First scans with Epson V850

[Steven Ruttenberg]

These are wet mounted directly to the scanner glass using view scan. I don't like Silverfast as it only lets me save the files as 8 bit. Strange that it scans at 16 bit a channel (48 bit) but then converts to 8 bits a channel. I haven't really played with the Epson software yet. I also just ordered the dry/wet scan set u from Better Scanning. I am going to try using the ANR glass in place of the optical mylar when mounting directly to the scanner glass. If it works that is one less consumable I might need to buy. I am also going to try using the Better Scanning system and see if focus can be improved, that way less chance of damaging scanner glass if I can achieve better focus, but so far, what I have seen, mounting directly to the scanner glass is the best.

The first shot is from the Painted Desert in AZ. First ever 4x5. Should have been in landscape orientation though. Second is a b/w night shot of a building in Holbrook, AZ from the same trip as Painted Desert. 4-5 minute exposure on iLford D100. Should have been a 1 hour and 5 minute exposure, but this seems to work nicely. The Painted Desert is shot with Extar 100 and a 3 stop grad nd. Probably didn't need the filter though as this was mid-day and the difference between sky and foreground was 0 stops. Chamonix 45H-1. Don't remember lens used or if used any tilt for landscape one. No tilt for b/w.

More practicing to do, which is the best part of photography, the practice.

175568175569

[IanBarber]

I am going to try using the ANR glass in place of the optical mylar when mounting directly to the scanner glass

How do you plan to make this work. Are you going to place the ANR glass directly onto of the negative smeared with mounting fluid ?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

How do you plan to make this work. Are you going to place the ANR glass directly onto of the negative smeared with mounting fluid ?

That is the plan, to place directly on the negative with fluid. Ie, the glass replaces the mylar. My only concern would be in separating the two since the glass is not flexible like the mylar.

[Pere Casals]

These are wet mounted directly to the scanner glass using view scan.


For 4x5 it would be better using hoders, is you use the the area guide to scan on bed then the Low Res internal lens is used, while with 4x5 holders the High Res internal lens is used.



I don't like Silverfast as it only lets me save the files as 8 bit.


Save it in TIFF format !

if you save it in jpg format only 8 bits per chanel are saved.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

For 4x5 it would be better using hoders, is you use the the area guide to scan on bed then the Low Res internal lens is used, while with 4x5 holders the High Res internal lens is used.

Interesting. Have you seen the video by Aztec for wet scanning? they show where scanning directly on bed gives best results, but the Tim Layton comes up with different results. I will be doing some experimenting to see what works best for my scanner?

I will check out the save options in SF SE 8 that shipped with scanner, but I did not see any option for saving in 48 bit except for HDR and HDRi, only option it afforded was 48 to 24. I will revisit when I am back in town.


Save it in TIFF format !

if you save it in jpg format only 8 bits per chanel are saved.

[IanBarber]

That is the plan, to place directly on the negative with fluid. Ie, the glass replaces the mylar. My only concern would be in separating the two since the glass is not flexible like the mylar.

When placing the ANR glass over the negative, how do you plan to remove any air bubbles since you cannot roll them out with the glass on-top

[IanBarber]

For 4x5 it would be better using hoders, is you use the the area guide to scan on bed then the Low Res internal lens is used, while with 4x5 holders the High Res internal lens is used.

I use the Epson Wet Mount Holder which sits 3mm above the scanner glass. As of late, I have been using this wet mount holder with some ANR glass on-top to scan all negatives sizes

[Pere Casals]

only option it afforded was 48 to 24

48bit is 16bit x 3 channels ; 24bit is 8bit x 3 channels...

IMHO for negative film you can use any software, but with velvia/provia you may want a soft featuring Multi-Exposure in case that you have deep shadows and you want to recover it

For 8x10 you'll have to do it "on bed", no other choice, then wet scanning solves the newton rings, but by placing emulsion side to the glass it also works.

For 4x5 IMHO best way is holders, the wet mounting is good if dust or scracthes are there, but you have to control dust with an HEPA air purifier, and scratches by careful process...

Wet mounting film may be good sometimes, but it's also a pain.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I found wet scanning not really that difficult once you get rhythm. I will slowly apply pressure similar to mylar use and the bubbles should come out if enough fluid used. I think any way. Have better scanning dry/fluid holder on way. Silverfsst I have always scans in 48 bit but down samples to 24 bit to save. Can save as 48 bit raw but need silerfast program to view. I was told you can save as 48 bit tiff?

[Pere Casals]

I found wet scanning not really that difficult once you get rhythm. I will slowly apply pressure similar to mylar use and the bubbles should come out if enough fluid used. I think any way. Have better scanning dry/fluid holder on way. Silverfsst I have always scans in 48 bit but down samples to 24 bit to save. Can save as 48 bit raw but need silerfast program to view. I was told you can save as 48 bit tiff?

It's great having the skill to wet mounting, now you just need to benchmark wet vs scanning to know when it's worth or not, with different films and image types, how sharp and/or dense has to be the shot to realize an improvement. You may to take wet vs dry side by side in Ps, adjust the wet to its best, then independently adjust the dry image for a best match, with levels, curves, sharpening, saturation...

You can stitch both images one on the other in layers, then substract to realize what's the difference, so you can adjust for a better match, a black result would show a perfect match.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

It's great having the skill to wet mounting, now you just need to benchmark wet vs scanning to know when it's worth or not, with different films and image types, how sharp and/or dense has to be the shot to realize an improvement. You may to take wet vs dry side by side in Ps, adjust the wet to its best, then independently adjust the dry image for a best match, with levels, curves, sharpening, saturation...

You can stitch both images one on the other in layers, then substract to realize what's the difference, so you can adjust for a better match, a black result would show a perfect match.

Sounds like a plan.

[sheel]

Sounds like a plan.

Agree with Pere, wet mounting may not always be worth the time/effort, but can really help in the situations where you need it. I use the Better Scanning mounting station and it's great for wet mounting 4x5.

Here's an article I wrote comparing Wet vs. Dry on my Epson v800 (http://www.analogfilm.camera/2017/11/10/deciding-when-to-wet-or-dry-mount/), if you want to see some examples.

[Pere Casals]

Agree with Pere, wet mounting may not always be worth the time/effort, but can really help in the situations where you need it. I use the Better Scanning mounting station and it's great for wet mounting 4x5.

Here's an article I wrote comparing Wet vs. Dry on my Epson v800 (http://www.analogfilm.camera/2017/11/10/deciding-when-to-wet-or-dry-mount/), if you want to see some examples.

This is a very interesting article, thanks for posting it.

Anyway in your example with some unsharp masking in the dry scan image we can make it look similar to the wet one. I've just sharpened until noise looked the same, then detail also is seen similar...

Compared dry vs wet with sharpening in the selected region

176151

Compared dry vs wet before sharpening

176152

Just apply 58% and 2.8 pixel

Also grain in the sky looks very similar if that sharpening is applied.


It would be interesting to see the same scans with Multi-Exposure

[sheel]

This is a very interesting article, thanks for posting it.

Anyway in your example with some unsharp masking in the dry scan image we can make it look similar to the wet one. I've just sharpened until noise looked the same, then detail also is seen similar...

Compared dry vs wet with sharpening in the selected region

176151

Compared dry vs wet before sharpening

176152

Just apply 58% and 2.8 pixel

Also grain in the sky looks very similar if that sharpening is applied.


It would be interesting to see the same scans with Multi-Exposure

Yes, that can be a viable approach too! Also, I didn't discuss on other potential benefits like reducing flare through wet mounting.

Btw, I printed my photo on 48x36" aluminum at 300dpi and it's glorious.

[Pere Casals]

Yes, that can be a viable approach too! Also, I didn't discuss on other potential benefits like reducing flare through wet mounting.

Btw, I printed my photo on 48x36" aluminum at 300dpi and it's glorious.

Well, also it's a really nice shot, it shows some grain in the sky, but I like it, HP5 has a very beautiful grain structure peaking in the mids, also TX would have been performing nice.

In theory flare can also be addressed by adjusting levels, if negative has similar density in all rows then it's easy, just digitally substracting the average flare, but if there are rows with a high of average density vs rows with low density then it is more dificult to do it.

I feel V7xx/8xx Epsons are semi Pro, perhaps not best choice for somebody that's all day long scanning, but I'm amazed by how good they perform in BW LF.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I am still learning this scanner and Vuescan,I just made some raw files at 4000dpi of scene with Extar 100. I did multi can set at 16 and multiples for darks. I also locked exposures saved as raw file no inversion to color etc just what scanner scanned, will use the rawscan plug and compare to the output inverted dng inverted file. I will also compare the same two types of files using aliasing

Vuescan also let's you set focus manually could be of benifit. I amusing Better Scanning wet setup and Kami scan fluid which takes me really no more time to set up and really helps vs dry from my experience.

