ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Agree with Gustavo's points on scanning. Colour negatives can produce excellent scans.
Colour negative scanning entails some more work. Hardly will a good scan come right out of the first scan.
The orange mask (not really the film base since a colour negative film has a CLEAR base) is really a weak yellow/magenta positive which develops whereever there is no negative image which a good scanning software is able to sort out properly. The mask itself should not create problems.
In the days when colour negatives were still printed optically on chromogenic paper, it took a lot of effort to balance the colour and contrast values. A lot of corrective filtration was done to get this balance right. The filtration essentially corrects the defects which uncorrected light will make when it passes through the negative's less than perfect colour dye set. The scanner is not going to be different in this case. The first output scan will tend to look flat or even off-coloured as it comes out. To really make the scan snap, correction has to be done after scanning.
The colour negative can contain more and better information than a colour positive when it comes to producing digital images. Colour negatives have more potential when it comes to recording the highlight and shadow details than a positive slide. Getting most of these potential information on the scan will tend to make the negative scans look flat. During the tweak, the operator is allowed to decide which to keep and which to discard, how the contrast, hue, and saturation will be, and to some extent even the dynamic range.
Colour negatives are also easier to use- exposures need not be perfect all the time to produce good positives, and these films cost less than slide films. The colour slide/chrome film world is rapidly decreasing- becoming less accessible, less available, and more costly than colour negative stocks.
Colour negative scanning entails some more work. Hardly will a good scan come right out of the first scan.
The orange mask (not really the film base since a colour negative film has a CLEAR base) is really a weak yellow/magenta positive which develops whereever there is no negative image which a good scanning software is able to sort out properly. The mask itself should not create problems.
In the days when colour negatives were still printed optically on chromogenic paper, it took a lot of effort to balance the colour and contrast values. A lot of corrective filtration was done to get this balance right. The filtration essentially corrects the defects which uncorrected light will make when it passes through the negative's less than perfect colour dye set. The scanner is not going to be different in this case. The first output scan will tend to look flat or even off-coloured as it comes out. To really make the scan snap, correction has to be done after scanning.
The colour negative can contain more and better information than a colour positive when it comes to producing digital images. Colour negatives have more potential when it comes to recording the highlight and shadow details than a positive slide. Getting most of these potential information on the scan will tend to make the negative scans look flat. During the tweak, the operator is allowed to decide which to keep and which to discard, how the contrast, hue, and saturation will be, and to some extent even the dynamic range.
Colour negatives are also easier to use- exposures need not be perfect all the time to produce good positives, and these films cost less than slide films. The colour slide/chrome film world is rapidly decreasing- becoming less accessible, less available, and more costly than colour negative stocks.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hmm. I don't know what your difficulties are.
I scan color negatives with either a Nikon film scanner or an ancient Epson 2450 flatbed scanner using VueScan. Normally, if they're fresh negatives, I've made a test exposure on the film using a tri-gray exposure target and a MacBeth (Xrite) Color Checker at some point in the recent past, so I use that to calibrate the scan for basic density and color adjustment. Once I lock in those settings, I scan all the other exposures on the film to DNG encapsulated TIFFs.
Those are imported into Lightroom and it typically takes only a couple of moments to color balance them perfectly. It's all about process; learning and using good software, etc.
I've never used Epson's software other than to test it once. VueScan (although quirky and a bit tricky to learn) is simply much much more proficient at scanning than anything from Epson, Nikon, Minolta, or Polaroid ...
G
Pete B
Well-known
I'd like to see a video of you doing this from scratch. I'm not sure how to execute " so I use that to calibrate the scan for basic density and color adjustment" or "Once I lock in those settings, I scan all the other exposures on the film" or "imported into Lightroom and it typically takes only a couple of moments to color balance them perfectly"
and I'm sure others would appreciate it too
Pete
68degrees
Well-known
Ive got Vuescan I just havent messed with it yet because I was so happy with my black and white and color slide scans without it. Now I guess Ill have to try it. If i can get a good working protocol like you have then it sounds like it wont be so bad and more potential than I thought too. Thanks.
Pete B
Well-known
Brian Puccio
Well-known
Vuescan also lets you lock in on each roll's unique flavor of that orange mask and remove it. (Though I have to admit I've never done that since I'm 85/15 slide/B&W.)
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Pete
Ed Hamrick has some good tutorials on his website:
http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc15.htm
I use Viewscan, Silverfast (the learning curve is steeper) and for quick web stuff even the Epson software is OK
Ed Hamrick has some good tutorials on his website:
http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc15.htm
I use Viewscan, Silverfast (the learning curve is steeper) and for quick web stuff even the Epson software is OK
Pete B
Well-known
Thanks. I've spent a lot of time reading all the usual links in threads like these. I don't think there is a link that I haven't previously read be it Vuescan, bennet, colourperfect, Epsonscan, silverfast etc etc. I appreciate your offer though. I'd like to see some first hand workflow that can be applied to all colournegative scans.
