost all shadow detail with slides it's an acceptable trade-off.

allan
Click to expand...

I agree with 400 and above there is more work to do, but I don't find that at 100 or 200iso
PS I tend to overexpose where I can that will make a difference
 
Last edited:
well, technically underexposure will increase color saturation. But certainly scannling print film is doable and the latitude is nice. if you do want 400 get some 400UC. God I love that stuff.

allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom