More advanced scanner for 4x5 than Epson flatbed?

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

What is currently the next level up from the Epsom flat bed scanners that will work with 4 x 5 film?

[Tin Can]

Any topline DSLR

[Corran]

High-end flatbeds such as the Eversmart, iQsmart, Cezanne, etc. .

Of course drum scanners, if you are okay with the workflow.

The Imacon/Hasselblad as well.

DSLR scanning if you can build a sufficient system - off-the-shelf stuff is available at a much higher cost.

[Pere Casals]

Sadly, Epson now has near a monopoly.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners

Manufactured today, the Hasselblad X1/X5 is way better than the Epson for 35mm film, but for 4x5 is equal to the Epson if not counting ultra deep shadows in velvia.

A Epson V850 delivers around 130MPix effective from a 4x5" sheet, a drum will take some 350MPix effective if scanning at 4000dpi, but it will deliver an inferior result than the Epson if scanning at 2000dpi.

So, in practice, and if wanting a new scanner, next level up from the Epson is learning to use the Epson in proficient way.


A DIY DSLR scanner may also beat the Epson, but you should stitch around 9 (good) DSLR shots in PS for that (a 3x3 mosaic), this will be slightly better. A 2x2 mosaic won't beat the Epson, consider that a 50MPix sensor won't yield 50MPix effective, but a lot less.


Eversmart, iQsmart, Cezanne are not better in practice for 4x5", The V850 delivers a less optimized image that always admits some additional sharpening in Ps, but once you do that samples are pretty equal:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4857/46755757932_c7010da815_o.jpg

Those samples speak on their own, it has to be noted that Pali K, the guy that made that side by side, knows what an scanner is. You have the V700 sample at the side of an Eversmart sample. This ends any debate :)


Then the V850 has drivers for modern computers, official service and warranty. An old pre-press hi-end scanner can be a nightmare if having a problem, and with a Cezanne you have to stitch strips to "in theory" beat the Epson, but in practice the single way to beat the Epson in 4x5" is making a high dpi drum scan.

[Corran]

Of course this is how a 10-page debate starts between the usual suspects.

To the OP: those of use who use high-end flatbeds do it for a reason. Artificial sharpening isn't resolution. They can be a hassle to setup and use, that's true, but if you have the room and ability to run an older dedicated computer, it's not that bad.

The own a Cezanne and have used it for quite a while and have made massive exhibition prints that simply can't be done with scans from an Epson. No debate needed, I've used them both along with many other scanners and speak from experience, not hypotheticals. Good luck.

PS: There's a zillion threads on this already. No need to rehash all of it.

[Tin Can]

Perhaps this thread could be about scanners in production and for sale in most of the world.

New, not rebuilt, not nos, not not...

[faberryman]

OMG, here we go again. Do a search. Everything that could be said has be said ad nauseam.

[Corran]

Perhaps this thread could be about scanners in production and for sale in most of the world.

New, not rebuilt, not nos, not not...

Fair.

Flextight and camera-scan systems are about it I think?

[Oren Grad]

Flextight

Flextight is discontinued now.

[Corran]

Oh! I Google'd it and saw info on the Hasselblad site so assumed it was still available. Oh well.

[Pere Casals]

Bryan, this time I end my debate with you in this post, Pro expensive scanners also Artificially sharpen in the firmware or in the software driver, and they did it very well to the optimal point, the Epson does it less, so what the expensive Artificially sharpened inside with the Epson you have to do it with Photoshop, but the final image of the V700 has the same Artificial sharpening that the one of your Cezanne.

If you look those samples taken by Pali you will see that the final result is the same, this is because the "Artificial" sharpening is also the same. If it wasn't then you would see it in the side by side comparison.

For any following question I refer you to those samples, if you don't understand the thing from those samples then... sorry, I can't explain it better or easier.

[Corran]

Cezanne has options to turn off sharpening, but okay. No one cares anyway at this point as enough has been said on this topic.

[Tin Can]

I think we do care about products we can buy new...and how well they work.

I am no longer a fan of old electronics, even my tube radio collection is not worth operating or selling.

I look at them only.

Let's try to keep film alive even if we have to make it ourselves.

Kudos to Denise Ross and her Light Farm. (http://www.thelightfarm.com/Map/Books/cim/MapTopic.htm)

[Corran]

I can't seem to find the archival digitization systems I've seen once or twice, for sale generally to libraries. I believe they were very expensive.

Just recently, a simple pseudo-DIY system was put on Kickstarter - just add camera. 3D-printed. It was still about the price of a used Epson V800 I think, so was criticized on price heavily.