[sheel]

I am still learning this scanner and Vuescan,I just made some raw files at 4000dpi of scene with Extar 100. I did multi can set at 16 and multiples for darks. I also locked exposures saved as raw file no inversion to color etc just what scanner scanned, will use the rawscan plug and compare to the output inverted dng inverted file. I will also compare the same two types of files using aliasing

Vuescan also let's you set focus manually could be of benifit. I amusing Better Scanning wet setup and Kami scan fluid which takes me really no more time to set up and really helps vs dry from my experience.

Multi exposure and exposure lock can help with fine tuning the scan. Basically you want to achieve a linear, RAW scan for maximum quality control in post processing. I doubt you’ll gain much doing a 16 pass scan though. I usually only do max of 3.

As for manual focus, that won’t help with the Epson because the focus/lens is fixed. You have to use the height adjusters on the holders to focus. It’s a pain in the butt.

Wet scan using the better scanning mount is relatively simple, just need to make sure you get the negative flat and use a mask around the film.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Multi exposure and exposure lock can help with fine tuning the scan. Basically you want to achieve a linear, RAW scan for maximum quality control in post processing. I doubt you’ll gain much doing a 16 pass scan though. I usually only do max of 3.

As for manual focus, that won’t help with the Epson because the focus/lens is fixed. You have to use the height adjusters on the holders to focus. It’s a pain in the butt.

Wet scan using the better scanning mount is relatively simple, just need to make sure you get the negative flat and use a mask around the film.

Well, bummer on focus. I did set adjusters on holder and I am fairly close. Need a target to see how close, but so far only found one as 35mm format. Any out there in 4x5 or does it matter.

I did a time check on length for number of passes and since it does the multi-task in one scan it doesn't save anything so I just go with it. Multi-exposure though it makes two passes so if my scene really doesn't need it, I don't do it.

Thanks for information.

[Pere Casals]

but so far only found one as 35mm format. Any out there in 4x5 or does it matter.


First is that you can make a contact copy of the 35mm target on 4x5 film, I'd recommend ADOX CMS 20 sheet film for that, other low ISO may also be good, and TMX. Use any cheap microscope, to check the result.

Then you can take a caliper and use the same bed to film distance for 4x5 than for 35mm, as 4x5 and 35mm scanning uses the same lens. When using thae area guide the Epson uses the Low Res lens, that I think has the focus on the bed itself.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Sounds interesting. Will have to look into it. Thanks for advice.

[Alan Klein]

First is that you can make a contact copy of the 35mm target on 4x5 film, I'd recommend ADOX CMS 20 sheet film for that, other low ISO may also be good, and TMX. Use any cheap microscope, to check the result.

Then you can take a caliper and use the same bed to film distance for 4x5 than for 35mm, as 4x5 and 35mm scanning uses the same lens. When using thae area guide the Epson uses the Low Res lens, that I think has the focus on the bed itself.

Isn't the low res lens for scanning prints since you have much less need for pixel resolution? So the holders keep the film (4x5, 35mm, 120, all up at the same distance when scanning with the high res lens?

[Alan Klein]

48bit is 16bit x 3 channels ; 24bit is 8bit x 3 channels...

IMHO for negative film you can use any software, but with velvia/provia you may want a soft featuring Multi-Exposure in case that you have deep shadows and you want to recover it

For 8x10 you'll have to do it "on bed", no other choice, then wet scanning solves the newton rings, but by placing emulsion side to the glass it also works.

For 4x5 IMHO best way is holders, the wet mounting is good if dust or scracthes are there, but you have to control dust with an HEPA air purifier, and scratches by careful process...

Wet mounting film may be good sometimes, but it's also a pain.

How does multi exposure work? How will a second exposure allow more light to go through the shadow areas? Is the V850 light source adjustable?

[Ted Baker]

How does multi exposure work? How will a second exposure allow more light to go through the shadow areas? Is the V850 light source adjustable?

By varying the amount of time allowed for the CCD to collect photons (light) before the device is "reset" to take the next exposure.

[Alan Klein]

By varying the amount of time allowed for the CCD to collect photons (light) before the device is "reset" to take the next exposure.

Why not set the longest so you always catch the full amount in one scan? Isn't the unit calibrated by the manufacturer to catch that anyway? (the dmax). Just scan at the maximum potential, dmax, of the scanner and you'll get the shadows first scan. Why lower it to create extra scans?

[Pere Casals]

Why lower it to create extra scans?

CCD (like CMOS) sensors have lower dynamic range than PMTs in drums, one way to overcome that is Multi-Exposure, V850 with right software (SF SE plus, for example) can make 2 scans with different exposures and then both results are combined to get a larger range.

Other expensive scanners (I guess) may make the 2 exposures before the carriage advances to next row.

If you have a very dense or a very thin film, without much dynamic range in it, then you can save a pass by adjusting the right exposure, and still having best results possible.

IMHO adjusting exposure is not always useful, but it can be sometimes.

V850 is not Pro gear, perhaps it's semi Pro, and it has some limitations, but in the hands of an skilled user it can deliver amazing results that are far beyond we can guess from its cost, in special with LF formats.

[IanBarber]

CCD (like CMOS)

If you have a very dense or a very thin film, without much dynamic range in it, then you can save a pass by adjusting the right exposure, and still having best results possible.

IMHO adjusting exposure is not always useful, but it can be sometimes.

With the V800/V850, is setting multiple the exposure option the only way to adjust the exposure or are there other ways within the software

[Ted Baker]

With the V800/V850, is setting multiple the exposure option the only way to adjust the exposure or are there other ways within the software

Vuescan, with the RGB/Infrared exposure on the input tab, is the only one with manual control that I am aware off, epson and silverfast may it do automatically as part of the preview pass.

[Pere Casals]

Vuescan, with the RGB/Infrared exposure on the input tab, is the only one with manual control that I am aware off, epson and silverfast may it do automatically as part of the preview pass.

It should be like this.

With epson and sf you have Continuous Auto Exposure, Recommended Value, and Auto Exposure Level options, so the auto behaviour can be modified away from the "recomended" setting, this works fine, but it's great that Vuescan has that direct adjustment, I like it.

[IanBarber]

Vuescan, with the RGB/Infrared exposure on the input tab, is the only one with manual control that I am aware off, epson and silverfast may it do automatically as part of the preview pass.

I am guessing this is a balancing act as I would think setting this value to high could affect the areas of the negative which are dense (brighter areas)

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Here is an example of a scan from the V850 at 4000 dpi and AA off. 5x4 Extar 100

http://www.steveruttenbergphotography.com/p538928466/ha65765f4#ha65765f4

How do I get larger images to post to the thread? The limitations don't allow for a very big image, dimension wise that is. I see some fairly big images in the thread.

https://ia801506.us.archive.org/24/items/56EEEEC770C4470AB7EABC09F2CF341E/56EEEEC7-70C4-470A-B7EA-BC09F2CF341E.jpeg

[Pere Casals]

How do I get larger images to post to the thread?

Post from flickr link or archive.org, and uncheck "Retrieve remote file and reference locally"

[Alan Klein]

CCD (like CMOS) sensors have lower dynamic range than PMTs in drums, one way to overcome that is Multi-Exposure, V850 with right software (SF SE plus, for example) can make 2 scans with different exposures and then both results are combined to get a larger range.

Other expensive scanners (I guess) may make the 2 exposures before the carriage advances to next row.

If you have a very dense or a very thin film, without much dynamic range in it, then you can save a pass by adjusting the right exposure, and still having best results possible.

IMHO adjusting exposure is not always useful, but it can be sometimes.

V850 is not Pro gear, perhaps it's semi Pro, and it has some limitations, but in the hands of an skilled user it can deliver amazing results that are far beyond we can guess from its cost, in special with LF formats.

None of that makes any sense. The dmax of the scanner allows for the maximum penetration of the light to show the shadow areas the best. Lowering the light to create a different exposure and combining them is not going to increase what you see in the shadows any more than exposing two camera shots at different exposures and combining them afterwards. While it's true that a camera can combine different exposures that have a huge amount of stops from white to black so you can see all the stops in a single photo result, that isn't the case with a negative. All those stops were removed and combined into 5 stops for slide film and maybe 7 stops in negative film when the film was prcessed. A flat bed scanner whether CCD's or CMOS captures all those stops in a single scan.

