scanning: transparency vs color neg?

[gnuyork]

Hey thanks, mrladewig -

I'll have to try making large prints from my v750 scanned files. I read through your process and I already do much of the same in photoshop, though I use PhotoKit Sharpener for different stages of sharpening.

I don't have the betterscanning holder (though I have pondered getting it) and I have not tried wet mounting yet.

Do you send your files to a printing service? I would have to do that for digital prints that big.

[Noah A]

I've been scanning my color negs on my Howtek 8000 drum scanner with great results. I generally scan at 4000dpi with a 16 micron aperture. The grain prints up natural and looks very much like an analog optical print.

I've made some 40x50in. prints from 6x7cm negs with my current films, Portra 400nc and Portra 160nc, and while there is certainly grain showing, it's very pleasing and not overwhelming. I'm a photojournalist and documentary photographer, my work isn't pure pristine landscapes .

I haven't made any prints of that size yet from 4x5, but from my early scans it seems (obviously) they'll be even better.

I've head great things about the new Portra 400 film, so as soon as I can find it in 4x5 I'll shoot a comparison with it, 400nc, 160nc and maybe I'll throw in some slide film as well, though I never shoot it.

The short answer to the OP is that I'd choose a film based on the look you want. These days any film can be scanned fairly well. To me the color, contrast and dynamic range of a photograph is more important than grain, especially with medium and large format.

While you can modify your photos in post, each film has a distinct look and it's difficult to get, say, portra to look exactly like velvia. (And it's probably impossible to get Velvia to look like Portra!) So I say buy a few rolls of portra, ektar, velvia, etc. and choose a film or two that you like. Then live with them for a while and get to know them...

[Greg_Thomas]

While you can modify your photos in post, each film has a distinct look and it's difficult to get, say, portra to look exactly like velvia. (And it's probably impossible to get Velvia to look like Portra!) So I say buy a few rolls of portra, ektar, velvia, etc. and choose a film or two that you like. Then live with them for a while and get to know them...

I took a break from scanning negatives because I bought a coffee roaster which I've been tinkering with ever since my last post is in this thread. But I picked up another roll of developed Ektar 100 from my camera shop today and I'm going to do some more scans tonight.

I'll be trying ColorNeg again. My biggest thing with it is I'm still having trouble getting the right sky color with any of the neg films I've scanned.

Oh, I understand what steps I need to take to get better sharpness (better scanner and/or larger format), less grain (larger format, different processing, different film), make sharp large prints (choosing the right size format and scanning resolution). But I'm still having trouble with color on neg film scans.

[mrladewig]

Sky color is difficult to get just right with negs. Fuji's color neg films have always been a little easier for me to get a good sky blue than Kodak's, but I like the Kodak films better overall.

I tend to find the Kodak skies typically have too much cyan, but this can be corrected in scan if a general adjustment doesn't hurt the image, or corrected in post in photoshop very easily with a selective color adjustment layer or HSL adjustment targeting the appropriate range.

These two images were taken just a few minutes apart but show the difference in how Fuji Pro160C skies look versus Ektar while trying to hold most of the other color constant.

Kodak Ektar 100


Fuji Pro 160C

[Greg_Thomas]

Sky color is difficult to get just right with negs. Fuji's color neg films have always been a little easier for me to get a good sky blue than Kodak's, but I like the Kodak films better overall.

I tend to find the Kodak skies typically have too much cyan, but this can be corrected in scan if a general adjustment doesn't hurt the image, or corrected in post in photoshop very easily with a selective color adjustment layer or HSL adjustment targeting the appropriate range.

These two images were taken just a few minutes apart but show the difference in how Fuji Pro160C skies look versus Ektar while trying to hold most of the other color constant.

Ah, thank you for the samples. I'll have to work on an image that has a lot of sky along with a good gamut of other colors.

I did a lot better with ColorNeg this time. I'm absolutely getting much better results scanning as 48bit HDR positive with Silverfast and converting with ColorNeg than using Silverfast's NegaFix. My previous Ektar was underexposed which was contributing to my color issues.

What workflow did you use for those samples?

Thanks,
Greg

[mrladewig]

Scanned in EpsonScan as close as possible to where I want them to be. Then brought into Photoshop for minor fine tuning.