I don't like slide film for scanning [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Steven Ruttenberg

5-Dec-2018, 23:31

I got one that looks really good on light table, but when I scan it, it looks like crap. Every slide has a color cast too when scanning. I am saving as raw tiff and regular image tiff. The raw looks better but still has a cast. I have to crank p the brightness to get the shadows, but that brings noise.

I am curious if someone would lje to take a crack at it? I could send slide to them ifsome one wants to try. If I can fix the cast during scan I would have a useable file to start with. I can get rid of most of it in PS.

Seems I may have found a short coming with the V850. I may pop for a drum scan at the camera store I go to to see if it is just the slide and scene or yhe V850.

I use Vuescan and tried Epson scan which absolutely blows! I might try silverfast next.

MultiFormat Shooter

6-Dec-2018, 06:53

Seems I may have found a short coming with the V850. I may pop for a drum scan....

If you decide to have a drum scan done, try Lenny Eiger. I was impressed with the drum scan he did for me. I have no affiliation with him, other than being a satisfied customer.

http://eigerstudios.com/contact

fotopfw

6-Dec-2018, 07:03

I would certainly consider a drum scan, which isn't cheap for 8x10", but the quality of the output is stunning, especially in the shadows. The flatbed can never pull that out.

Steven Ruttenberg

6-Dec-2018, 07:21

What I am interested in though, is whether or not this slide, while looking good on a light table may not be well suited for scanning. If it sucks from a drum scan as well, then it is no good for scanning period. I have had good scans of slides in the past before and I have had negatives that looked good on a light table but sucked for scanning. I may have not exposed it enough. Hmmm.

Peter De Smidt

6-Dec-2018, 07:35

Does it have a high density range? What's the film?

Tin Can

6-Dec-2018, 07:56

Peter, link Steven to your DIY scanner.

Does it have a high density range? What's the film?

Steven Ruttenberg

6-Dec-2018, 07:59

Provia RDPIII 100. I think it does have. No pure black, but very dark moody image of sunset in Palouse WA. I got the sunset good but foreground is dark although looks proper on light table. Fairly large dynamic range.

I will photograph slide tonight while still mounted and post up with the scan.

gregmo

6-Dec-2018, 08:38

If you decide to have a drum scan done, try Lenny Eiger. I was impressed with the drum scan he did for me. I have no affiliation with him, other than being a satisfied customer.

http://eigerstudios.com/contact

If you decide to go the drum scanning route, I also recommend the services of Lenny Eiger. Over the last 6 years, I've sent him 10-15 scans per year. Mostly 617 and 5x7.

Steven Ruttenberg

6-Dec-2018, 08:54

If you decide to go the drum scanning route, I also recommend the services of Lenny Eiger. Over the last 6 years, I've sent him 10-15 scans per year. Mostly 617 and 5x7.

Sounds good. I am gonna try the place local I normally go to for other camera gear. They have a dedicated lab that does drum scans. I just need to see if it is image, me, scanner or both. If slide, I will need to expose differently or do my scan set up differentlly.

One thing that concerns me is the colorcast I always seem to get with slide film and it is never the same slide to slide. I profiled my scanner, but it doesn't seem to help. I have to tweak the color settings for red, green, and blue channels prior to make the final scan. So annoying, must be doing something wrong. Negatives of any flavor always come out good.

Alan Klein

6-Dec-2018, 19:48

Steven Ruttenberg

6-Dec-2018, 20:28

I use Vuescan. I hate Epson software for scanning and not a fan of silverfast either. I create linear tiffs for later processing. I have tried scanning and using a profile for the scanner, etc. I typically color correct in PS if needed. Just annoying sometimes. One reason is, if the slides exposure is off even by a little you can be screwed. My 850 does really well and has over a 10 stop range or greater than 3.0 for a dmax. I am finding it is as much technique as hardware.

Steven Ruttenberg

6-Dec-2018, 21:47

Here is the initial image. I added a bit too much green saturation, but I am too tired to fix right now as this is just to show the difficult image I am working with. Still needs a lot of work, but I also need to step back for a bit as it took me quite a bit to get a useable image. You can definitely see the severe vignetting of the lens at f/16 in this image. Didn't put on flickr as that site seriously dicks with the image. This is no where near the final image, but like stated, it is example of what I am working with. The sky was indeed that saturated, if not more so for the real sky too.

Nikkor 75mm f/4.5@f/16 and 1 second. Polarizer filter, shot on Provia 100 RDPIII.

https://www.steveruttenbergphotography.com/p647613184/hbfdcaff5#hbfdcaff5

fotopfw

7-Dec-2018, 02:36

Now, that's no easy image for a slide film! I can see why auto color could go horribly wrong. With this, what is the right color? Or more, what is the color you find pleasing? Where I bring my images to be drum scanned, they ask for a contact print, color corrected, that they can then match.

Pere Casals

7-Dec-2018, 02:56

I find Velvia 50 chromes easier to scan than negative color. If you have a color cast, why not remove it in post processing. It should be easy to do.

How do you scan with Epson? I scan flat using Epson Scan software except for setting the black and white points. I get 90% color right just with that. I then tweak the rest in Lightroom.

Shadows are a problem with flatbed scanners. The scanner just can't seem to get through although the V850 is suppose to be better at that because of its high dmax (4.0) than my V600 (3.6).

I fully agree with that...

Only adding that a V850 (for deep dense shadows in the slides) should use multi-exposure feature that makes two passes at different exposures, thus extending captured dynamic range.

This is the job done by the EPSON with dense shadows.

185231

Of course a drum is better for extreme shadows in slides, but the EPSON if good for many situations.

I got one that looks really good on light table, but when I scan it, it looks like crap.

:) :) :) :)

Steven, let me smile !!!!

You just discovered how great are slides !!!!

The problem is not the scanner itself, all the digital chain is pure crap compared to Velvia, Provia, Ektachrome, old kodachrome, or even compapred to a BW reversed process.

After the Roman Empire fall there was a cultural darkness until Renaissance... so this is not new.

The whole sRGB standard is flawed, also Adobe RGB is, and new Rec.2020 for displays is a little step to recover visual hedonistc pleasure but... if you ask a monitor to show the same than a Provia on a light table the monitor won't do it because it's a way inferior imaging system than your slide.

Slides are absolute beauty, but we have a problem. Today (we'll see in the future) that beauty cannot travel through IP networks, cannot be stored in RAM, and cannot be diplayed in commercial monitors.

The beauty you see in the light table is a personal treasure...

Steven Ruttenberg

7-Dec-2018, 08:56

I fully agree with that...

Only adding that a V850 (for deep dense shadows in the slides) should use multi-exposure feature that makes two passes at different exposures, thus extending captured dynamic range.