[Ted Baker]

None of that makes any sense. The dmax of the scanner allows for the maximum penetration of the light to show the shadow areas the best. Lowering the light to create a different exposure and combining them is not going to increase what you see in the shadows any more than exposing two camera shots at different exposures and combining them afterwards.

That's true if you don't understand the physics of the process (there is a lot that is not straight forward). The light source is not varied, it is not needed to change the exposure. The amount of time allowed for the photons to land on the CCD is changed, in a very similar if not exactly the same way that your camera phone varies the exposure time.

[Pere Casals]

None of that makes any sense. The dmax of the scanner allows for the maximum penetration of the light to show the shadow areas the best. Lowering the light to create a different exposure and combining them is not going to increase what you see in the shadows any more than exposing two camera shots at different exposures and combining them afterwards. While it's true that a camera can combine different exposures that have a huge amount of stops from white to black so you can see all the stops in a single photo result, that isn't the case with a negative. All those stops were removed and combined into 5 stops for slide film and maybe 7 stops in negative film when the film was prcessed. A flat bed scanner whether CCD's or CMOS captures all those stops in a single scan.

Hello Alan,

It is true that a CCD scanner can capture all those stops in a single pass scan, but the question is with what quality !

in fact it can capture any amount of stops, with the proper signal amplification, but we also need to control signal to noise ratio, and we need a wide range were signal has information.

CCD (and CMOS) sensor technology has only improved, but PMTs have anyway a clear advantage. See "What is this Drum Scanner against which all other scanners compare themselves?" section in http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scantek.htm

Then it is a fact that Multi-Exposure improves the result when challenging DR is in a transprency or negative:

http://www.silverfast.com/img/newsletter200612/ExtendedDynamicRange_big_en.png

http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/multi-exposure/en.html

Other than scanner applications also have similar problems, it is interesting to see the Arri Alex solution http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa_mini/technology/arri_imaging_technology/alexa_mini_sensor/

regards,
Pere

[IanBarber]

I have just tried the Multiple Exposure mode with 2 black and white negatives using SilverFast AI Studio. I scanned one with ME On and one with ME off and I am finding it difficult to see any real difference in the deep shadows

[Ted Baker]

I have just tried the Multiple Exposure mode with 2 black and white negatives using SilverFast AI Studio. I scanned one with ME On and one with ME off and I am finding it difficult to see any real difference in the deep shadows

I would not expect to see any difference at all. A scanner should not have any difficulty with the shadow areas of a negative, for a negative it is the highlight areas that are more difficult and a colour neg even more so where accuracy or quantization starts to become a problem. Even then a bit of noise in the highlights is not a huge problem, it may be even beneficial... (Noise or grain can in fact compensate for lack of bit depth, for example you can make very good black and white photo with just 2 bits...)

The examples (negatives only) I tested it was only really noticeable with very dense colour negatives, and a single scan using the correct exposure gave the best result.

It is important to understand that a transparency, negatives and digital all have strengths and weaknesses, and the requirements for each are a indeed different.

IMHO a colour negative is the most demanding and difficult to scan even though it has smallest density range, assuming your goal is to reproduce with some fidelity the same result as traditional optical RA-4 colour paper print.

[Peter De Smidt]

The greatest chance for seeing a difference would be in the most dense part of the film. With BW, that would be in the highlights. And I agree with Ted that unless your scanning under-exposed Velvia you don't need to be able to scan through a density greater than, say, 3, with standard BW negatives being much lower than that. Mine usually have a max density of about 1.5, counting film base plus fog.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Here is an example of a 1.79GB file processed in Camera Raw and PS. Scanned on Epson V850 at 4000dpi, AA turned off, 16 passes and multi-exposure.

https://ia801503.us.archive.org/21/items/2017110400194000NoAAAspenForestWestSanFranciscoPeaksWetScanBetterScanningHolder20x16Final/2017-11-04-0019_4000_No_AA_Aspen_Forest_West_San_Francisco_Peaks_%20Wet%20Scan%20Better_Scanning_Holder_20x16_Final.jpg

[Pere Casals]

I have just tried the Multiple Exposure mode with 2 black and white negatives using SilverFast AI Studio. I scanned one with ME On and one with ME off and I am finding it difficult to see any real difference in the deep shadows

try with velvia deep shadows at 3.0D+ or with glare texture in extreme highlights of negative film, you'll see an awesome improvement.

a common shot does not require multiexposure, a challenging one may require a drum for an optimal result

it is when a drum is necessary when multiexposure starts being useful

[Peter De Smidt]

Steven, The color is way off if that image is meant to look natural. The shadows are all clipped, and there's way too much blue. Take a look at the histogram. The blue channel is definitely funky. Look at the bark of the birches. It's blue not white.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Thanks for the feedback.