These are some of the threads I've started:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...r-negative-scanning-vuescan-colorperfect.html
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/172106-colorperfect.html#post1644435
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...96-scanning-consistency-warning-pictures.html
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/204250-epson-scan-workflow.html (this one is rubbish by the way)
Nowadays I find it's better to scan as colournegative with epsonscan (V700) ensuring no clipping (all adjustments switched off) then "Control M" in Photoshop and go through the "Options" for best colour.
Pete
JPSuisse
Well-known
I have to agree with Godfrey and Gustavo:
1.) Profile your scanner
2.) Lock-out the film base color in VueScan
3.) Perk up the pictures afterwards
Should be no problem, and you shouldn't have to stick with only a few films. Once you got the process down, it is quite easy.
Keep trying and good luck!
John
1.) Profile your scanner
2.) Lock-out the film base color in VueScan
3.) Perk up the pictures afterwards
Should be no problem, and you shouldn't have to stick with only a few films. Once you got the process down, it is quite easy.
Keep trying and good luck!
John
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Jamie123
Veteran
Same here. Not only that but I also find myself disappointed time and time again when I scan a slide. The scans never have all the information that I can see on a light table and there's always some minor color shift that I have to correct.
Pete B
Well-known
Perhaps he means not that the orange mask is difficult to remove but that colour accuracy is hard to achieve with C41 colour neg.
Pete
Pete
edge100
Well-known
Buy ColorPerfect and VueScan. Scan as Raw TIFF.
Problem solved.
Seriously. There's no better way to handle colour negatives. Even works for Ektar, which is notoriously difficult to get right.
Problem solved.
Seriously. There's no better way to handle colour negatives. Even works for Ektar, which is notoriously difficult to get right.
Pete B
Well-known
Well, no the problem is not solved. It's another piece of software to learn, and if it's not learnt well the results can be poor.
This is what I've resorted to with EpsonScan:
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/scanning-with-epson-v500.html
ColorPerfect:
EpsonScan:
Pete
This is what I've resorted to with EpsonScan:
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/scanning-with-epson-v500.html
ColorPerfect:
EpsonScan:
Pete
edge100
Well-known
The same can be said of *any* piece of software. ColourPerfect gives a very, very nice starting point. The colours may not be 100% right, but they're far closer than any other tool I've used.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
There isn't really a problem to solve Pete, it just means learning a few basics. Ever since I started scanning my films circa 1994 there's been always another software package to learn, the first version of PS I used didn't have layers or colour management everything was done in L*a*b mode.
We'll all never stop learning (hopefully)
The tutorial you posted was mine, and isn't forcing you to 'resort' to anything but is showing you through simple language how to scan on an Epson V500.
The method of 'scanning flat' used in the tutorial is just a euphemism for knowing how to set your black and white points so that the information contained in the negative matches the range of the scanner–we don't want to throw any info away.
The V500 is notorious for clipping the white part of the histogram as well as not being that good at digging into the shadows of dense films like Velvia.
Your posted examples look fine density wise, a second in Photoshop allowed me to arrive at this:
The image you posted has a couple of issues. Firstly it had a Adobe sRGB profile embedded, which means it looks terrible to non profile aware browsers — on my Mac (profile aware) it just looked Red.
Taking it into PS curves and just using the grey picker allowed me to click on the pavement below the mans feet to correct the colour, that and embedding sRGB is all I've done to your image.
There is also a little posterization probably due to white point clipping on the mans hat and woman's left shoulder.
(I hope you don't mind me posting the image–I use it only for illustrative purposes)
Digital photography has a steep learning curve, but obeying a few simple rules should allow ballpark OK results at least good enough for web display.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
That. I never got good color with VueScan nor Silverfast, but doing a RAW scan with these and converting them with ColorPerfect, I get SUPERB colors:
the slightly wacky Solaris 200:
Am Weg in die Westfjorde von kanzlr auf Flickr
and the classic Portra 400:
Jan / 90mm f2.8 Sonnar / Contax G2 von kanzlr auf Flickr
both done with this method, both looking fine
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Why blame the mask? It's part of the negative. Scanning software algorithms were written with that mask in consideration. A negative without the mask will likely not scan as good as a masked one, considering that the mask is a contrast control and colour aid feature.
If you were 'scanning' using a duplicating attachment on a digital SLR (and photographing the negative), you would probably have a good reason to be so concerned with the mask, since this will make a lot of blues when you invert the negative image in photoshop .
kparkrobs
Newbie
Silverfast
Silverfast
Silverfast
I've just updated my Plustek - Silverfast software and I thought v8 had a special setting for scanning kodachrome. I'm sure I also saw a slider to deal with the orange cast too. The problem is that the manual is next to useless.
johnny.moped
Established
As is the whole Silverfast software.
You might be better off to scan with Vuescan as Raw and the use Colorperfect.