CF Systems ColorNeg Opinions?

[Robert Budding]

Has anyone on this forum run comparisons between CF Systems' ColorNeg software and their usual Photoshop (or other) work flow? I'd really like to see some comparison photos.

I'll run a few tests myself eventually. For now, I have a backlog of negs I'm printing in the darkroom.

[Robert Budding]

No one here has used this?

[tim atherton]

yep

I use it all the time for B&W running a RAW neg scan into PS, running ColorNeg (actually NegPos) then taking it from there

Same for colour neg film (whichI don't use so much of)

Personally found it's better than all the other options, especially for B&W

[Kirk Gittings]

After some testing, I could not find any advantage over Silverfast AI Studio with NegaFix

[Robert Budding]

After some testing, I could not find any advantage over Silverfast AI Studio with NegaFix

Thanks for the feedback, Kirk. I really like the images you've posted on your web site. Great colors and compositions.

One advantage of ColorNeg is price (dependent on scanner, as this is a hobby for me). I do find Silverfast AI Studio's pricing to be odd. But the Silverfast AI version that I use with my Epson scanner is very good (and much better than the scanner).

I'm going to test ColorNeg with a Nikon Coolscan 9000 - once I buy one during the fall.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks for the kind words. What ever you do, don't skimp on scanner software. Photoshop cannot fix a poorly done scan as well as doing it right in the scanner to begin with. Many adjustments (particularly those like steep curves that amplify noise) are simply better made in the scanner stage, because the most raw information is available. Having said that, the Nikon software is very good if that is what you buy, but it is not as good with color negatives as Silverfast is.

[tim atherton]

there are some useful comments here

http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=1049

[Robert Budding]

Thanks for the kind words. What ever you do, don't skimp on scanner software. Photoshop cannot fix a poorly done scan as well as doing it right in the scanner to begin with. Many adjustments (particularly those like steep curves that amplify noise) are simply better made in the scanner stage, because the most raw information is available. Having said that, the Nikon software is very good if that is what you buy, but it is not as good with color negatives as Silverfast is.

Yes, I really want to get the scan right as I have no desire to repeat work that wasn't done correctly the first time. I'll try the Nikon software and will test a demo version of Silverfast. I use Silverfast with an Epson 4990 so I know the interface. The software seems good, but my Epson scanner is disappointing - low resolution and soft.

Now if Nikon would just make a Coolscan 10000 that would scan 4x5 . . .

[Robert Budding]

Thank you for the link, Tim. I think ColorNeg is worth a look.

[Kirk Gittings]

In that thread he says using N/P makes scanning easier, but.........it simply moves the adjustments to PS. The fact is that, as I said above, adjustments that tend to enhance noise are better made in the scanner stage, before the noise is created. For example if you do a "raw" scan" (no such thing. there is no equivalent to a true raw file) and then have to clip it in PS you have just stretched information to fill the histogram and that will show up as to some degree later on. If you do the same clipping in the the scanner software, you import a full histogram into PS, ie the scanner software creates the file within your "clipped" parameters. Or so says Silverfast in so many words and is confirmed by my tests.