This is the job done by the EPSON with dense shadows.

185231

Of course a drum is better for extreme shadows in slides, but the EPSON if good for many situations.

:) :) :) :)

Steven, let me smile !!!!

You just discovered how great are slides !!!!

The problem is not the scanner itself, all the digital chain is pure crap compared to Velvia, Provia, Ektachrome, old kodachrome, or even compapred to a BW reversed process.

After the Roman Empire fall there was a cultural darkness until Renaissance... so this is not new.

The whole sRGB standard is flawed, also Adobe RGB is, and new Rec.2020 for displays is a little step to recover visual hedonistc pleasure but... if you ask a monitor to show the same than a Provia on a light table the monitor won't do it because it's a way inferior imaging system than your slide.

Slides are absolute beauty, but we have a problem. Today (we'll see in the future) that beauty cannot travel through IP networks, cannot be stored in RAM, and cannot be diplayed in commercial monitors.

The beauty you see in the light table is a personal treasure...

I agree. All the slides I have taken have that wet look, like the image is formed on super still glossy water. Scan them in, and that magic look disappears. Colornegs and BW negs do much better as they don't seem to lose the look when you scan them in. Mainly because they don't have any look to go off of.

I did try the multi exposure and it really didn't do much in this case. I increased the brightness, which really isn't increasing the brightness, just slowing the scan down to expose longer, which in turns adds gobs of useless noise to the image.

What color is righ? The sunset is pretty close to what is on the slide, it is the green rolling hills that are not close (mainly because the shadow areas do not scan well) Hence, I am taking to get a drum scan to see if it can be improved. Then I may send to a guy who offered to do a scan as well. Assuming I can afford it. What I am afraid of, is the drum scan will do the slide some justice and then I will be on a quest to get a drum scanner on sale, used that I can afford, that doesn't require an ancient scsi set up and computer system, running last centuries OS.

Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.

Pere Casals

7-Dec-2018, 09:57

What color is righ? The sunset is pretty close to what is on the slide, it is the green rolling hills that are not close (mainly because the shadow areas do not scan well) Hence, I am taking to get a drum scan to see if it can be improved.

Steven, you have to realize the limitations your monitor has, and from that you may want to obtain the closest look possible to the real slide. From that you edit the digital file to get best possible look for the digital presentation on for the color print.

At first I was amazed by pro scans made by 3rd party Pro service, until I realized that the great thing was edition made by a good operator, and that the delivered image was not close to the real slide content. Later I asked having also the not edited raw scans to see what the scanner did vs what the operator did... This was quite time ago...

Just make scan one of your slides by a proficient lab, requesting not only an optimized image, but also the raw scan.

In a monitor you don't have the static contrast (vs the not useful dynamic contrast) of an slide, nor the same color triangle. A velvia slide on a light table may make a hard man cry, a monitor won't, you just can edit the image to get an optimal look for the monitor. It's sad, but a monitor is not made of velvia (or provia).

Tin Can

7-Dec-2018, 10:38

Find or make a big Light Box. Every camera store and Pro had one of these.

https://static.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/Product_Resources/SourceBookProPhoto/Section10Lightboxes.pdf

I bought the big double one on a stand for $20 on CL 6 years ago.

I used it with the stand, but now hang them on different walls.

I view negs of any size and have made 14X36" X-Ray positives that are very impressive on a light box.

I may shoot old 8x10 Slide film next year after seeing Bryan's results.

And will enjoy them on the wall. Good enough for some...

Corran

7-Dec-2018, 10:40

I can think of several photographers that make slide film scans look amazing (both on the monitor and in prints). This issue is not a limitation of monitors or scanners but one of technique, both at time of exposure and in scanning.

Steven Ruttenberg

7-Dec-2018, 12:32

Peter De Smidt

7-Dec-2018, 12:35

Scanned slides were the defacto quality standard in the commercial world for years, often done with 8-bit per channel files into a small CMYK color space.

Steven Ruttenberg

7-Dec-2018, 13:02

Well, my technique is better, it wasn't back then. Iwas worried about toasting the sky so much I let the foreground go. Probably could have saved it with n+1 development, but this was literally my first slide ever developed. So live and learn.

Corran

7-Dec-2018, 13:11

Steven Ruttenberg

7-Dec-2018, 14:18

Apologies if I missed it previously, but I didn't realize you were self-developing your slides. This is good - you have control over the process.

I have tweaked my E-6 development for scanning. I pull back on the color developer especially to get less deep blacks, and I have occasionally given 2/3 stop extra exposure with a commensurate reduction in the first developer to reign in highlights.

I noticed only recently that the Arista instructions give the time in the color developer at 4:30, while my old Tetenal instructions said 6 minutes! No wonder I was getting dense shadows. I didn't bother to read the instructions for the Arista, thinking it was basically the same. I had already pulled back my CD to 5 minutes standard. Test!

Also, I'll reiterate my previous mention that a 2-stop GND should be standard on a shot like this.

I agree. I was using the Tetenal. For pushing to get you have to add time to the first developer. I don't see any mention of messing with the color developer. How did you figure out to play with color developer?

A scene I shot elsewhere on that trip required an 8 stop set up. I think I metered to need at least 5-8 or more, but I used a polarizer not worrying about the foreground as I wanted the sky to no lose the color which can happen when using just a grad nd. The biggest issue though, is not having a center spot for this lens. It sorely needs one and they are all friggin expensive!

This shot was with my 5DMKIII, and like I said, it took8 stops of grad nd. Sun was above and to the right. Same as susnet with slide film. I have some extacolor film I used as well. Scanning that tonight.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4831/45497406234_c294bfec8f_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2cjs6Lw)Old Bridge Palouse, WA (https://flic.kr/p/2cjs6Lw) by Steven Ruttenberg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/157376714@N08/), on Flickr

Corran

7-Dec-2018, 15:22

I agree. I was using the Tetenal. For pushing to get you have to add time to the first developer. I don't see any mention of messing with the color developer. How did you figure out to play with color developer?

I forgot to ask earlier - why do you want to push? You will just blow the highlights out. So the first developer is for the latent "negative" image, and then the color developer fills in the negative space to make a positive, and finally bleach removes the first negative image. Therefore, 1st developer controls contrast just like normal negative film (develop for the highlights). The CD, since it is developing a positive, builds density inversely, so that controls the depth of the shadows. At least, I think that's right, and seems to work from my development.

Best-case scenario is you shouldn't have to muck around too much with that (overall balanced light) hence the use of GND. Mucking around like I mention also messes with color a little sometimes, but since we are scanning and printing digitally only since Ciba is dead, I don't find this to be an issue since it's all edited digitally anyway.

A scene I shot elsewhere on that trip required an 8 stop set up. I think I metered to need at least 5-8 or more, but I used a polarizer not worrying about the foreground as I wanted the sky to no lose the color which can happen when using just a grad nd. The biggest issue though, is not having a center spot for this lens. It sorely needs one and they are all friggin expensive!

This shot was with my 5DMKIII, and like I said, it took8 stops of grad nd. Sun was above and to the right. Same as susnet with slide film. I have some extacolor film I used as well. Scanning that tonight.

I'm confused with your statements. 8 stops? Do you mean an 8x GND? That is 3 stops. For digital I don't think GND filters are needed at all in many/most situations. The reason is you can selectively bring down the blues in the sky with an HSL layer and also the dynamic range of the image is humongous compared to slides. Finally, a quick composite of two shots, one with a -3 stop exposure compensation, is a much better "virtual" GND that can then be tailored to fit the image (for example, masking it out of the bridge in your photo. I have also composited multiple slide images when I didn't have a GND with me or had a lens it didn't work with, usually on 120 though because banging off two shots on a roll isn't too bad.

Anyway, as an example, here is a shot with a 2-stop hard GND, also with two shots composited to get the most from the lower half of the image (exposed one stop more than what I metered). This is a 58mm XL on 6x12, no center filter so lots of fall-off, but I just let it go in the deepest shadows:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/Untitled1sharpss.jpg

Steven Ruttenberg

7-Dec-2018, 17:21

I mean 8 full stops. That would be 2.4 factor. And yes you do need grad nds with digital. In fact the scene I posted was not possible without. The difference between tge shadows and bright clouds was close to 20 or more full stops. No way I could have pulled that off without grad nd. I also do not do HDR. Most of the time it looks like crap!

I treat digital as I do find film, but also acknowledge it is digital so has its own quirks.

As for pushing, it was just a guess at what to do with slides in order to open shadows. But I do not know a out the issues on slide development as I just started.

I like your explanation and would appear based on your experience to work very well. I will try that nxt time around.

interneg

7-Dec-2018, 17:47

It's largely a question of scanner Dmax, colour management using an appropriate colour target & possibly luminosity masking etc to finesse tonalities afterwards. There are limitations inherent to positive origination processes that are quite obvious when compared to neg/pos, but it was easier in the past to hand over a transparency for repro & say 'match it'.

Corran

7-Dec-2018, 18:42

Even in AZ and also FL with full sun I have never seen anything that needed an 8 stop GND filter, even at sunset with extreme backlight. Especially with how malleable digital files are. Usually 3 stop GND starts to look unnatural in most uses. But if you insist, you go right on ahead. This isn't a digital forum though and I have no interest in discussing it anyway. I used to teach digital photography and editing classes and it wasn't much fun.

I have probably $1,000 worth of GND filters and adapters and whatnot and I use it on digital exactly 0% of the time (the rare times I shoot digital anyway - and this includes paid architecture work where the virtual GND method works perfectly and with less hassle, flare or reflection issues, etc.).

Speaking of which. bracketing and compositing as a "virtual GND" however is NOT HDR, whatsoever. Assuming you have a tripod and nothing actively moving in the scene in the area where the overlap happens, you simply shoot two frames, one for the bottom foreground and one for the background that would be in the GND area at a commensurate lower exposure level, and then using a simple gradient mask in PS to simulate either a hard or soft GND, should give exactly the same image as a one-shot image with said GND. HDR is completely different, where tone mapping is used throughout the whole image to lower the DR, creating (when overused especially) a wildly flat but high local contrast image. And yes it looks horrible when done poorly. Simple bracketing and compositing, with appropriate masking, is not only easier but looks more natural.

Steven Ruttenberg

7-Dec-2018, 19:24

Your right, not a digital forum, that was just an example. There are many ways to skin a cat and I try anything once, maybe twice. But I did use two grad nds, both from Formatt-Hitech, both glass, IRNDs. 0.9 and 1.5. I manipulated them to get the look I wanted for 1 image. Yes, the clouds too, were moving quite fast.

Anyway,
I typically shoot directly into the sun and that can cause a big problem if not tamed down. Many times, 3 stops were not enough. I try not to go above 5 but there have been occasions where I have. And if done wrong, it looks like crap too. I just prefer to shoot 1 image and not several, less to keep track of. This includes film.

Like I always say, if it works for you, then by all means use it and we can all learn from others. No technique is 100% full proof and will always have a limitation and will require another method or way to obtain the image you want. I try not to be so naive that I will not accept other options or opinions as I can always learn and use and combine what others have told me/taught me. I am by no means perfect or even close to it.

Alan Klein

8-Dec-2018, 20:43

I shoot Velvia 50. When I scan, I don't try to match the colors on the film when I post process them. I adjust until I'm happy with the colors on my calibrated monitor. I probably come close to the film. But I don't really care because no one is comparing the final adjusted digital image to the film. These Velvia's are 120 medium format. Could you tell which match or don't match the Velvia originals?
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=55760757%40N05&text=velvia

Steven Ruttenberg

8-Dec-2018, 21:08

What you say is true. I use the slidss as reference, but I also like the way they look and they represent what I saw at that moment. But as long as the scanned images are what I want in the final image I am happy with that, even if they don't match.

Pali K

8-Dec-2018, 22:40

Shadows on a slide can always be very challenging on a scanner. Epson never got it right for me and everything did get muddy with a cast similar to yours Steven. My workflow is very much spoiled by the ability to scan in the deep shadows that you can see with you eyes on a lightbox because I can scan on a Tango. I expose using a -2 to + 2 EV range for Velvia and -2.5 to + 2.5 for Provia and process using Tetenal E6 normally.

For example, this is a single shot image where I intentionally blew the sky just a tad and kept the rest of the scene between -2 and +2 EV. My Eversmart Supreme is the only other scanner that will come close to being able to pull the shadow detail from this image as well as Tango did. My guess is that the shadows will have a very bad red cast if I were to attempt to scan this on the Epson.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4890/45816737601_322a84a783_k.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2cNEKRK)

Steven Ruttenberg

9-Dec-2018, 02:14

Nice image. Yes, if you try to push the Epson, you get funky colored shadows and a lot of noise, like a picture taken on a cheap point and shoot. I need to learn to expose for scanning with my work. At least the color images as I want to start learning real dark room work for bw to start.

I may eventually get a drum scanner. Hopefully I can find one that uses 21st century interface and os or at least one I can stock up on parts. But, doesn't require me to make a human sacrifice like selling my soul. :)

Pere Casals

9-Dec-2018, 05:20

My guess is that the shadows will have a very bad red cast if I were to attempt to scan this on the Epson.

Pali, please check the Velvia curves in the datasheet, red has lower density in the far underexposure:

185278

Velvia deep shadows have a red cast because it's the medium nature, if your scanner does not deliver that red cast then it's not exactly calibrated.

Of course one may calibrate the scanner job to shift colors for the shadows in the scanning itself, or one may simply edit the red curve in photoshop.

So... where the problem is ?

Pali K

9-Dec-2018, 06:45

Thank you Steven and good luck with a drum scanner. I would even keep an eye out for a Eversmart Supreme or IQSmart 3 which would also give you very good output.

No problem with my image or scanner Pere. I love them both exactly as they are.

Pali

Ted Baker

9-Dec-2018, 07:06

All the slides I have taken have that wet look, like the image is formed on super still glossy water. Scan them in, and that magic look disappears.

Steven, It may help to realise that attempting to recreate the exact look of projected or back lit transparency is a folly. There are several adaptations the eye makes when looking at a transparency, one of which is called "brightness adaptation". In simple terms this means that when viewing a chrome, a white diffuse object does NOT need to have a transmittance of around 90% and middle grey does NOT need to have around 18%. In contrast a reflective image often needs to hit those values or is likely to judged as too dark.
This adaptation allows for more room for specular highlight BTW.

However to produce a reflective print some changes must be made, it is this combination of the equipment, software and the user that successfully makes this transition. Indeed this combination is often just a lot a practise and skills acquired, that is not quite so simple to put down in engineering terms, for example a simple curve change etc.

Alan Klein

9-Dec-2018, 09:13

I found that I was able to lighten the shadow areas in RVP just enough in most cases even though I was using an Epson V600 flatbed. In any case, I tend to like darker shadows as the contrast makes the picture "pop" more.

Tin Can

9-Dec-2018, 09:47

Did a little historical research on why shoot huge chromes?

Found more than a few from LFPF in this thread. Photrio link. (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/8x10-slides.144814/) I seldom go there.

My second deceased wife hand retouched Playboy Chromes into the 90's.

I like the comments on how some displayed 8X10 chromes.

I never got a good look at her technique.

This decade Hefner sold 60's Playboy centerfolds, slightly larger and never folded for $3 each. I bought a few, they were shipped flat in tissue like fine art. Shipping was more than cost. The first Playboy magazine was B&W. Same time I also bought a reprint of that. I better find it, I see asking prices are very high...

Corran

9-Dec-2018, 10:11

I like the comments on how some displayed 8X10 chromes.

On my list of things to do, still, is to buy some LED strip lights and see if I can make simple 8x10 backlight frames. In concept, it should be simple, with a sufficient material for diffusion and a somewhat uniform placement of the LEDs. I wonder how long they will run on 2-4 AA batteries in parallel.

Pere Casals

9-Dec-2018, 10:20

No problem with my image or scanner Pere. I love them both exactly as they are.

No doubt. You have quite excellent gear.

----

Just pointing that if Epson scans have a red cast in the deep velvia shadows this is because of fidelity to the original, not because the Epson is faulty in that.

If that cast is corrected or not in a color profile in the scanner on in Ps is another thing, but it should be clarified that this cast is not at all a technical defect in the Epson, but the counter.

Tin Can

9-Dec-2018, 10:21

I bought one of these (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06VWBG73Y/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1) as a backlight for X-Ray Positive for a doctor. I paid 2x the current price. Since it uses USB it could be battery powered. She simply plugs it in to show off her gift.

Not perfect, but good enough for the usage.

The edge lighting does fall off.

On my list of things to do, still, is to buy some LED strip lights and see if I can make simple 8x10 backlight frames. In concept, it should be simple, with a sufficient material for diffusion and a somewhat uniform placement of the LEDs. I wonder how long they will run on 2-4 AA batteries in parallel.

Steven Ruttenberg

9-Dec-2018, 10:43

That is kinda cool.

Steven Ruttenberg

9-Dec-2018, 10:48

The best part is all the info I get from ghese conversations. I am working on perfecting how I scan, but also realize my negatives need work from proper ecposure to development. Unlike digital, it is much harder if not impossible to rescue crap with a poor negative. No way to polish that turd.

Pere Casals

9-Dec-2018, 11:38

Unlike digital, it is much harder if not impossible to rescue crap with a poor negative. No way to polish that turd.

A digital shot has some $0.0005 cost in shutter tear. Exposing an small sheet may have around x10000 that cost, manpower apart. So LF shooting requires a photographer knowing what he is doing, if not better spraying and praying with a dslr.

Michellangelo was knowing what he was doing with the hammer, so it was worth to him to spend several months hitting a boulder with that hammer. LF has a tinny bit of that, the photographer has to nail the job, and he has to know how to take advantage from aesthetical resources of LF. This is not good or bad, but these are the rules in this game.

faberryman

9-Dec-2018, 11:41

Michellangelo was knowing what he was doing with the hammer, so it was worth to him to spend several months hitting a boulder with that hammer. LF has a tinny bit of that, the photographer has to nail the job, and he has to know how to take advantage from aesthetical resources of LF. This is not good or bad, but these are the rules in this game.
That applies to any photographer using any camera.

interneg

9-Dec-2018, 11:57

That applies to any photographer using any camera.

Quite. The whole thing about LF somehow being 'difficult' or needing some sort of fetishised skillset gets old fast. It really isn't difficult & the less time wasted on irrelevant debate about the metaphysics of technique the better!

Pere Casals

9-Dec-2018, 12:20

That applies to any photographer using any camera.

Of course, but for obvious resons in LF any mistake has a way higher cost than with some cameras, and also it's easier to make mistakes...

My view is that if a quality work is not to be crafted then LF has little sense, and I'd add that for the effort to be worth the photographer has to exploit the particular LF aesthetic or technical resources.

Tin Can

9-Dec-2018, 12:40

It's not that expensive.

I will never be 'master' yet I enjoy this hobby.

I am 'NOT' Don Quixote Sir!

faberryman

9-Dec-2018, 12:49

Of course, but for obvious resons in LF any mistake has a way higher cost than with some cameras, and also it's easier to make mistakes... My view is that if a quality work is not to be crafted then LF has little sense, and I'd add that for the effort to be worth the photographer has to exploit the particular LF aesthetic or technical resources.Platitudes. Spin whatever narrative makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

Pere Casals

9-Dec-2018, 12:52

It's not that expensive.

It can be quite cheap, if one spends 2 hours sitting on the snow before dawn to get a fabolous shot then a Velvia 8x10 sheet is the cheapest thing in the world. If one spends a TMY box and he obtains no good shot then better to shot rolls or a dslr... don't you think ?

Pere Casals

9-Dec-2018, 13:02

Platitudes

Frank, yes, sure a platitude, but I think that this platitude was right to be pointed in this case, commenting on Steven's post. Pointing platitudes is not always bad. I'm the first that I can benefit from hearing platitudes once again.

You said "That applies to any photographer using any camera.", this is a wrong platitude, because it should be stated that lack of control is more painful in LF than with a digital back or a dslr.

Tin Can

9-Dec-2018, 13:31

Not at all Sir!

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

It can be quite cheap, if one spends 2 hours sitting on the snow before dawn to get a fabolous shot then a Velvia 8x10 sheet is the cheapest thing in the world. If one spends a TMY box and he obtains no good shot then better to shot rolls or a dslr... don't you think ?

Steven Ruttenberg

9-Dec-2018, 13:34

The way I see it is you require skills regardless of format to make something more than a snap sot of the family vacation. Too many today call themselves a professional photographer or fine art photographer just because they have a digital camera and shoot everything they see and then post it up. Nothing wrong with that mind you. But I am not looking for the status quo or necessarily to be the most effective LF shooter to ever exist. I like the format because of what it offers. I have something mechanical to do at every step of the way. The digital part is just so I can make a presentable print to be there for the day when I am not. How else do you define immortality? Digital is fine, and will no doubt someday be the only medium in which to photogrpah, but without a print, what is the point? Also, without a negative which will far outlast a digital file, what is the point? I like both, but digital is very antiseptic and sterile, point, press, upload, PS, post all can be done without even leaving the field where you took the picture. Film for me though, is not even the starting point, but 1 point along the journey to something I print and can make someone smile or whatever. And I like the whole process, from buying the film to loading it, taking picture, developing it, etc. I find something unusually satisfying about that that digital does not offer.

How was that for philosophizing?

Really, I just like LF/film and want to be good as I can be at it.

Steven Ruttenberg

9-Dec-2018, 13:35

Corran

9-Dec-2018, 13:37

No one is perfect. I'd rather shoot two sheets of 8x10 chromes in a perfect setting and bracket, just in case. Or the same exposure and look at the first image to see if adjustments need to be made in development.

The cost of a few extra sheets of film is not much compared to wasting all the time and gas and effort just to shoot one sheet.

I've said it before but, my friend who did a once-in-a-lifetime photo project on 4x5 shot 4-6 sheets of EVERY photo, just in case. He brought hundreds and hundreds of loaded sheet film holders and periodically shipped off what he shot and got more loaded holders delivered so he didn't have to reload or keep up with boxes of film.

Do what you gotta do.

Pere Casals

9-Dec-2018, 13:42

I need a drink now. :)

We need a shot of rodinal ! :)

faberryman

9-Dec-2018, 14:22

You said "That applies to any photographer using any camera.", this is a wrong platitude, because it should be stated that lack of control is more painful in LF than with a digital back or a dslr.
Well, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Pere Casals

9-Dec-2018, 14:34

Well, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Just a planitude, in LF one needs to be skilled to meter accurately, to avoid frustation, with a digital back one may simply correct exposure for the next shot, for example

interneg

9-Dec-2018, 14:53

Just a planitude, in LF one needs to be skilled to meter accurately, to avoid frustation, with a digital back one may simply correct exposure for the next shot, for example

In reality, as long as you don't underexpose your negative or severely mangle your developing, LF is the most forgiving format of the lot, especially if you contact print. 35mm is much more demanding in terms of exposure/ processing/ printing skills.

Pere Casals

9-Dec-2018, 15:04

interneg

9-Dec-2018, 15:14

Yes, but in 35mm I bracket if a doubt, in LF I shot and develop the same for the two sheets in a holder, to have a backup, also I use film toe to compress shadows like I want, so to me LF it's a way more challenging process.

I've shot a lot of 35mm, and I'm a LF learner, but I find LF a lot more demanding, in special if the LF effort has to be worth compared to MF...

Or just expose up off the toe & print the shadows down as low as you dare on something like Fomatone. Age-old technique & it works much better than ex post facto assumptions of how people exposed negatives in the past - in large format especially, the tendency was not towards underexposure!

Pere Casals

9-Dec-2018, 15:27

Steven Ruttenberg

9-Dec-2018, 15:56

I want to learn how to make a scene we see, not only fit the film, but fit the final process. Each has its own limitations and so one of the links becomes the limiting factor in what one can do.

interneg

9-Dec-2018, 16:56

I find that hybrid processing is convenient, fexible and easy, but a great wet result is another war. Now I try to learn the Karsh way in what I may be able, and this involves (imho) also mastering toe usage.

I guess that mastering toe usage was more important for graded paper... but simply it's a resource I want to learn well.

A lot of the problems people come up against that makes wet printing 'difficult' is understanding the impact of the paper toe & average gradient relative to the film toe etc. Easier to see than explain by printing the same negative on to a range of different papers, aiming to make the best possible print you can on each. The tendency of many photographers to underexpose & over process can make printing much trickier than it needs to be.

Karsh's process was more about contrast (& creative) control by lighting than development or exposure - he used Kodak's Super Panchro Press Type-B for a lot of his well known images which (according to the available datasheets) had a softer toe & I can't see him risking underexposed negatives of important subjects - shadows with good exposure are always easier to print down than trying to open up underexposed ones.

Steven Ruttenberg

9-Dec-2018, 17:11

A lot of the problems people come up against that makes wet printing 'difficult' is understanding the impact of the paper toe & average gradient relative to the film toe etc. Easier to see than explain by printing the same negative on to a range of different papers, aiming to make the best possible print you can on each. The tendency of many photographers to underexpose & over process can make printing much trickier than it needs to be.

Karsh's process was more about contrast (& creative) control by lighting than development or exposure - he used Kodak's Super Panchro Press Type-B for a lot of his well known images which (according to the available datasheets) had a softer toe & I can't see him risking underexposed negatives of important subjects - shadows with good exposure are always easier to print down than trying to open up underexposed ones.

I am not printing yet, but find this to be true regardless of final destination. Although, it is a bit tricky in digital world to rescue a highlight. It seems with film there is a conundrum, how to expose/develop to get a negative or positive that can readily be reproduced by any means for a final image.

interneg

9-Dec-2018, 17:38

I am not printing yet, but find this to be true regardless of final destination. Although, it is a bit tricky in digital world to rescue a highlight. It seems with film there is a conundrum, how to expose/develop to get a negative or positive that can readily be reproduced by any means for a final image.

It's less of a conundrum than it can seem - getting genuinely unprintably dense highlights on neg film is actually pretty difficult - the hardware limitations of consumer scanners are another matter! Making an actually easy to print negative is slightly different - but not hard to do. Essentially, expose the negative up to where the shadows give you the options you want when printing (depending on what & how you meter, the box speed should be regarded only as a starting point for your own exposure index) & adjust development time to place highlight density on the grade of your choice - then it should give you plenty of print/ scan options - compromising a negative for the Dmax of a cheap scanner is a bad idea.

The biggest problem is that we are dealing with the legacy of a massive consumer/ professional divide in terms of the quality/ abilities of certain production equipment & no one has yet managed to come up with a solution that closes the gap at an acceptable quality/ price point.

Pere Casals

10-Dec-2018, 03:41

Karsh's process .... I can't see him risking underexposed negatives of important subjects - shadows with good exposure are always easier to print down than trying to open up underexposed ones.

I was teached in this forum about Karsh toe usage. Often he placed hair, clothes, chairs (etc) in the film toe. This is documented in the 150,000 negatives he shot.

This important subject has clothes well in the toe:

185323

I guess that in the Pre VC popularization era it was worth compressing shadows in the film toe.

We can compress shadows in the film toe or in the paper shoulder (or in Ps :))... but since VC was popular we have new tools for shadows, like split burning with an arbitrary grade.

Anyway I feel fascinated from the way Karsh worked the toe, so I try to learn a bit that way.

interneg

12-Dec-2018, 14:26

I was teached in this forum about Karsh toe usage. Often he placed hair, clothes, chairs (etc) in the film toe. This is documented in the 150,000 negatives he shot.

This important subject has clothes well in the toe:

185323

I guess that in the Pre VC popularization era it was worth compressing shadows in the film toe.

We can compress shadows in the film toe or in the paper shoulder (or in Ps :))... but since VC was popular we have new tools for shadows, like split burning with an arbitrary grade.

Anyway I feel fascinated from the way Karsh worked the toe, so I try to learn a bit that way.

OK, let's take this apart a little more - he was using films with a softer toe (think HP5+, TXP, not TMAX by today's standards) & thus your really deep shadows still have a bit of compression (ie, don't try & open them up as if they were on the straight line) - but if you can print them down on Fomatone or similar to be almost impossibly dark but with the right amount of detail. He used DK-50, so reckon on aiming for a curve with a bit on an upsweep.

The neg of Churchill is often rather poorly represented in photographs of Karsh holding it - the one John Loengard shot of it has Churchill largely dodged above the neg's b+f - but the bit of Loengard's shot that isn't shows the shadows about where I'd expect them - and they're a lot more detailed than most would assume. Karsh's approach was pretty intuitive - he didn't seem to care much for meters for B&W (not totally surprising) - & once he had a lighting setup/ exposure/ process approach that worked, he stuck to it. Not for nothing have people referred to his subjects as having been 'Karshed' - and his high productivity would have put significant emphasis on negatives that printed easily. The bigger challenge is working out his lighting setups which are far more of the 'look'.

Pere Casals

12-Dec-2018, 17:01

he was using films with a softer toe (think HP5+, TXP, not TMAX by today's standards)

Super XX for the Calumet C-1 (made 1940-1992, a film with a long straight line) reportedly YK exposed "some" of those sheets. He developed by inspection. Stopping the ektars at 11 or 16. Shutter at around 1/10 in interiors, flloods and spot-lights, no strobes. Masking with a pencil for priting.

An straight recipe :)

He used DK-50, so reckon on aiming for a curve with a bit on an upsweep.

Karsh.org says he formulated his own film developer.

https://karsh.org/developer-formulae/

interneg

12-Dec-2018, 18:20

Super XX for the Calumet C-1 (made 1940-1992, a film with a long straight line) reportedly YK exposed "some" of those sheets. He developed by inspection. Stopping the ektars at 11 or 16. Shutter at around 1/10 in interiors, flloods and spot-lights, no strobes. Masking with a pencil for priting.

An straight recipe :)

Karsh.org says he formulated his own film developer.

https://karsh.org/developer-formulae/

Again, a fairly minimal toe, then straight line is not going to support 'exposing into the toe' - on that film, it would be almost all straight line, and then nothing as it fell into the toe. DBI is not surprising, nor is pencil retouching on the negative. Both standard issue fare for the era Karsh learnt his trade in. And the liking for DBI is likely why he didn't much care for the faster, more sensitive films introduced in the 50's - see https://www.flickr.com/photos/38552878@N02/41865756401/in/album-72157668554829308/ which gives a snapshot of Karsh's approach in the late 50's.

Those formulae are pretty standard - slight variations on Agfa/ Ansco 120/125 & the toner is Nelsons gold toner. Karsh was not above polishing his own mythos about his process.

Pere Casals

12-Dec-2018, 18:36

Again, a fairly minimal toe, then straight line is not going to support 'exposing into the toe' -

YK 'exposing into the toe' is supported by the facts. Churchill's portrait is only an example.

interneg

13-Dec-2018, 17:39

YK 'exposing into the toe' is supported by the facts. Churchill's portrait is only an example.

I think there's been a miscommunication somewhere along the line here - yes Karsh's negatives appear 'thin', but that's because the highlights are not overdeveloped but the shadows are well exposed - to quote Popular Photography's extremely in-depth May 1945 article on Karsh (findable on Google books) p.59, talking about how he controlled the contrast caused by his use of powerful fresnel spots "By the common practice of full exposure for the shadow areas and underdevelopment, working for thin negatives of about the density one seeks in small film." Not difficult to do - it's essentially how I expose & process LF film & it can often give a negative with a good range of interpretation depending on grade & printing choice - print softer & tonally, or boost the shadows with 4.5 & flash in the highlights (makes for wonderfully 'sharp' prints). Pretty much any film can be made to behave with this methodology. Straightforward to do, might take 2-3 sheets to zero in at worst - and any excuse to play around with fresnels & similar stuff is good!

Pere Casals

13-Dec-2018, 20:55

yes Karsh's negatives appear 'thin', but that's because the highlights are not overdeveloped but the shadows are well exposed

Sure... I think this is right. Of course he exposed shadows perfectly. But he also exposed well deep shadows compressed in the toe.

IMHO with graded paper we have a lack of control compared with VC paper. With VC paper we may work the mids and then burning highlights or shadows with the grade we want. We cannot do that with graded paper as we have only one grade in the printing process.

With graded paper, after taking a grade for the mids, be can burn shadows or highlights to adjust density but we won't be able to control local contrast by burning with an arbitrary grade.

