Thank you Peter, Bryan, and Alan.
Thank you Peter, Bryan, and Alan.
I am about ready to quit Flickr. Once again, what I uploaded was very much changed in saturation, color, hue, and the bright sky was for some reason also made worse.
That's a nice effort.Originally Posted by Pali K
I did a quick conversion using the scantools code I am writing.
BTW the density ranged for that negative was about 1.4 so no where near the 3.0 range of the epson. If my calcs are correct, so no need at all for the multiexposure.
The first one is a straight conversion, white balance on a gray looking stone, and simple contrast adjustment. I got rid of the sky because I am more interesting in colour calibration against a straight RA-4 print. (in this case imagined)
I did another just for fun, with a bit more interpretation
IMHO the epson scanners are not setup to handle colour negative as well as they could be.
See the collaborative scanner test:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...an-comparison/
Not many have Pali's skills managing color, but to me his conversion and highlight recovery is pointing a perfect color job from the Stevens' V850.
The Epson is, of course IT8 calibrated, what we do with the scan is another thing.
Very interesting interpretation Ted, I am amazed at the range of interpretations for this image. As for IT8 calibrated, since I am not doing any conversion in the Scanning software, calibration does not matter. Ted, your software seems to be doing a good job. I am reworking my version based on everyones different view/vision of the scene. When I am done, I will post a before and after.
Color Negatives are a pita!
That list of tests is using a chrome.
I don't think any off those scanners are optimised for colour negative. I don't know where the epson series fits in the pile, just that I think there is room for improvement...
Here is another interpretation, but I don't really have the calibration data, that I need and of course I have slightly different objective, in that I more interested in the technique than the final product at this stage.
i.e. I like to think Pali could do a better job with my software than with colorperfect. if I ever finish it :-)
Ted, with some math it can be demonstrated that the color output of two scanners can be matched with a technical 3D LUT for each film, in the effective common dynamic range shared by both scanners.
This is because spectrums in a developed film are not arbitrary, each posible amount of silver density after first developer ends in a particular absortion spectrum in that layer, with a determined set of spectral shapes for each channel.
It is true that each scanner (depending on particular dyes on pixels) can have an slightly different nature, but always it is possible to calibrate a 3D LUT providing a perfect match.
On the other hand the EPSON may have several shortcomings, but its color accuracy it has been praised. In fact EPSON is a multinational leading pro inkjet market, knowing well what color is.
Updated image of Grand Canyon Toroweep September 2018. Shot with Chamonix 45H-1, 90mm Schneider Super Angulon f/5.6@f/32 on Portra 160. Scanned with Epson V850 as linear raw tiff, converted with Colorperfect and processed in Photoshop. This is the unsharpened version.
I am still on the fence with cropping down further to remove the white sky on the upper right. When I look at it cropped that much it seems cramped. Thoughts?
Image from Flickr
Image from Zenfolio. Both images appear to have been altered when uploaded. Saturation was increased for some reason. I looked at the jpg I created from PS from the full file and it looks like the full file, but compared to what i uploaded it is different?
Not a fan of the blown-out sky, upper right. It wasn't nearly so contrasty on your flat file so not sure what exactly in the editing process did that. The darker tones have this lifted look, like you overused the shadows/highlights tool.
Your original edit, other than the magenta bias, was much better IMO. This one looks like an overcooked digital file to me. The overall color palette just seems odd. Sorry if that comes of a bit harsh - just my opinion so feel free to ignore.
I still just feel you are trying to wrench this negative film image around to make it look like something it wasn't designed to look like. One thing I feel about color neg film is that adding saturation doesn't look natural (same with digital which doesn't seem to take well to excessive color saturation, turning the image into candy-colored mess).
Try not to use excessive resolution for the web. Resizing when not done correctly by software that you have no control over can result in colour changes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks