Interneg's method sounds excellent to me.
Interneg's method sounds excellent to me.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Yes... Vericolor, amazing !!!Originally Posted by bob carnie
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.
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...
Last edited by Pere Casals; 22-Jul-2019 at 02:56.
Absolutely , I would be very pleased if you did this for me... We will hid it from Pere... oppps did I say that.
Thanks Pere ,, I will not let Interneg see this ... will try to look at it later appreciate the links..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.
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...
We are all interested in this process.
A public post would be nice.
Thank you
Tin Can
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.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.
No he promised me first... the rest of you can bugger off..
I take that with a grain of salt.
I seldom quit.
Tin Can
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.
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.
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).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks