Scanning Color Negative Film

[Hugh Sakols]

When shooting film I for the most part scan transparency film. I have some Portra 160 NC in the fridge that I want to play with just to get a different look. However, in the past I have had trouble controlling color in negatives. I use a minolta multi pro scanner. I'd like to hear about any techniques that might make this job easier.

[Peter De Smidt]

I would recommend shooting something like a MacBeth Color Checker chart under controlled conditions with the film you'd like to scan. You can then check out various methods, whether in the scanner software or in Photoshop, to see which works best; and you'll have the reference at hand.

[pherold]

What makes color negative scanning difficult is that every type of film has a different colored base. I am not familiar with your scanner, but ideally a scanner will be able to sample a portion of the film base, and "neutralize" the effect that base has on the color of the image. If that is not available, some scanners can read dx bar codes on the film to determine what kind of film it is, and use look up tables to find compensation algorithms.

[B.S.Kumar]

Try VueScan.

Kumar

[Robert Budding]

I've been happy with the ColorNeg Photoshop plugin. A recent thread and good examples from a German site here:

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00MRuZ

http://www.colorneg.de/oldneg.html?lang=en

You can download a trial version from here:

http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html

[neil poulsen]

The thing I like about Silverfast's AI, is that they have settings for the different types of negative film.

[mrladewig]

The thing I like about Silverfast's AI, is that they have settings for the different types of negative film.

Silverfast SE also has these settings or profiles, but doesn't allow the manual control offered by Silverfast Ai. SE always places the white and black levels points at the ends of the histogram which can be a real problem when the negative has a narrow SBR. Ai allows you to control the levels endpoints on each color channel manually if you wish. I have been pretty happy with Silverfast Ai for color negatives.

[Robert Budding]

Presets for different film types are helpful starting points. ColorNeg has over 230 built-in film types. And it only cost me $67 - much better than the $400 that Silverfast charges for my scanner.

[OldBikerPete]

While discussing development of C41 color on APUG, I had occasion to bemoan the fact that - for color negative scanning, scanners and their software (in my experience) do not behave like enlargers. ie When I have repeated a sequence of actions precisely, the results do not repeat. The following is a dupliacte of a post I made towards the end of that discussion.
-------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahock
To my knowledge, recent scanner are quite clever enough.....<snip>..... UnQuote:

Too bloody clever by half. Duplicate scans of the same neg. were wildly different in color balance and had cross-overs - different ones. That's using the software which came with the M1 - both the Microtek and the Silverfast. I'm waiting impatiently for Vuescan to support the M1.

Although just in the last week or so I had an epiphany.
In setting up my development process I made use of some Kodak process control strips and a densitometer.
I had the idea of using the Microtek software which has in it the facility to enter custom Dmin and Dmax numbers. (I had been leaving the density range on automatic and the software had been arbitrarily clipping the highlights and shadows off my images and screwing with color balance). I had these density numbers to hand from process control strips, so I entered them into each of the R, G and B channels of the custom density setting and --------- voila -------- instant repeatability.

====================================
The numbers I used were:

R: 0.30 - 2.40
G: 0.80 - 3.40
B: 1.00 - 3.90

I was using 5x4 Portra VC
===================================
Gross color balance can be tweaked by making small changes to the Dmin values after viewing the prescan.

The initial scan (I use 48-bit scans) is weak and low-contrast and the negs I have scanned only use about 1/3 of the full density span. I save the scan as a tif and then open it up in Photoshop. Add adjustment layers for (respectively) levels, brightness/contrast, hue/saturation, color balance and curves and I finish up with an image that looks like a good scan of a good transparency without any of the difficult and guesstimated color shifting I had to do previously.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Your trouble sounds like the trouble I used to have. Is there any facility in your software to specify Demin and Dmax values?

[SharpLiz]

Presets for different film types are helpful starting points. ColorNeg has over 230 built-in film types. And it only cost me $67 - much better than the $400 that Silverfast charges for my scanner.
$400 ? Then it's not the SilverFast Ai version, is it ?
Plus, SilverFast comes with many more usefull features than just a few film type profiles. It's not that cheap like Vuescan, but worth its money.

@ Hugh Sakols:
Have you tried SilverFast ? Perhaps the NegaFix functionality could fix your issues.
http://www.silverfast.com/show/negafix/en.html

[Robert Budding]

$400 ? Then it's not the SilverFast Ai version, is it ?
Plus, SilverFast comes with many more usefull features than just a few film type profiles. It's not that cheap like Vuescan, but worth its money.

@ Hugh Sakols:
Have you tried SilverFast ? Perhaps the NegaFix functionality could fix your issues.
http://www.silverfast.com/show/negafix/en.html

The cost for Silverfast Ai for my scanner, a Nikon 9000 ED, is over $400. I've used Silverfast on my flatbed scanner and it was decent. But there is no way that it's worth $400.

I now use NikonScan and scan everything as a positive. I then use ColorNeg, a Photoshop plugin, to invert and color correct negatives. It works great, and it costs $67.

[harrykauf]

I also recommend the Vuescan + colorNeg combination for epson scanners. The
update for silverfast for my v750 would have been over 200euros just to get the
multi exposure feature.
I found the NegaFix useless on most images and very erratic and inconsistent
compared to other solutions. I dont like that they split essential functionality
into modules and give them trademarked fantasy names.
I only use it now to get a basic RAW scan (HDR in fantasy land).
here is a rough comparison why I dont like the negafix profiles:
Top is negafix and bottom is a manual conversion in photoshop using curves on
a raw scan
http://www.sooshee.com/tmp/sf01.jpg

[Brian_A]

The
update for silverfast for my v750 would have been over 200euros just to get the
multi exposure feature.