There was a thread on the rangefinder forum where a couple college kids designed a novel camera-scan system that used small-sensors and a large number of images to scan at extreme resolutions. Near the end of the project they seemed to have disappeared, despite claiming to want to put it into production. I liked this idea because small sensors gave the ability to scan in a smaller footprint (shorter lens-to-sensor distance). Tests showed really extreme resolution despite the cellphone-sized sensor, due to extreme oversampling.

From my standpoint, no one has quite invented a reasonably-priced kit that would replace normal scanners for most people. A dedicated scanning desk with universal mounts for a variety of modern DSLR and mirrorless systems, with the ability to scan from 35mm up to LF easily and with automation to stitch multiple images for higher-resolutions would be ideal. One can do it themselves with off-the-shelf pieces and some work/know-how but something that is sold as an all-in-one package (including software!!) is key for this.

[Larry Gebhardt]

So with Hasselblad leaving the market there is no new scanner better than the Epson range. Is that correct? I had thought Aztek (http://www.aztek.com/) was still selling drums, but they seem to only support them now.

[bob carnie]

I compared my Eversmart Supreme Scanner (not wet mounted ) to a 100mp Phase One scanning system... They were both equal to my eyes in the final print.. It was an old map, I was quite amazed with the ease of using the Phase system.. problem is I already have the Creo and if it does equal quality then purchasing the Phase (even if it was a financial reality) would not make sense.

I would like to try the same experiment with a colour neg and transparency to see if I can see a difference.

I am devastated that the Flextight is going the way of the Dodo Bird. could it be due to global warming?

[bob carnie]

Bryan, this time I end my participation with this post, Pro expensive scanners also Artificially sharpen in the firmware or in the software driver, and they did it very well to the optimal point, the Epson does it less, so what the expensive Artificially sharpened inside with the Epson you have to do it with Photoshop, but the final image of the V700 has the same Artificial sharpening that the one of your Cezanne.

If you look those samples taken by Pali you will see that the final result is the same, this is because the "Artificial" sharpening is also the same. If it wasn't then you would see it in the side by side comparison.

For any following question I refer you to those samples, if you don't understand the thing from those samples then... sorry, I can't explain it better or easier.

Ok I will bite .. in any scanning situation that I have ever done NO Sharpening is the setting I use. Pere are you suggesting using sharpening when scanning?

[Larry Gebhardt]

A DIY DSLR scanner may also beat the Epson, but you should stitch around 9 (good) DSLR shots in PS for that (a 3x3 mosaic), this will be slightly better. A 2x2 mosaic won't beat the Epson, consider that a 50MPix sensor won't yield 50MPix effective, but a lot less.


One thought for camera scanning is the newer mirrorless cameras like the Panasonic S1R, Sony A7RIII and new A7RIV offer a multishot mode. At a minimum (A7RIII) you get true color at each pixel and with more shots you get extra resolution. So fewer setups will be needed to match the Epsons. This is significant since it will make stitching easier, especially on large featureless areas like sky. The S1R looks especially promising for this given it processes all the images internally, probably easily besting the Epson in one shot for 6x9.

[Oren Grad]

I can't seem to find the archival digitization systems I've seen once or twice, for sale generally to libraries. I believe they were very expensive.

Possibly the product line from these folks:

https://dtculturalheritage.com/


From my standpoint, no one has quite invented a reasonably-priced kit that would replace normal scanners for most people. A dedicated scanning desk with universal mounts for a variety of modern DSLR and mirrorless systems, with the ability to scan from 35mm up to LF easily and with automation to stitch multiple images for higher-resolutions would be ideal. One can do it themselves with off-the-shelf pieces and some work/know-how but something that is sold as an all-in-one package (including software!!) is key for this.

I agree with this. Include a well-regulated diffuse light source and a system of glass and glassless film holders. I expect that it would cost a few thousand dollars to do it with adequate alignment precision and durable construction, and taking into account how small the production run is likely to be. But I hope someone will take a chance on this concept.

[Corran]

Yes, a light source and holders too...

I think you are correct about the pricing, but I also think that puts it out of the range of marketability. Perhaps if different "levels" of system were available (with cross-compatibility) that encompasses different film sizes, perhaps it would be doable. I'm imagining one system that does just 35mm, one for up to 6x9, and then one for all sizes up to 8x10. Pricing around $600, $1200, and $2000 for the systems (with upgrade pieces to enable users to step-up to the next size). A lot of work to design, manufacture, and market such a device/system.

[nbagno]

I drum scan with an HR8000, have a Scitex Flatbed, epson V800, a couple of Minolta Multi pros, and did a bunch of wet mount scans with leaf scan 45’s on Sapphire glass. Don’t fell wet mountings much more of a setup chore than taping negatives to a mask, but I digress.

One thing that I never see mentioned regarding DSLR scanning is the work involved with dust spotting. When I wet mount my drum scans, the oil does a great job of cleaning the negatives of dust and filling in imperfections. I would have to think that DSLR scanning would have issues with this? Don’t know don’t scan that way, but one reason I only preview 4x5’s with my Scitex is due to dust spotting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tin Can]

I suppose nobody read about "Operation Night Watch (https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/nightwatch)" where they are doing a very intensive 'photographic copy' of it before restoring and after.

In public in a glass box...

Perhaps the biggest and highest quality SCAN to date...even under the paint...

A painting too big to move.

[Oren Grad]

I would have to think that DSLR scanning would have issues with this?

I expect it would be no better but no worse than the dust nuisance we already have with both flatbed and dedicated rollfilm scanners. Dust problems have to do with the film-holding function of the device rather than the image-capture function, so shouldn't be any different when you substitute a different image-capture device.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I suppose nobody read about "Operation Night Watch (https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/nightwatch)" where they are doing a very intensive 'photographic copy' of it before restoring and after.

In public in a glass box...

Perhaps the biggest and highest quality SCAN to date...even under the paint...

A painting too big to move.

Thanks for the link. Looks like a really cool undertaking.

[Pere Casals]

new A7RIV offer a multishot mode. ... So fewer setups will be needed to match the Epsons.

Larry, of course the better the camera the less the shots we need, but anyway I'm a bit skeptical about the effective improvement from pixel-shift compared to a simple sharpening or to averaging several shots without pixel shift.

I guess that with this high pixel density other factors may limit the real performance.



new A7RIV offer a multishot mode. ... So fewer setups will be needed to match the Epsons. probably easily besting the Epson in one shot for 6x9.

A V850 should take some 55MPix effective from a 6x9cm, it would be a surprise to me if the comming A7RIV (with pixel shift) delivers more than 40MPix effective with a good lens.

Anyway sure that the R IV will be very good for dslr scanning.

[interneg]

I compared my Eversmart Supreme Scanner (not wet mounted ) to a 100mp Phase One scanning system... They were both equal to my eyes in the final print.. It was an old map, I was quite amazed with the ease of using the Phase system.. problem is I already have the Creo and if it does equal quality then purchasing the Phase (even if it was a financial reality) would not make sense.

I would like to try the same experiment with a colour neg and transparency to see if I can see a difference.

I am devastated that the Flextight is going the way of the Dodo Bird. could it be due to global warming?

Long story short, the Flextight needs quite a few major upgrades to multiple aspects of hardware & software - the number I was told was in the 1 million GBP range for R&D that has to be recouped in 3 years.

The core of the Phase One Cultural Heritage system (the stand etc) is, I understand, made by Cambo - I think it's their RPS system - all told, about 10k GBP of kit, but you can then put whatever camera system you want on it. I think the new 61mp Sony with the multi shot mentioned upthread has a lot of potential as a scanner.

[Tin Can]

Go to this link (https://dtculturalheritage.com/film/) and see an old panographic scan. Done with Phase One.

First time to see it. Impressive even on a monitor.

You need to click into it. Look at the hats...

[Peter De Smidt]

I have way less spotting with scans from my Dslr scanner than from my Cezanne. A sticky silicone roller is very effective at minimizing dust.

[Greg]

I have way less spotting with scans from my Dslr scanner than from my Cezanne. A sticky silicone roller is very effective at minimizing dust.

What has worked for me for removing dust: For years had used an (orange) Ilford Antistatic dust cloth in the darkroom to clean my negatives. Never left any marks or micro scratches. Replaced it with a new one every few months since I assumed that most of the dust that it removed had to be embedded in the cloth. Then happened upon several NOS Static Master Jr. brushes made long ago by Nuclear Products Co. Their radio active elements probably still charged but who knows. I inserted the brushes in a vacuum cleaner nozzle with about 5mm of the brush sticking out of the nozzle. Turn the low powered vacuum on and run the end of the brush back and forth on both sides of the negative with the vacuum turned on. Vacuum is located on the other side of the darkroom wall with a Rube Goldberg engineered on/off switch (Hey it simply works). If I remember (theoretically) the Static Master brush was supposed to "neutralize"? the surface of the film with its nuclear charge... up for debate on that one. In any case this contraption is very effective at removing dust.