With graded paper a printer has to pick a grade for the mids, and then he finds that the paper shoulder/toe imposes a look. The photographer then requires an additional degree of freedom that it has to be nailed during film exposure, taking advantage of film's toe/shoulder, IMHO this requires a refined crafting.

Since c. 1980 VC popularized, allowing an additional degree of control in the printing, then some (Sexton) thought that toe/shoulder were not necessary anymore, and linear TMax was born.

But Sexton was shooting landscapes and objects. Many portrait photograpers (studio) still relied in TXP, sporting a toe and a shoulder, and (depending on development) some bump in the mids.

Well, this is my interpretation... take it as an opinion because I'm still a rookie printer wanting to learn.

interneg

15-Dec-2018, 19:16

Sure... I think this is right. Of course he exposed shadows perfectly. But he also exposed well deep shadows compressed in the toe.

IMHO with graded paper we have a lack of control compared with VC paper. With VC paper we may work the mids and then burning highlights or shadows with the grade we want. We cannot do that with graded paper as we have only one grade in the printing process.

With graded paper, after taking a grade for the mids, be can burn shadows or highlights to adjust density but we won't be able to control local contrast by burning with an arbitrary grade.

With graded paper a printer has to pick a grade for the mids, and then he finds that the paper shoulder/toe imposes a look. The photographer then requires an additional degree of freedom that it has to be nailed during film exposure, taking advantage of film's toe/shoulder, IMHO this requires a refined crafting.

Since c. 1980 VC popularized, allowing an additional degree of control in the printing, then some (Sexton) thought that toe/shoulder were not necessary anymore, and linear TMax was born.

But Sexton was shooting landscapes and objects. Many portrait photograpers (studio) still relied in TXP, sporting a toe and a shoulder, and (depending on development) some bump in the mids.

Well, this is my interpretation... take it as an opinion because I'm still a rookie printer wanting to learn.

Here's Kodak's set of curves for Super-XX: https://archive.org/details/kodak-films/page/n57 - there were plenty of films that had tone curve similarities to the Tmax films, just that the Tmax's were meant to offer the abilities of several different films in one box. You might also want to check out TXP's (and/ or TXT's) curve at normal CI's vis-a-vis the boosted CI you might use with some lighting conditions - it doesn't really shoulder at a 'normal' CI. Finally, I think Karsh may well have used Portrait Pan for at least some of his more 'ortho'-ish portraits - it was 2/3 stop slower under tungsten vs most panchro films only being 1/3 & ortho a full stop & a comparison with Paul Strand's work of the same era (he pretty much solely used Portrait Pan) shows a similarity in the rendering of certain skintones.

Fixed grade & VC papers are both more flexible than conventional wisdom would assert - before we even get to masking, you can use pre & post flashes, & some other basic techniques (developers, ferricyanide) to add a few grades of flexibility. Essentially, some fixed grade emulsions can offer better separation in certain tonalities, but VC may offer a better overall 'look'. Depends on final aesthetic really as to which is 'better'. Don't forget that VC papers are essentially a multi-speed G5 paper & can be manipulated accordingly for maximum perceived sharpness. Really a question of learning enough hands-on (and avoiding printing to a densitometer as far as possible!) to see how specific paper tone curves behave, & that the best print usually results from defeating reflective metering systems' desire to turn everything 18%-ish grey. Bumping the shadows harder than 'correct' can drastically improve things, even if it may mean more dodge & burn etc.

Main other thing with VC papers is watching out for certain transitions between the emulsions which can be a little odd tonally (almost posterised) - ie if you have a significant burn at 00, a dodged & burnt post-flash may be better.

Steven Ruttenberg

15-Dec-2018, 19:22

That is an interesting set of curves

Pere Casals

16-Dec-2018, 05:27

before we even get to masking, you can use pre & post flashes, & some other basic techniques (developers, ferricyanide) to add a few grades of flexibility.

First, thanks for posting that link, I've saved it.

Of course there are many darkroom techniques, but it's clear that taking advantage of film toe/shoulder in the crafting is (or was) a popular choice.

As you know toe/shoulder of a film is by design, this is obtained by adjusting grain formulation, and this is done by controlling silver nitrate addition flows, digestion, and by mixing different emulsions of different nature. ...to cite only the resources a dry plate amateur like me may use.

If a film manufacturer designs a toe and a shoulder this is to allow photographers to use it, and many films have a sound sensitometric design to make easier to obtain a certain footprint in the tonality.

Today bending curves is easy in the hybrid... but in a full optical process we have a (by design) toe/shoulder for the case we want to use it. YK was using it, certainly, alongside with many other resources I don't fully understand.

But, (in the pre-photoshop era) why not nailing the shot in the studio by controlling illumination/exposure vs toe/shoulder ? avoiding complications in the darkroom...

Just a thought, if YK was developing his negatives but not (as often) printing, as he had many sittings, then perhaps it would be better nailing an straight negative than one that had to be interpreted too much by a printer.

Steven Ruttenberg

16-Dec-2018, 14:52

The way I see it is to nail the exposure regardless of technique after exposure. Ie, the more right it is at moment of capture, the less work to do post-processing, whether full optical or hybrid.

Pere Casals

16-Dec-2018, 16:31

to nail the exposure

Well, anyway we have choices... I guess that we can meter for a more flexible negative or for a more straight negative.

If hybrid is in the midle then perhaps we may prefer a flexible negative, placing all what we can in the linear section. If we plan to print in the darkroom then we may want an easy to print negative, not sporting high densities and perhaps with some compressions already done in the film, to lower the dodging/burning potential workload.

jnantz

16-Dec-2018, 19:09

it appears your guru gave you his mantra, his answer, not yours.

Permit me to suggest you get back to first position. Re-lace your boots. Spend time doing your own pushups.

Take from this a community lesson — not everyone is a trail runner; most just buy the shoes.

yes !

interneg

18-Dec-2018, 04:00

If a film manufacturer designs a toe and a shoulder this is to allow photographers to use it, and many films have a sound sensitometric design to make easier to obtain a certain footprint in the tonality.

But, (in the pre-photoshop era) why not nailing the shot in the studio by controlling illumination/exposure vs toe/shoulder ? avoiding complications in the darkroom...

Just a thought, if YK was developing his negatives but not (as often) printing, as he had many sittings, then perhaps it would be better nailing an straight negative than one that had to be interpreted too much by a printer.