I agree it is bluish. It was a lot worse. It was very cool color temp that evening. The trees loom as I remember, not exactly white. I could remove more blue but it would take some work to not rob it from other areas. I tried the colorneg plug in for ps and it made it look ridiculously warm. As for shadows, couldn't tell you they or aren't black cked up. The lens I used doesnt quite cover 4x5 at wider apertures.

I like the image and it looks good on my monitor, but agree too it can be better. I already think compressing it from 1.79gb to 10 mb and then uploading to another site might have something to do with it. Again, thanks for comments. If you want the fiddle with file I can upload original somewhere for download. Always looking to better my images.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks for the feedback.

I agree it is bluish.

Steven, that is not bluish, the image I post is bluish :)

But the original Velvia slide was as bluish as the scan. I could use a warming filter... but blue can be nice to depict reality.

The Epsons are IT8 calibrated so color fidelity has been calibrated and that fidelity and can be easy checked by scanning an IT8 traget. Thanks to god IT8 targets were made with kodak or fuji film, this helps to avoid spectral missmatchings.

It is true that expensive scanners have better image enhancing software that is more productive when wanting nice images for customers wanting a final image. Thta's amazing for Pro service.

IMHO best choice for a film photographer that wants full control for the job is having the scan as raw as possible, with no sharpening or color enhacements, etc, nothing, and managing all that with Photoshop or the like.

For awesome creative color management there is for example 3D LUT creator, https://3dlutcreator.com/ if one wants full color control beyond Ps sliders a 3D LUT editor it's the most powerful tool. Some may say that an IT8 clibrated scanner delivers nicer colors that another IT8 scanner, but at the end with a 3D LUT editor one can obtain exactly what one wants, single challenge is having a wonderful artistic/technical criterion to steer the result to the intended direction.

I'd like to add a personal feeling, as time passes I'm less a fan of digital adjustments, digital flexibility it's powerful, fast and very Pro, but IMHO nothing compares to a 810 Velvia slide on a light table. It's raw, it's authentic, and it may contain such an amount of beauty that it may make a hard man cry.


https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/648/22709055453_f21df0ba4b_c.jpg

[Ted Baker]

Here is an example of a 1.79GB file processed in Camera Raw and PS. Scanned on Epson V850 at 4000dpi, AA turned off, 16 passes and multi-exposure.


Doing the inversion that way by hand is quite difficult. Apologise if you already understand this, for example by just using the RGB adjustments alone you will never be able to match the sort of result you can would get from an optical print. These are 1D transformations, ideally you need a 3D LUT/ transformation, or some other approximation. Transparencies are much easier in this respect, as you are trying to match the original or something close.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I will look at the 3D lut. I say bluish in the sense that as pointed out the trees are not as white as in daylight. But the image itself has quite a blue cast after scan and conversion using vuescan. The color neggoes the complete opposite and makes it too warm and saturated by default requiring a lot of work as well in ps and colorneg.

I am by no means even remotely close to being an expert on this stuff and I realize that I don't know most of this as it has been almost 20 years since I stopped using film. Any advice on work flow etc isalways welcomed.

One question is how to best invert a color neg?

[Ted Baker]

One question is how to best invert a color neg?

IMHO If you aiming to reproduce something like a traditional colour print, then unless you a very skilled and know what your doing then you need some help in the form of software. Some people speak very highly of color perfect, some like silverfast etc. You may indeed just like epson scan as a starting point. If you goal is to make something that is pleasing and your very own, then you can use whatever you like, but you will need more than straight RGB adjustments.

Sorry I did not mean to be deflating, but It's often more helpful to understand the difficulties that to just pretend that it is simple when its not.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

IMHO If you aiming to reproduce something like a traditional colour print, then unless you a very skilled and know what your doing then you need some help in the form of software. Some people speak very highly of color perfect, some like silverfast etc. You may indeed just like epson scan as a starting point. If you goal is to make something that is pleasing and your very own, then you can use whatever you like, but you will need more than straight RGB adjustments.