Shoulda called LaserSoft. Most people I know with the V750 called them and they upgraded them for free.

[harrykauf]

Shoulda called LaserSoft. Most people I know with the V750 called them and they upgraded them for free.

really? thanks for the tip. would not have guessed that.

[aphexafx]

I want to add that the implications of multi-exposure sampling at the film scanning stage are huge for desktop users. Because film has the ability to record a large DR without noise at either end, in one exposure, this workflow (film->multi-exp scanning) has advantages over the digital camera version (would require multiple captures) beyond just resolution.

SilverFast says up to 2400:1 CR on an Epson v700 from one chrome or negative.

The increase in s/n is brilliant and worth the upgrade, imo.

[Kirk Gittings]

Only trouble is that the step motors of the Epsons are crap and you can't get two passes exactly the same size, so the multipass feature gives you a soft scan. Unless they fixed it recently. SF's registration program for the passes simply did not work. I complained to them for two years to know avail that I know of. Preheating the negative by doing a series of identical MP scans helped, but turned the process into a long Russian Roulette game.


I want to add that the implications of multi-exposure sampling at the film scanning stage are huge for desktop users. Because film has the ability to record a large DR without noise at either end, in one exposure, this workflow (film->multi-exp scanning) has advantages over the digital version beyond just resolution.

SilverFast says up to 2400:1 CR on an Epson v700 from one chrome or negative.

[aphexafx]

Only trouble is that the step motors of the Epsons are crap and you can't get two passes exactly the same size, so the multipass feature gives you a soft scan. Unless they fixed it recently. SF's registration program for the passes simply did not work. I complained to them for two years to know avail that I know of. Preheating the negative by doing a series of identical MP scans helped, but turned the process into a long Russian Roulette game.

Ah! Damn, well there you go - that's theory vs. practice for you! I am working on upgrading my copy so I can test it on my v750, and we'll see how things go! Kirk, how bad did things get and which scanner were you using when you had trouble with registration?

Added: The preliminary try-out that I did on another v750 some time ago was pretty impressive, but of course I was not on the lookout for misalignment artifacts. However, my v750 seems to do pretty well with multi-pass (averaging) scanning and I haven't noticed any added softness or anything that couldn’t be controlled - so I hope the same holds true for multi-exposure passes as well. Then again, I fully admit that I don't have as many hours behind the driver's seat and might just be lacking in criticality.

[Kirk Gittings]

It is a 750. They are better when they are brand new, but maybe SF fixed the problem? I haven't done anything buts casual scanning on mine for some time.

[SharpLiz]

The cost for Silverfast Ai for my scanner, a Nikon 9000 ED, is over $400. I've used Silverfast on my flatbed scanner and it was decent. But there is no way that it's worth $400. ...
I looked up the prices in their online shop. You're right, SilverFast is $400 vor the 9000 ED. But it's the IT8 version. So color management system and IT8 target for calibration are included. $400 is pricey anyhow. And they aren't offering the cheaper normal Ai or the SE versions for the 9000 ED, strange.


... I found the NegaFix useless on most images and very erratic and inconsistent compared to other solutions.
I only use it now to get a basic RAW scan (HDR in fantasy land).
here is a rough comparison why I dont like the negafix profiles:
Top is negafix and bottom is a manual conversion in photoshop using curves on
a raw scan
Hmm, you photoshop editing looks much better on first glance, especially the trees. But if you look closer. Isn't there a red cast ? Compare theese two cutouts from your pictures.

negafix:
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/1903/negafix.png

photoshop:
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9791/manual.png

Your photoshop image is much brighter, but there is a loss of detail, e.g. on the roof in the bottom left corner.

Ah and HDR (High Dynamic Range) is neither a fantasy name nor is the word invented by LaserSoft Imaging.
Here is a nice work I found on wikipedia.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Trencin_hdr_001.jpg

[Ken Allen]

I process all my color negative scans manually.
I've tried all the automatic tools like negfix etc. I've never been happy with any of them. I found with practice I get much better results just using curves and hue/sat in Photoshop. I wrote down my process and made a pdf... Too big to attach because it has image examples. Look at my website:
http://kenallenstudios.com/newsP.html

It's the "Color Negative Processing" pdf.

[Peter De Smidt]

Here's another method which I haven't tried yet but will soon. Take a MacBeth Color Checker. Build a shade for the black square using thin cardboard, black velvet and tape. Basically, this is a cube with two sides missing, the top and the bottom, to completely shade the black square. Now photograph the ColorChecker in representative light with the film that you want to set up a curve for. Scan and bring the image into Photoshop. Use the black, middle, and white eyedroppers in an adjustment curve's dialogue box to click on the appropriate square in the color checker to neutralize the shadows, midtones and highlight. Adjust as necessary. As long as you're in similar light with the same film, the curve should be pretty close.

[aphexafx]

Ah and HDR (High Dynamic Range) is neither a fantasy name nor is the word invented by LaserSoft Imaging.
Here is a nice work I found on wikipedia.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Trencin_hdr_001.jpg

That isn't an HDR image, it is a compressed version of an HDR image (which has become all the rage even though it is gross imo). I think the reference above was to the fact that LaserSoft is slightly abusing the HDR terminology in their software. What they are doing is calling 16bpp scans of any media 'HDR' when they are really just 16bpp scans - which is fine but does not mean HDR in the sense that most people expect, so it is obtuse and weird!