[Sasquatchian]

I know that with Flextight you had to set the sharpening to a negative amount in order to fully turn it off. In some versions of Hell/Heidelberg drum scanners there was a small amount of hardware USM going on regardless, and maybe that is what was referred to above, but I've been using Howteks for over twenty years and when you turn sharpening off in
Trident, it's off - nada - no sharpening. Had long conversations with Panazzo regarding that back in the day. I assume DPL is the same but only used that for a month before returning it. In all the comparison scans I've made between my Howtek's and anything else, there's no comparison. The expensive high end flat beds pale in comparison. The Hell's are limited by their large minimum aperture. The Epson's, well, you'd have to have a really mis-aligned Howtek to get to their level. The Flextight's flare like crazy and don't really hold the film flat from edge to edge. I've made a few test scans using a 5DSR and a Zeiss Milvus 100mm Makro or the new Canon T/S-E's, all of which go to 1:2 and those are pretty good too but not nearly as good as Trident for inversion of color negs.

Back in the mid 90's we used to buy Kami and C-42 overlay material and wet mount to a flat bed. It improved the scans and completely eliminated Newton's Rings. Wasn't that hard to do or control and could easily be done on a glass over a light box. The Kami itself not only improved high res scans but also improved the rendition of subtle highlight detail - something about the optical effect of the fluid in suspension with the mylar sandwich. That only made a difference with a sensor that could sense the difference though. Yeah. There's a difference on the high end too.

[Jim Andrada]

I've used Kami on my Epson 750 - worked very nicely. Since switching to the IQsmart I haven't bothered. It seldom takes more than a few minutes to spot the photo in Photoshop. I once timed the wet mounting process for the Epson at 23 seconds so it's easy to do - just haven't seen a huge need with the IQsmart - the AN glass takes care of Newton's rings.

I thought about a drum scanner, but the workflow wasn't to my liking so I got the flatbed. More than satisfied with it. It's much better than the Epson. I scan with no sharpening.

[interneg]

In all the comparison scans I've made between my Howtek's and anything else, there's no comparison. The expensive high end flat beds pale in comparison. The Hell's are limited by their large minimum aperture. The Epson's, well, you'd have to have a really mis-aligned Howtek to get to their level. The Flextight's flare like crazy and don't really hold the film flat from edge to edge.

I've found a great deal less difference than you have - but it may be because I've been avoiding using the manufacturers software for inversion etc & doing the mask removal etc in Photoshop - which is qualitatively drastically better than Flexcolor for example - Flexcolor can induce all sorts of weird flaws. What I've found is that if well maintained & clean, most of the CCD scanners/ Flextights are quite close to each other in terms of delivering an adequate representation of a negative - and that the usual boilerplate about the Flextight holders is because they can give the impression of needing three hands to load them properly. If you find the Aztek/ Howtek does what you want, great, however I think the Heidelberg results are a little cleaner, but perhaps not enough to justify the weight & cost difference. That you can run the Aztek/ Howteks etc under newer operating systems is also one of the bigger attractions, along with the lack of limitations imposed by 32 bit file formats. The operator is always the greatest source of variance in high end scanning in my experience...

[Pere Casals]

I scan with no sharpening.

You never know, you only disable the sharpening in the user level software, but high end scanners also should have a very smart sharpening inside firmware,

this is detected when you scan a medium that has blur of around the pixel level redius and the digital image is better than the original, having the "user sharpening" disabled

This comes from the digital minilab era, frontiers, noritsus, etc were very good in every image enhancing aspect, being the by default automated sharpening a key feature.

[interneg]

You never know, you only disable the sharpening in the user level software, but high end scanners also should have a very smart sharpening inside firmware,

this is detected when you scan a medium that has blur of around the pixel level redius and the digital image is better than the original, having the "user sharpening" disabled

This comes from the digital minilab era, frontiers, noritsus, etc were very good in every image enhancing aspect, being the by default automated sharpening a key feature.

Digital minilabs are a lot newer than the fundamentals of high end CCD & drum scanners. Once again you are confusing very different design principles and practices.

A 1536x2048px CCD with a Bayer array & anti-aliasing filter is rather different from 3x CCD or 3x PMT in the fundamental sharpness it delivers, especially when most of its use was for outputting files for 4x6" prints at 300ppi.

[Pere Casals]

Digital minilabs are a lot newer than the fundamentals of high end CCD & drum scanners. Once again you are confusing very different design principles and practices.

Interneg, I'm not confused. Fuji Frontier digital minilab is from 1996, many scanners predated the frontier, of course, but digital minilabs changed the industry: most CN emulsions were re-engineered to deliver optimal scans after embedded adaptive sharpening, which became a sort of industrial standard.

In particular Scitex was formerly the Dayton Operations division of Kodak, and I can tell you that at Kodak they mastered adaptive embedded sharpening. If fact Kodak/Fuji CN emulsions were re-engineered to perfrom optimally in the sensor discretization + adaptive_sharpening chain.

[interneg]

Interneg, I'm not confused. Fuji Frontier digital minilab is from 1996, many scanners predated the frontier, of course, but digital minilabs changed the industry: most CN emulsions were re-engineered to deliver optimal scans and adaptive embedded sharpening became an industrial standard.

In particular Scitex was formerly the Dayton Operations division of Kodak, and I can tell you that at Kodak they mastered adaptive embedded sharpening. If fact Kodak/Fuji CN emulsions were re-engineered to perfrom optimally in the sensor discretization + adaptive_sharpening chain.

Show us the patents then.

Main difference was the top coats, sharpness enhancement in the emulsions was a long running project far pre-dating scanning needs. I know you are desperate for a solution that 'proves' high end scanners are reliant on magic software, but they aren't.

[bob carnie]

Possibly the product line from these folks:

https://dtculturalheritage.com/



I agree with this. Include a well-regulated diffuse light source and a system of glass and glassless film holders. I expect that it would cost a few thousand dollars to do it with adequate alignment precision and durable construction, and taking into account how small the production run is likely to be. But I hope someone will take a chance on this concept.

This is the system I have done my limited testing with.

[Pere Casals]

This is the system I have done my limited testing with.

Of course it's an amazing system for documentation.

The XF IQ4 150MP has to yield impressive results, we may guess a practical yield of 60 to 80Mpix effective with available MF lenses, in a single shot. Still a 4x5 negative can be 400MPix effectively worth if the shot is technically perfect, so we may have to take several shots and stitching if wanting all IQ possible.

[bob carnie]

Of course it's an amazing system for documentation.

The XF IQ4 150MP has to yield impressive results, we may guess a practical yield of 60 to 80Mpix effective with available MF lenses, in a single shot. Still a 4x5 negative can be 400MPix effectively worth if the shot is technically perfect, so we may have to take several shots and stitching if wanting all IQ possible.

I made super size prints from both this system and my Eversmart and was duly impressed with the quality.

[Pere Casals]

I made super size prints from both this system and my Eversmart and was duly impressed with the quality.

Bob, a master like you makes quality prints with anything, what counts is the printer, this was true with the enlargers and it remains with digital/hybrid. You may have problems when somebody else "edited" the image before.

[bob carnie]

Bob, a master like you makes quality prints with anything, what counts is the printer, this was true with the enlargers and it remains with digital/hybrid. You may have problems when somebody else "edited" the image before.

there is a old lab rat saying... garbage in garbage out.

[Pere Casals]

there is a old lab rat saying... garbage in garbage out.

:)

it does not fail...

[Jim Andrada]

Yes, one would assume that the high end scanners used good sharpening algorithms - perhaps the best available when they were built. Which was a long time ago.

I've looked for sharpening artifacts in the scanned negs and haven't found any that I could see

[Pere Casals]

Yes, one would assume that the high end scanners used good sharpening algorithms - perhaps the best available when they were built. Which was a long time ago.

I've looked for sharpening artifacts in the scanned negs and haven't found any that I could see


Anyway it's difficult that embedded sharpening generates visible artifacts, my guess is that this is pixel level sharpening, which should have a radius of only say 2 or 3 pixels.

Another thing was the sharpening a Frontier/Noritsu had in the user level, I'd say that image enhancing at that level could sharpen way more. The embedded sharpening level in the firmware should fight the scanning shortcomings, while in the user sharpening level we would fight the defects in the taking (shake, bad focus), but not what the photographer placed in the OOF. Those are different missions.

[interneg]

Though I have used the Epson, Fuji Frontier, Flextight , Creo and tested the drum scanners it is interesting to see some of the behind the scene stuff... my frontier was good up to about 16 x 20 and then the files fell apart.

I recall the Jorge wars well...

Feels like we've been round the same path on trying scanners - the scanner that I'd be really interested to try is the Durst Sigma 45 for minilab-like raw speed & 4x5 handling. I'd agree about Frontier scans - it's also interesting to see how it fairly ruthlessly trims parts of the gamut & highlight/ shadows to fit the paper LUT.

