Scanner Settings

[narbs]

Do you generally apply any correction settings to negatives when you scan them?

I had a film processed this week which I'd asked to have no auto corrections done, but I noticed on the envelope when I got the negs and CD back that there was a note saying 'On Auto' rather than 'No Auto'.

I re-scanned them using a scanner we have in work and the results were much more muted - I'll post an example later.

I've only just restarted using film so trying a variety to see which I prefer, and I wondered if doing any sort of colour correction defeats the object of the exercise.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

Do you generally apply any correction settings to negatives when you scan them?

•
The only correction I would allow is, after the scanner's first pass,
eventual exposition tweak to be sure no error is scanner dependant.

 

[FujiLove]

Jon - I find getting good colour out of most scanners, especially flatbeds, to be a chore. Ideally you want to be creating a linear scan (like a raw file) and converting/inverting that using something like Colorperfect. Even then you will need to make adjustments in Photoshop or Lightroom etc. If you are using PS, ensure that the scanner's profile is assigned (not converted) to the image after opening, make corrections, then convert to a wide gamut profile such as Adobe RGB. That will ensure PS understands how to map the colours the scanner has produced and can have a large effect on the colours. Then either do the tweaking using curves...or stuff the whole thing and wet print

This reminds me that I must find the time to write out my scanning workflow on here. I see loads of comments about scanning issues.

 

[joxby]

I think colour correction can sort of defeat the object, but it depends on your approach.
If you want perfect colour balance every time, you will have to make adjustments.
If you want pictures that look and are uniquely film pictures, then you get what you get on the acetate, and that's that.
For instance, I shoot a lot of velvia, its always warm and saturated, to remove that look/effect/quality seems to render the use of it pointless.
I set the scanner to scan without correction, edit the file for exposure and contrast and tweak colour balance to match the neg, even if the colours are off, because those are the unique properties of that particular frame.
I don't shoot a lot of colour neg, but when I do there is an obvious problem with being true to the frame, so I just edit from memory + artistic licence, or take what the scanner spits out as gospel..

 

[narbs]

Thanks all, that's very helpful.

This is one of the more obvious differences in the two scans:

Home Scan by Jon, on Flickr

Shop Scan by Jon, on Flickr

To me, the shop scan looks over saturated. I guess the only way to tell is to buy a negative viewer and try and match the two?

I want to end up, like John says, with pictures that are film pictures.

 

[skysh4rk]

To me, the shop scan looks over saturated. I guess the only way to tell is to buy a negative viewer and try and match the two?

How are you ever going to evaluate the colour in the negative? It has an orange mask. Even in the days of optical printing, colour balancing was always an issue with colour negative and interpretation will always be required. There is no 'right' or 'correct' colour.

From what I can see from these two small pictures, the difference is not in colour, but the much lower contrast and flatness in the home scan. Looking at these small size images, I prefer the shop scan.

 

[FujiLove]

The negative is only an intermediate step and has by definition to be interpreted. That actually makes it really powerful because you can alter the final image to suit your tastes, but they are only you tastes, not a final 'master', whatever that is.

I may be wrong - and please jump in and correct me - but I think in the past film manufacturers designed their papers to complement the response curves of their film. So for instance, Kodacolor film would match well with Ektacolor paper by increasing the response of colours that the film didn't reproduce so well and vice versa. You would then end up with an image that was as realistic and balanced as possible.

Today the trend seems to be to take the negative and preserve those response curves to show the 'character' of the film as part of the final image (so you hear about people loving Portra because of it's pastel colours etc.) Maybe this is due to the rise of scanning? If I'm right about the film/paper thing above, then if Kodak were producing Portra in the 60's, they would have supplied a complimentary paper that was very saturated to boost the 'deficiencies' of the film. What I'm saying is, you should manipulate your image as best you can to create something you like and/or to re-create what you remember trying to capture when you took the photo. There are no right and wrong interpretations.

 

[FujiLove]

Having said the above, I was going to say that the exception is slide film which is a 'master' image. But actually, that's still an intermediary in some ways because you either have to scan it which is open to interpretation, or you view it on a projector. Even if you project it, the viewing conditions are never fixed (different bulbs, different colours of screen material, different ambient light etc.) so it's still being interpreted, although it is the closest you are going to get to being a 'master'.

 

[Peter B]

I think the problem here is that the shop/lab scan is outputting what many would see as a finished article that is sharp and contrasty. Your home scanned version is clearly in need of additional processing, and that's fine for those who want to make their own choices and should allow you to achieve an end result that's pleasing to you. I guess the shop version is maybe for those who want a print from an old negative, rather than being for a photography enthusiast?

 

[narbs]

Thanks all.

Perhaps I was being naive in expecting a particular 'look' from each roll of different film. I think I'll aim for FujiLove's interpretation of taking the base scan and fiddling till it looks like what I want!

 

[FujiLove]

If I manage to find any time this weekend, I'll write up my scanning and processing workflow and post it on here. Will stick a link to it in this thread.

 

[s162216]

The bottom line is that a scanned negative inherently needs some work done, a negative is deliberately low contrast as the contrast will increase and be controlled during the printing process (if printed optically) so the scan will come out as low contrast, muted and flat, as you're looking at the full dynamic range, unless you add some contrast in to "replace" the paper. Another important point when scanning is to remember to initially capture the full range of the negative in the scanning software (use the histograms, clipping warnings etc when altering the settings), and after the scan set the black and white points as the scanner obviously has no idea what should be white and what should be black, set them first before adding in the contrast to your taste as it is really up to you how the end result looks.

Taking your scan into Photoshop, it is slightly clipped at both ends (even a very low end scanner can capture the full range of a negative) which indicates you might need to make a few alterations to the settings. Adding in some contrast makes it come out very much like the shop scan.

I'll post how I scan later.

You will get a different look from each film in regards to contrast, saturation etc, but these can be easily altered using the develop and scan approach that practically everywhere uses these days so the effects are less prominent as there are more factors that are "corrected". In the days of optical printing the film characteristics were more important as you could make global density and contrast adjustments for each colour channel (although this was not usually done for straight develop and print packages as it was too time consuming, hence why you used to also need daylight and tungsten versions of films), but altering factors like saturation was much more difficult, hence why Kodak used to produce NC (lower contrast, lower saturation), VC (higher saturation and contrast) and further back also UC (high saturation) versions of its Portra colour negative films. Today they just produce the one as all the properties can be easily altered after scanning.