imacon flextight precision ii scanning fuji fp-100c negative reclamation

[Alin Dragulin]

Hi I have an Imacon Flextight II and would like to know if anyone has any good luck scanning fuji fp-100c negatives. I know the color will be somewhat off but my results are way out there. I've seen other folks on line ( have great success with this process but they are using different scanners. This leads me to believe that either my scanner is too old and cant handle this negative or there is some tweak I need to do in scanning these with my Imacon.

I've attached a photo that show you what I mean by crazy color.131074

[andy]

It should be able to handle it--are you scanning as .fff?

[Alin Dragulin]

Its an older scanner with the scsi port so I don't think it saves files as fff. I just scan as tif files. I also just read something that if you want to get an more easy to scan neg off the Fuji fp-100c you have to under expose by 1-2 stops. That makes sense because the negatives look dense when the positive print is exposed properly.

[andy]

I know the scanner well--if you're scanning using flexcolor you should be able to both save as a .fff and work with the color channels to get a proper color balance. I don't have the program in front of me at the moment, but I'll see if I can dig up a workflow. You also want to make sure that you're editing the file in flexcolor with the output histograms. The only problem I've had with the precision II is with extremely dense negatives--if it's way overexposed it can be problematic, but not impossible. The .fff lets you just scan once and then work with the file over and over, re-pulling .tiffs.

[Pali K]

This happens to me on my Epson v700 with some of my FP100c negatives. Typically, I see it when the negative is underexposed or I didn't get the negative cleaned up properly. Mine have never been this drastically green though. What method are you using to recover your negatives?

I saw this video (http://thebrotherswright.tumblr.com/post/105810703633/about-6-years-ago-we-started-sharing-our-technique) a while ago and it has drastically improved my negatives and the resulting scans. Scans are still much harder to color balance than normal negatives which I think is to be expected due to the blue tint on the negatives.

Hope this helps!

Pali

[Alin Dragulin]

I know the scanner well--if you're scanning using flexcolor you should be able to both save as a .fff and work with the color channels to get a proper color balance. I don't have the program in front of me at the moment, but I'll see if I can dig up a workflow. You also want to make sure that you're editing the file in flexcolor with the output histograms. The only problem I've had with the precision II is with extremely dense negatives--if it's way overexposed it can be problematic, but not impossible. The .fff lets you just scan once and then work with the file over and over, re-pulling .tiffs.

Ohh man if you can dig up a workflow that would be rad! Do all versions of flexcolor let you save as .fff or only the new ones? I got the scanner for a steal and its beautiful with properly exposed 4x5 negs.

[koh303]

This has nothing to do with 3f format.
All you need to do is set the maque selection area within 85% of the image area, and make sure it does not include any black or white edges.
Set the profile to any color negative type, and hit the auto adjust button. You should get close to perfect with that.

If that does not do it, the negative either has too much density, or, it is actually the neutral color position of that image.

[Alin Dragulin]

Yesss! Thanks for that video. I am taping the negs to glass and using a spray bottle with bleach then rinsing them off with warm water. Taping the negs to glass is a pain in the glass. The method in the video is way better.

I recently did a test where I underexposed the photo and neg was way better when scanned. The downside is the print was dark. Ohh well I guess you can't have both.

[bob carnie]

I too would be interested in this Andy .. Bob

Ohh man if you can dig up a workflow that would be rad! Do all versions of flexcolor let you save as .fff or only the new ones? I got the scanner for a steal and its beautiful with properly exposed 4x5 negs.

[koh303]

Ohh man if you can dig up a workflow that would be rad! Do all versions of flexcolor let you save as .fff or only the new ones? I got the scanner for a steal and its beautiful with properly exposed 4x5 negs.

the Precision II and newer scanners have the same hardware. The difference is the sensor. The last SCSI flex color is 4.0.3 for PC and .4 for mac. In any case you can scan 3F on any Imacon, and any version of FC, and in any case, has nothing to do with the issue you are having.

The overly dense negative might have something to do with this shift, but the software should correct it just the same, regardless of how old the machine is. The latest imacon is not much newer then the II you have now.

[Alin Dragulin]

crap, turns out CS6 with camera raw 7.1 doesn't support .fff files. Any work arounds you can think of?

[andy]

Sorry for dropping off the thread for a bit--I thought I had some .fff files here at work, but I don't. I used to work in a lab with a precision II, an 848, and an x1, and the only real world differences I saw were speed.

The logic of the .fff file is that it's a "raw scan" or maybe a better way to put it is that it gives you the maximum amount of information and you can always go back to it. It's also super useful if you're renting time on an imacon, because you can just scan and then pull your .tiffs at a later date, since flexcolor is free.

Going from memory, you make the scan, and you get a rather lousy looking image--scanning color negative film it's often super super cyan. The way to fix this is using the output histogram--it has those sliders you can pull for the RGB channels--but you have to make sure it's the output, otherwise you're still working in the dark (I'll find it and post screengrabs later). This should make a noticeable difference--you should be able to save a .tiff from flexcolor that looks much better--it'll be flat, which is ok.

I apologize for being scattershot and cryptic--it's been over a year since I've used an imacon (a fact that makes me a little sad).

I couldn't find my copy of the workflow, but I'm emailing a couple of friends to see what I can get.

[andy]

also, I've found the film stock settings, the auto color, and the brightness and contrast functions to be completely useless--sort of like using a brightness and contrast layer in photoshop--it's better and more powerful to use curves.

[koh303]

crap, turns out CS6 with camera raw 7.1 doesn't support .fff files. Any work arounds you can think of?

Why not process the 3f in FC???

All you need is a workable scan to export to tiff. then open in PS. 3F files are useless as a module in PS, as the controls offered in FC are much more precise (for 3f processing ONLY) then anywhere else.

[andy]

I second koh303!

[koh303]

Sorry for dropping off the thread for a bit--I thought I had some .fff files here at work, but I don't. I used to work in a lab with a precision II, an 848, and an x1, and the only real world differences I saw were speed.

The logic of the .fff file is that it's a "raw scan" or maybe a better way to put it is that it gives you the maximum amount of information and you can always go back to it. It's also super useful if you're renting time on an imacon, because you can just scan and then pull your .tiffs at a later date, since flexcolor is free.

Going from memory, you make the scan, and you get a rather lousy looking image--scanning color negative film it's often super super cyan. The way to fix this is using the output histogram--it has those sliders you can pull for the RGB channels--but you have to make sure it's the output, otherwise you're still working in the dark (I'll find it and post screengrabs later). This should make a noticeable difference--you should be able to save a .tiff from flexcolor that looks much better--it'll be flat, which is ok.

I apologize for being scattershot and cryptic--it's been over a year since I've used an imacon (a fact that makes me a little sad).

I couldn't find my copy of the workflow, but I'm emailing a couple of friends to see what I can get.

All you need to do is:
preview
seect 85% inside the image area
click the auto adjust botton in the middle of the left side bar (just next to the resolution boxes).

Then you get a near perfect image, which you can export for fine tuning in PS.

I think hasselblad has Eric Peterson demoing this in some video they recently uploaded to their youtube channel.

[Alin Dragulin]

Thanks Andy, I, and we really appreciate your time and knowledge your putting forth!

[andy]

ok, loaded up some files and it all came back.

open the histogram, and click the drop down arrow so that you have all three channels.

131366

Make sure to click the little histogram box at the top right so that it shows the output histogram.

Now, the idea is that we want to pull a .tiff with a relatively neutral color scheme and more importantly, without clipping in the highlights or shadows.
The way I was taught to achieve this, was to start moving the sliders to try to match the histograms of each color channel--be aware that as you move one, say red, the others will move, so it takes some back and forth adjusting.

131367


another strategy is to drag a box around a highlight or a shadow, and balance just the highlight, and then just the shadow--the changes will be universal.
In theory, if you had a grey card in the scene, you could balance to it, and the rest of the scene should fall into place.

131368

Looking back, make sure that when you're balancing color the marquee box is inside the frame edges--the white outside will throw off your color (I'm showing poor form in the first two images)

so, now I've balanced using my highlight, and I reselected the entire image with the marquee--my histograms are all full, and I'll move the sliders around just a little to make sure I'm not clipping and that the color looks good, and I'm ready to save as .tiff.

131369

I hope this helps!


another perk of the .fff is that you can pull multiple tiffs and use the noise control within flexcolor to reduce shadow grain and then composite that section in in photoshop--it's really handy and quite powerful.

[Alin Dragulin]

wow, thanks andy for the very thorough workflow screen grabs. They will help a lot! All the best.