Going forwards, I think sorting out inversion methods that actually mirrors the behaviour of RA4 paper response automatically on the raw output of current CMOS camera sensors with the speed of a Frontier will be where things go next - speeding up the basics before the creative dodge & burn would be immensely handy.

[Pere Casals]

inversion methods that actually mirrors the behaviour of RA4 paper response automatically


This has an straight solution.

The base is a converting 3D LUT that has been automatically crafted from an IT8 calibrated scan of a representative negative, and from the resulting IT8 scan of the RA-4 print. Those two images deliver a conversion 3D LUT, done.

Form that base we adjust the 3D LUT to suit our taste, that's all. Of course we may make several 3D LUTs from several RA-4 interpretations we like.

This is not Science Fiction, it's what several Top Notch film wedding photographers have done these years, those who take care about serious color management.

In fact many film emulation software base its color conversions in that, to convert from DSLR color to film colors.

Still conversion from film scan to RA-4 will always be better, because it has the right spectral footprint in the capture.

3D LUT Creator... even the cheap $99 version does it. I gets integrated in Ps, for total convenience.

[bob carnie]

Here is a question for both interneg and Pere... what I find with any of my scanners is the old film do not have presets or if they do lets say VPS Kodak one of the most wonderful colour negative films I have used. the fact that the film from this era has sometimes deteriorated I have a hard time finding a good preset or profile onboard to use.. any advice on how to balance old film that may have deteriorated a bit.
i get film from all possible scenerios... current cheap store bought film processed in Honduras mini labs to old film from 60's 70's and 80's with suspect process control. I am always find it hard to navigate this situation as the presets are for optimal situations but I get non optimal film.

[Tin Can]

https://nofilmschool.com/tags/color-grading

[Corran]

Nice link! I have been working with some 3rd-party footage this weekend and need to brush up on more advanced color grading, as I don't normally have to grade others' footage with a more cinematic approach.

[interneg]

Here is a question for both interneg and Pere... what I find with any of my scanners is the old film do not have presets or if they do lets say VPS Kodak one of the most wonderful colour negative films I have used. the fact that the film from this era has sometimes deteriorated I have a hard time finding a good preset or profile onboard to use.. any advice on how to balance old film that may have deteriorated a bit.
i get film from all possible scenerios... current cheap store bought film processed in Honduras mini labs to old film from 60's 70's and 80's with suspect process control. I am always find it hard to navigate this situation as the presets are for optimal situations but I get non optimal film.

Sounds like some of the stuff that I get landed with - the main trick is not doing the inversion in the scanner software - Flexcolor can be particularly bad for some odd colour casts and sharpness issues. I tend to scan the film as a negative in 16-bit with some of the frame rebate, possibly with a slight curve applied to open the denser areas that will become highlights, then take it to Photoshop to sample & divide out the base colour as a layer, then an inversion layer, then curve layer where, using the clipping warnings, I individually clip each of RGB black points until just starting to clip in image area & then white points until just before clipping (ignore specular highlights & dust!). I then add two more curve layers, one set to colour blend mode for finer colour correction (for example, current Portra 400 needs a little warmth at this step to look correct) & one for tone curve work. After that, it's on to the rest of the masked curve layers etc. At this point you usually have a good colour starting point for most films - though it depends on how damaged/ faded the films are.

If it's useful, I can write this up as a clearer set of instructions & pm them.

[Peter De Smidt]

Interneg's method sounds excellent to me.

[Pere Casals]

do not have presets or if they do lets say VPS Kodak one of the most wonderful colour negative films I have used.

Yes... Vericolor, amazing !!!

Bob, let me recommend again 3D LUT Creator. I'm confident that it would solve your problem with a few clicks, there is a (free) Demo that cannot save images or LUTS, but you can save an screenshot for reference.

https://3dlutcreator.com/

One of the tools it has it allows to build a conversion 3D LUT to makes resemble on image like another one, so you only need a reference Vericolor image that it has more or less a similar scene than the scene in your negative, say that both images have people's faces in an street, the use the Color Match with the Reference Image tool to build a 3D LUT that will convert the deterioted negative into the colors in the reference image.

Here you have a little tutorial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0YQNm7TlNM.

That 3D LUT can be exported to be used in PS (from CS6). Of course that 3D LUT has been generated with Color Match feature can be modified as you want, for example to nail skin tones like you want, the same with sky tones, vegetation, terrain, etc Then you may modify that LUT to aproximately work well with several representative images from the damaged old negatives. This would make easy the following image edition, as you know RA-4 is no absolute reference, each paper-negative-method delivered a different footprint, so a C-41 negative will always require some edition to suit our taste, but with 3D LUT creator you will have a good early approach.


Well, no compromise, you download the demo and if it make what you want then you can purchase it.

I found fasic features were easy to learn, but it also has advanced (color based) masking features that do deserve to be learned. I mostly learned/practiced all in some 2 weekends.


193511


PD:

Once you have a conversion 3D LUT, in Photoshop I'd use an adjustment layer over the original image and on it the 3D LUT, in that way you overcome shifts from exposure that are balanced in the adjustment layer.

Of course later you may place additional adjustment layers on the 3D LUT...

[bob carnie]

Sounds like some of the stuff that I get landed with - the main trick is not doing the inversion in the scanner software - Flexcolor can be particularly bad for some odd colour casts and sharpness issues. I tend to scan the film as a negative in 16-bit with some of the frame rebate, possibly with a slight curve applied to open the denser areas that will become highlights, then take it to Photoshop to sample & divide out the base colour as a layer, then an inversion layer, then curve layer where, using the clipping warnings, I individually clip each of RGB black points until just starting to clip in image area & then white points until just before clipping (ignore specular highlights & dust!). I then add two more curve layers, one set to colour blend mode for finer colour correction (for example, current Portra 400 needs a little warmth at this step to look correct) & one for tone curve work. After that, it's on to the rest of the masked curve layers etc. At this point you usually have a good colour starting point for most films - though it depends on how damaged/ faded the films are.

If it's useful, I can write this up as a clearer set of instructions & pm them.

Absolutely , I would be very pleased if you did this for me... We will hid it from Pere... oppps did I say that.

[bob carnie]

Yes... Vericolor, amazing !!!

Bob, let me recommend again 3D LUT Creator. I'm confident that it would solve your problem with a few clicks, there is a (free) Demo that cannot save images or LUTS, but you can save an screenshot for reference.

https://3dlutcreator.com/

One of the tools it has it allows to build a conversion 3D LUT to makes resemble on image like another one, so you only need a reference Vericolor image that it has more or less a similar scene than the scene in your negative, say that both images have people's faces in an street, the use the Color Match with the Reference Image tool to build a 3D LUT that will convert the deterioted negative into the colors in the reference image.

Here you have a little tutorial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0YQNm7TlNM.

That 3D LUT can be exported to be used in PS (from CS6). Of course that 3D LUT has been generated with Color Match feature can be modified as you want, for example to nail skin tones like you want, the same with sky tones, vegetation, terrain, etc Then you may modify that LUT to aproximately work well with several representative images from the damaged old negatives. This would make easy the following image edition, as you know RA-4 is no absolute reference, each paper-negative-method delivered a different footprint, so a C-41 negative will always require some edition to suit our taste, but with 3D LUT creator you will have a good early approach.


Well, no compromise, you download the demo and if it make what you want then you can purchase it.

I found fasic features were easy to learn, but it also has advanced (color based) masking features that do deserve to be learned. I mostly learned/practiced all in some 2 weekends.


193511


PD:

Once you have a conversion 3D LUT, in Photoshop I'd use an adjustment layer over the original image and on it the 3D LUT, in that way you overcome shifts from exposure that are balanced in the adjustment layer.

Of course later you may place additional adjustment layers on the 3D LUT...

Thanks Pere ,, I will not let Interneg see this ... will try to look at it later appreciate the links..

[Tin Can]

We are all interested in this process.

A public post would be nice.

Thank you


Sounds like some of the stuff that I get landed with - the main trick is not doing the inversion in the scanner software - Flexcolor can be particularly bad for some odd colour casts and sharpness issues. I tend to scan the film as a negative in 16-bit with some of the frame rebate, possibly with a slight curve applied to open the denser areas that will become highlights, then take it to Photoshop to sample & divide out the base colour as a layer, then an inversion layer, then curve layer where, using the clipping warnings, I individually clip each of RGB black points until just starting to clip in image area & then white points until just before clipping (ignore specular highlights & dust!). I then add two more curve layers, one set to colour blend mode for finer colour correction (for example, current Portra 400 needs a little warmth at this step to look correct) & one for tone curve work. After that, it's on to the rest of the masked curve layers etc. At this point you usually have a good colour starting point for most films - though it depends on how damaged/ faded the films are.

If it's useful, I can write this up as a clearer set of instructions & pm them.

[bob carnie]

All I could, all Portras, Ektar, Fuji 160, Provia, all Velvias, Vision 3 (cinestill)... HP5, TX, TMXYZ, D100, CMS 20, Plus-X, D-X, S-XX, Valca... Rodinal vs Xtol, Xtol stock vs 1:1 . C200, Xtra 400, Gold, Color Plus, Ektachrome... Say that I spend 10min every week in that.





interneg, I don't want to "lecture" you in how datasheets have to be interpreted, but those film MTF graphs are probably done at 1000:1 contrast, I recently told you that (contrary to lenses) film MTF is highly dependant on target contrast. 1000:1 are 10 stops, a contrast situation that you won't find on 30cycles/mm textures in a negative, by far.

You know that CN film has an extraordinary highlight latitude, obtained by including a share of very, very small crystals, at 1000:1 the MTF graphs shows that.


See datasheet, Image Estructure section, page 4: https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/e4051-Portra-160.pdf They look politicians, they speak a lot and say nothing :).





Those are not my conclusions, at all, I'm not that good, this was shown to me long ago by a technical service boss (highly proficient and technically educated) in the digital minilab sector, I inspected film strips with him in his microscope, let me explain you in how this is done. You inspect areas in the negative that were grey in the scene (concrete, buildings... ) you inspect greys of different densities, and you learn if color clouds overlap more or less for each density level.


This are the key questions;

1) is velvia more difficult to scan than potra (or C200) at (4000dpi effective) high res ? more or less color noise at pixel level ?

2) why ?

3) beyond 1000:1 graphs, is velvia sharper than Fuji 160 in practice

4) why ?


Since digital minilab era all manufacturers started saying that their film was easier to scan (less color noise), but none of them were telling how this was achieved, larger clouds around the crystal.

Not new in photography, no fine grain solvent developer says in the datasheet that you also have less sharpness, so at Kodak/Fuji they didn't have to think much when writing the datasheet.


Anyway, the "larger clouds" vs "easy scan" had a debate long ago, I can't belive you weren't aware. Today nobody complains, darkroom RA-4 is near extinct, but in the 1990s we had a lot of Pro color darkroom labs for wedding, etc,

By then darkroom prints from 35mm film noticed an slight drop in sharpness, while that change was a benefit for the digitals minilabs, less color noise in the scanning, while the slight sharpness loss was solved with some digital sharpening.

I remember when the mini labs started coming out.. very interesting stories .. PMA tests and such.. what I did notice was the paper I used under an enlarger was semi slow but in the mid 90's the paper became super fast and we had to compensate for it.. I did not notice much of a change in colour balance /density issues but at that time I started a Cibachrome Lab and changed direction from RA4, by the time I got back to RA4 I had purchased a Lambda and things were much different.

[bob carnie]

We are all interested in this process.

A public post would be nice.

Thank you

No he promised me first... the rest of you can bugger off..

[Tin Can]

I take that with a grain of salt.

I seldom quit.


No he promised me first... the rest of you can bugger off..

[Pere Casals]

in the mid 90's the paper became super fast and we had to compensate for it

I guess that a good paper for enlargers has to be slower, this allows the printer to see in a long exposure while he is burning/dodging. As papers were mainly sold for photo printers probably speed had to be boosted to allow deep blacks at fast printing speed.

Also I guess that digitalization changed RA-4 color papers in the saturation. In a digital photo printer a saturated paper can do all, as saturation can be adjusted in the software, so what the paper market demands is color saturated type.

[interneg]

We are all interested in this process.

A public post would be nice.

Thank you

There aren't any secrets to it, but it does need a bit of judgement in application. Some of the plug-ins try to replicate the same idea but fail because crucial aspects seem to be tricky to automate. Main reason I offered to send better instructions to Bob is because he's running scanners that it is potentially much more useful on. I'll write it up at some point this week.


I remember when the mini labs started coming out.. very interesting stories .. PMA tests and such.. what I did notice was the paper I used under an enlarger was semi slow but in the mid 90's the paper became super fast and we had to compensate for it.. I did not notice much of a change in colour balance /density issues but at that time I started a Cibachrome Lab and changed direction from RA4, by the time I got back to RA4 I had purchased a Lambda and things were much different.

Quite possibly this was due to the appearance of the very high chloride RA4 papers, though there were (are?) different reciprocity & speed emulsions for rapid (machine) exposure and slow (enlarger) exposure. Ilford make a similar product for BW machine prints too (RC Express).

[Oren Grad]

Tangential discussion on the resolution and scanning characteristics of Kodak color neg films has been moved to its own thread in the Darkroom: Film subforum:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?153445-Did-Kodak-color-neg-lose-resolution-when-it-was-reformulated-to-improve-scanning