The methods that have been described for Karsh's printing techniques are pretty standard for the day (even down to the use of strong, hot developer dabbed on for local contrast enhancement - which might seem alien to today's audiences) & his choice of films seems to have been dictated by his use of high contrast lighting - ie no shouldering & a softer toe to open up shadows. A shorter toe & a shoulder would give a punchier result in softer lighting conditions. Those are however very broad generalisations & the characteristics of many films was dictated by their broader uses - Super-XX's characteristics were as much aimed at its use for colour separation & three strip Technicolor as anything else. The other big change seems to have been a realisation that the straighter-line films offered better behaviour in a broader array of light than the ones with a toe & shoulder (remember, we're talking half a century of imaging science here!). If you've ever had to burn in highlights on TX & TMY-II on a regular basis, TMY-II is far preferable because of its linearity. This is before we get on to the specific aesthetics of films & societal perceptions thereof.

Finally, a good printer very rapidly learns how to print as the client wants - & often can do a better job faster. You wouldn't expect an orchestral composer to play all the instruments to concert standard...

jnantz

18-Dec-2018, 07:30

Just a thought, if YK was developing his negatives but not (as often) printing, as he had many sittings, then perhaps it would be better nailing an straight negative than one that had to be interpreted too much by a printer.

any portrait / professional photographer nails the exposure, that is what they are paid to do LOL
it was a formula hair, key, background fill lights and the camera ...
he trained with the master ( garo ) and he knew his $h!+
BUT ... the lynchpin in the whole operation wasn't the printer
or the camera person or the developing person but the retoucher..
its not easy to retouch film with lead so it is invisible to the eye on the print
any 12 year old could have processed his film after being shown how to do it..
==
interneg,
..the hot dip sounds like fun!

Tin Can

18-Dec-2018, 07:36

Good to know and why not emulate, lighting, film, exposure, hangers et al. Of course we may need to use different lights, film, and...?

The point is standardize.

The faces will change.

any portrait / professional photographer nails the exposure, that is what they are paid to do LOL
it was a formula in knowing exactly what his negative was going to look like before he took the photograph.
he studied lighing ( as part of his formal training ) with john garo . ..
who was THE master if there ever was one. its sad how john garo's name has gone down as an obscure footnote
in the world of early 20th photograph trivia .. anyways
EVERYTHING was the same, the lights are always set up a certain way a certain distance, the camera a certain distance, always the same fstop and shutter
and the film always processed exactly the same way in the same replenished developer in hangers agitated 6 ( or whatever ) hangers at a time
using the same agitation technique...
... a school kid 12 years old could have processed his film for him after being shown how to do it ... there really is no mystique about how he "nailed the exposure"

jnantz

18-Dec-2018, 07:41

Good to know and why not emulate, lighting, film, exposure, hangers et al. Of course we may need to use different lights, film, and...?

The point is standardize.

The faces will change.

YES !

but it helps to know your stuff :)
btw i am still trying to train my organ grinder monkey sign language and typing
next is processing my film !
OP
i have never had trouble scanning slides ( either black / white or color ). i'm not a wizard
or any sort of photoshop or scanning expert but still ive never had trouble with my 13 year old scanner
( or my 1200 UMAX before that ) scanning my film to look at least as good as the slide.
while drum and imacon scans and every other kind of high end scan is great, and those people know their stuff
i've never really seen the necessity of doing that sort of thing. your problem might be that you expect your scanning client
( vuescan? in this case ) to interpret your film for you. scanning a file is like printing it, sometimes you have stuff that is lost in translation
and you have to interpret and figure out how you are going to use your raw materials. regarding color cast .. you can probably go into
one of the drop down menus in PS and adjust it that way. its like shooting ektachrome without a filter. its kind of blue
and if you want things to look nice and the way you might have seen it, you have to filter either ahead of time infront ( or behind ) the lens
or tweek here and twerk there in PS ... photography is all about interpretation because even what we see isnt' really reality. you have to make it real.
you know its like the spoon not really being there, and once you realize its just in your mind you can bend it sort of thing...
YMMV

Steven Ruttenberg

18-Dec-2018, 09:28

I don't really expect Vuewscan or Silverfast to provide me a perfectly scanned negative. In fact, I prefer to do that in PS after obtaining a raw scan file (no correction at all) I just find slide film very unforgiving and difficult to get right in a computer (do justice to the actual slide)

I am sure I will get better at taking slide images and developing them which will then make scanning a snap.

Tin Can

18-Dec-2018, 09:36

Many of us shot color 35mm slide film for decades and projected it. Slide shows were big.

I have no idea how they almost all came out well exposed as I used Sunny 16 as described inside the film box.

No light meter and seldom used the expensive flash bulbs. So mostly outdoors.

I still have those slides, definetly not art, but good as documentation of life.

I scanned the 'good ones' 20 years ago with a $1000 Nikon slide scanner. Not good enough...

jnantz

18-Dec-2018, 10:14

I scanned the 'good ones' 20 years ago with a $1000 Nikon slide scanner. Not good enough...

yeah i think there is a difference between a sweet bright projector bulb and the not so bright scanner lid..
i over expose all my slides so they are thin enough to scan :)
or i under expose them so they are dense enough that i print them with a 300W bulb
my bar is set very low so i am not disappointed.. i have realized that is the trick noone wants
anyone to know about .. setting the bar very low ( and listening to some bobby mcfarren from time to time )

Steven Ruttenberg

18-Dec-2018, 12:44

yeah i think there is a difference between a sweet bright projector bulb and the not so bright scanner lid..
i over expose all my slides so they are thin enough to scan :)
or i under expose them so they are dense enough that i print them with a 300W bulb
my bar is set very low so i am not disappointed.. i have realized that is the trick noone wants
anyone to know about .. setting the bar very low ( and listening to some bobby mcfarren from time to time )

I prefer Metallica

jnantz

18-Dec-2018, 19:11

I prefer Metallica

i don't think metalilica ever sang "don't worry be happy"

and according to his dudeness they were a....

Steven Ruttenberg

18-Dec-2018, 20:02

Yep, all the way, But One is a classic and so is For Whom the Bell Tolls!

mrladewig

19-Dec-2018, 15:53

I scan with an Epson 4990 Photo, the very old predecessor to your scanner, which also claimed a 4.0Dmax or so. That is straight up wishful thinking, but I feel like the scanner does fine. I would recommend the EpsonScan software as well in the professional mode. Typically you'll need to adjust for shadow color casts through a curve and if possible, I would get it as close as possible to looking correct in the scanner software. A straight RGB adjustment cannot address the types of issues that show up. As I recall, Provia develops a blue green shift in the shadows. One way to think of the adjustments is that you have a pairing on these 3 axis.

Red - Cyan
Green - Magenta
Blue - Yellow

If you are seeing a cyan shift, counter it by pulling red up on the curve in the affected tones. You may have to peg the curve to keep highlights from being negatively impacted.

If blue-green, you may need to make a small adjust to increase red and decrease blue in the affected tones.