Sorry I did not mean to be deflating, but It's often more helpful to understand the difficulties that to just pretend that it is simple when its not.

I agree that this is not simple. In fact, part of the reason I went to 4x5 is precisely that. You also get images that are more unique and different than digital. To me, digital is easier. I'm not saying a digital file can't be screwed up, but with film you have to know what you are doing from the time you unpack the camera to printing or scanning in your file and post processing in some software.

What I am looking for is a method so to speak to get a a color negative "properly" inverted so I have a good starting file to work with like in digital, if you have taken the picture correctly you have a good starting point. I realize that my vision will not be most peoples and what I find looks good others may find garish or terrible. As and example, I'm not a particular fan of Adams, but I do recognize his talent and skill.

For sure I'm no expert, not even close and willing to learn and try and develop into the best possible photographer that I can be.

So no, you're not deflating, I like honesty and good information so I appreciate all the comments.

[Pere Casals]

Doing the inversion that way by hand is quite difficult. Apologise if you already understand this, for example by just using the RGB adjustments alone you will never be able to match the sort of result you can would get from an optical print. These are 1D transformations, ideally you need a 3D LUT/ transformation, or some other approximation. Transparencies are much easier in this respect, as you are trying to match the original or something close.

I ask, (because I've seen you know a lot more than me about that) perhaps a good way to obtain a 3D LUT would be scanning a color print, scanning the negative that resulted in that print and calibrating a 3D LUT that would take the negative scan and it would deliver the print scan.

Of course that print/negative may not contain all color space, but if color spaces are deformed to make the thing match then the LUT conversion would be near from what we want. Of course the print could had some color balance, contrast, etc applied, but these are minor adjustments.

...but anyway perhaps we can take a calibration target, shot it in daylight, obtaining an "standard" RA-4 print, and using the negative and the print for the calibration. This can be done for diferent color films.

It is clear that negatives have more DR than prints, and the print may have blocked part of the negative's DR, so it would not be a direct result, but the core of it...

[Ted Baker]

I ask, (because I've seen you know a lot more than me about that) perhaps a good way to obtain a 3D LUT would be scanning a color print, scanning the negative that resulted in that print and calibrating a 3D LUT that would take the negative scan and it would deliver the print scan.

Of course that print/negative may not contain all color space, but if color spaces are deformed to make the thing match then the LUT conversion would be near from what we want. Of course the print could had some color balance, contrast, etc applied, but these are minor adjustments.

...but anyway perhaps we can take a calibration target, shot it in daylight, obtaining an "standard" RA-4 print, and using the negative and the print for the calibration. This can be done for diferent color films.

It is clear that negatives have more DR than prints, and the print may have blocked part of the negative's DR, so it would not be a direct result, but the core of it...

Up to very recently I did not understand any of this, even though I have been photographer shooting negative stock and also a programmer for more than a little while. I was inspired by some of the open source tools for the pure digital photographer, but a little disappointed with what was offered for those who still want to shoot film. So I naively thought I could write some of my own tools to fit between the scanner and post production tools. To that end I spent a lot of time researching the topic, of which I probably understand about half :)

Thought It perhaps should not come a surprise that a lot of the best software techniques/calibration/data etc is kept secret...

Anyway what you describe is very valid technique, and IMHO conceptually the correct way to approach the problem. It is essentially the last step in the chain of Kodak's DPX/Cineon digital intermediate system when targeting digital projection (this is the system which is used in the motion picture industry for the last 20 years).

I finished my first prototype, that I a currently using with some success (its not properly calibrated though), that I intend to rewrite and then release as an Open Source set of tools. If anyone wants to send me a few negative scans I will invert them. Linear scans from a scanner with part of the film rebate or DSLR scans saved as RAW, just send me a PM, to work out the details.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Reworked image of Aspens from earlier.

This has a faded grid box on it because I am trying out a software to convert negatives to positive instead of relying on photoshop invert or the scanner software to do it. So far I like it. This is a test image. I didn't delete any dust yet as I am still playing with it. I don't like the trees in the center that seem to have a fog over them. Not sure if that is result of scan, post-processing or an actual part of the image. It has promise. The software is Color Perfect. So far I like it, so most likely will get it and that will remove the grid from images. Anyway, I can find plenty to fault on this image, at the same time, it looks pretty good to me for having only been working with film again for a short period of time. The learning curve is much steeper that digital imo. But getting there with everyone's help and input.

The one thing I don't like is the fog stuff over some of the trees in the center of the image. Not sure if it is from scanning incorrectly, the process in converting to a positive with Color Perfect or just what the image is. I didn't remove and of the dirt/dust since this is a practice image so when I buy the plug in I will work this image some more and remove the dust. Also, I have a second image taken right before this one wher the sun was just slightly above the trees and a slightly different exposure. Needless to say, shooting into the sunset and strongly back-lighting the Aspens just make this a pretty technical shot to get correct for later processing/printing. Compared to the previous one I thought I liked, this one is much better I think.

Interested in thoughts on scanning, using Color Perfect and what needs work, including the shot itself.


https://ia601504.us.archive.org/23/items/2017110400194000NoAARawAspenForestWestSanFranciscoPeaksWetScanBetterScanningHolder/2017-11-04-0019_4000_No_AA_Raw_Aspen_Forest_West_San_Francisco_Peaks_%20Wet%20Scan%20Better_Scanning_Holder.jpg

[Ted Baker]

Interested in thoughts on scanning, using Color Perfect and what needs work, including the shot itself.


Looks much closer to what I imagine Ektar looks like. (Never having shot it).

It may also help to shoot a roll of Ektar if you have a smaller camera and have it scanned with a noritsu or fuji frontier scanner or have a few optical prints made (Portraits are good for this). Then scan it yourself and see how close you can match it and if you can make it better or different etc etc. No need to spend a fortune.

Or even some old negs that you have prints from from yesteryear can be good for this.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I have plenty of old color negatives, bw negs and slides. So I can practice. Used all kinds of film.

[Alan Klein]

I have just tried the Multiple Exposure mode with 2 black and white negatives using SilverFast AI Studio. I scanned one with ME On and one with ME off and I am finding it difficult to see any real difference in the deep shadows

Like I've been saying, there is none. It's all a lot of hype from the after sales software companies to sell scanner software. You're limited by the scanners dmax. Changing the scan time is like increasing the ISO from base ISO of a digital camera. Sure you might see more. But it will be noisy. You can accomplish the same thing scanning once and increasing the shadow slider (for positive film) in your post processing program. I've never seen anyone ever post a before and after comparison using multiple scans that were ever any better than using the shadow slider on the first normal scan.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I have plenty of old color negatives, bw negs and slides. So I can practice. Used all kinds of film.

Have you tried it with vuescan?

[Ted Baker]

Like I've been saying, there is none. It's all a lot of hype from the after sales software companies to sell scanner software. You're limited by the scanners dmax. Changing the scan time is like increasing the ISO from base ISO of a digital camera. Sure you might see more. But it will be noisy. You can accomplish the same thing scanning once and increasing the shadow slider (for positive film) in your post processing program. I've never seen anyone ever post a before and after comparison using multiple scans that were ever any better than using the shadow slider on the first normal scan.

Your contradicting yourself ;)

Multi-exposure or changing the exposure time is not an ISO change, it is a exposure time change, thought I AFAIK the recent Epson flatbeds can also change the ISO for the respective channels when scanning colour.

In a recent thread a V750 owned by Ken Lee was sacrificed :o to show that the DMAX does change with an increased exposure time, in addition those tests showed the response of the CCD is not entirely linear through out the range, and the quantization errors are likely to increase markedly towards Dmax. BTW the whole point of linear scanning is for accuracy and calibration, the final print is absolutely non-linear. For example many of the best drum scanner use a log amp instead of linear scanning, they tackle the problem of accuracy and quantization in a different way.

Of course for many applications none of this matters, but some us are interested in how things work, and making small improvements.

[Pere Casals]

Changing the scan (exposure) time is like increasing the ISO from base ISO of a digital camera.

No! it's like changing the exposure time of the digital camera !

Increasing the ISO it does increase ISO related noise. Increasing exposure time it does not increase noise. It is true that a 20 seconds exposure in a DSLR may add dark current related noise (that can be compensated with a calibration shot), but this only happnes in night shots, not in scanners with linear sensors...

A DSLR shot at ISO 1/125 - ISO 400 has less noise than if 1/250 - ISO 800, does not?