Scanning xprocessed C41, Vista In particular

steveo_mcg

steveo_mcg

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,319
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
I shot a quick roll through my new OM20 but I'm having a nightmare scanning it with the Epson software. It looks like there are little pin holes in the image, I can't see if this has me made an mess of developing or if I'm just making a meal of scanning it. The last couple of times I've done this I've written it off as excessively grainy due to way ood film but this is fresh stock.

This is 100% crop of a 1200 scan with just a little pp to sort the contrast. For scanning I place the markers at either end of the histogram. It was developed in Rodinal 1+100 for an hour, I'd write it off as the film being unsuitable but there have been some really good examples of this in the last few months.


Scanner Issues by steveo_mcg, on Flickr
 
What does the neg look like?
 
Have you left ICE on? While it's normally ok with C-41 films, it may well cause a problem in cross processed film since there is no bleach step.
 
Fairly sure it's not ice. When I have used it in the past it ends up like the noise reduction has been pushed 11.
 
Yeah, but if you use it on BW film it gives speckles because the silver grains confuse it - C41 film processed normally has dye layers rather than silver grains in the final, processed negative. Cross processing C41 film will leave the silver that normally goes in the bleach process and so speckles can be the result.
 
I'll check, but I'm fairly sure its not on, I never turn it on because it doesn't cope with b&w and virtually none of my scanning is colour.
 
I would go with a scanning issue Steve as I've cross processed (semi stand) quite a bit of vista in rodinal without this problem.

I'm afraid I cant help further as I scan on Canon equipment, not Epson.
 
What software do you use Asha?

What would happen if it was too hot? I half remember the heating being up high the day I done this roll so the bathroom might have been ~23c.
 
steveo_mcg said:
What software do you use Asha?

What would happen if it was too hot? I half remember the heating being up high the day I done this roll so the bathroom might have been ~23c.
Click to expand...


Arcsoft Photostudio 5.5 ( Using a Canoscan 8800F scanner)

I only use it for the actual scanning of the negs.

Tbh I've never taken enough time out to read up and understand its full potential, prefering to generally shoot default settings then sort any furter adjustments in Photoshop elements.



As for temperature with (semi) stand deving, generally I dont think it would make too much difference if any at all.....I've never expereinced a problem ...perhaps that's just been good luck!

I always look at starting at about 20°c but don't fret if it's a tad over or under....the soup is such a weak solution, the developer slowly becomes exhausted throughout the period of time.

Occasionally i've forgotten about the time and left the tank for well over an hour sometimes nearly two....again with no significiant problems to the end result.

Just to add, I've also devd (semi stand) several different films of differing brands and iso in the same tank/soup...again no problem.
 
Asha said:
Just to add, I've also devd (semi stand) several different films of differing brands and iso in the same tank/soup...again no problem.
Click to expand...

One of the advantages of stand development is that you can have varying iso's on the same film and it should all turn out ok.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Fairly sure it's not ice. When I have used it in the past it ends up like the noise reduction has been pushed 11.
Click to expand...

It should only do that if you put it on 'Strong', light or medium ICE will not affect image sharpness.

What you really need to do is to find out whether its on the negative or a scanning artefact before you can get to the root of the problem.
 
Have you got a loupe to take a look at the negs Steve??

If not then using a 50mm lens inverted will work as a suitable "magnifying glass" to view your negs against a decent light source!
 
I've not got a loupe but I never thought of using a 50mm. The ipad makes a good back light so i'll have a look this evening.
 
They look fine to me but I suppose the question is; what am I looking for?
 
steveo_mcg said:
They look fine to me but I suppose the question is; what am I looking for?
Click to expand...

Well the issue on the positive is white spots that look like pinholes.....if they are present on the negative then theoretically they would show up black.
 
I can't see any of these pin spots, I'll have another go with the scanner tomorrow.
 
Does anyone know what Agfa Vista really is, ie the film that's re-badged? I want to scan some colour shots on my Plustek 7500i and I have to select the film to get the colour correction sorted. I'm a bit concerned it'll be really Fuji C200, which isn't an available preset, and which caused me problems before (reported in a much earlier thread at http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=404577)...
 
It is Fuji C200.

What software are you using?
 
Silverfast SE 6.something, for my sins! Last time Mr T took a tiff and ran it through ColorPerfect, producing a really accurate result, but I couldn't see how to run CP myself as I don't have Photoshop (it's a plugin). I'll have a go and see how I get on...
 
To get the best results from colour negative you really need to run them through an image editor afterwards as the profiles are just a starting point, to be honest the best way that I've found is to use Vuescan, lock the film base colour and then set the black/white points in photoshop elements along with an increase in contrast via curves and a slight boost in saturation before a slight sharpen
.
Colour negative is a very subjective medium with no real 'accurate' version once scanned, the scan that you get back a lab is essentially a 'simulation' of what it would look like when printed optically through the negative (essentially like using a film profile but one provided by the film manufacturer and adapted to the scanner - the 'profile' is identified by the bar code on the film and is updated on a database). Colorperfect works in a similar fashion and is quite effective (the trial of it has been the only way I've found to scan Kodak Ektar and get it looking like the lab print with the high saturation) but obviously if you don't have an editor then I guess you will have to just try your best with what you have, try a profile for a Fuji Super G type film as that is from a similar period to when C200 was first produced if I remember.

Sam
 
Thanks for the advice folks which I'm sure will come in handy... when I really need it. On looking at the negatives, I find they are actually a roll of Fuji Superia 200 I found short dated in Boots! Silverfast does have Superia presets, so that's what I'm using, and it's coming out reasonable...

Sam, did you manage to run ColourPerfect from within Photoshop Elements? On a Mac, by any chance?
 
The trial I tried (not got sufficient money at the moment to justify buying it!) runs with Photoshop Elements and I know that when you buy it you get a choice of a Windows or Mac version.

Sam
 
Just had another scan then another look under the "loupe", I must have cooked the negative some how. Under a better light source (halogen lights) I can see some marks, bigger than the ones on scan which I'm guessing are too small to been seen even under magnification. There are also some clear marks on the edge of the negative almost like bubbles... Dodgy film, dodgy technique or just unluckly???
 
Not my week for developing it would seem! Just pulled a roll of FP4 out of the tank and the top of the roll is seriously underdeveloped, I think the spiral must have slipped up the tank; thats the first time that happened to me...


Edit: Just been investigating why the spiral slipped, when in 120 configuration there is an inch or so hollow at the core of spiral where it expands from 135 config. I must have put in on with that hollow at the bottom of the tank so it slid up slightly on the first inversion. Put the other way I need to physically remove the spiral it won't move just from shaking. Live and learn...
 
Last edited:
As a further follow up, I've just been through some of my earlier attempts and this is present in them too I think before I just assumed it went like that but having seen Asha's push thread I realise I must be doing something wrong.
 
steveo_mcg said:
As a further follow up, I've just been through some of my earlier attempts and this is present in them too I think before I just assumed it went like that but having seen Asha's push thread I realise I must be doing something wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm becoming increasingly curious as to what is causing these "pinholes"....I've had a look back through some of my other results shot in a vast array of different cameras using Vista cross processed in rodinal and none of them have the problem that you're experiencing.

Some have been devd 10 mins in a 1:50 solution, others for an hour in 1:100

All at 20°c ( give or take a degree)

All water stopped and fixed in Ilford rapid fixer.

Following on from the vista push to 1600 iso, I was curious to see how much the film could be manipulated so using the OM-10 again set up on a tripod, I shot the following each a full stop apart: ( no retouch whatsoever, hence lack of contrast and dust etc etc)

Devd 1 hour in rodinal 1:100 solution, 20°c
Water stop
Ilford rapid Fix
Canoscan 800OF @2400ppp using Arcsoft Photostudio 5.5 software

50 ISO
58299657.jpg



100 ISO
43362686.jpg



200 ISO (Box speed)
77014061.jpg



400 ISO
94600419.jpg



800 ISO
63026631.jpg



1600 ISO
17325582.jpg
 
3200 ISO

50623591.jpg


Even with these extreme push/pulls there is no sign of the phanomena that you're experiencing Steve.......I wouldn't say you're doing "something wrong" as such, it is nonetheless very strange and it's driving me mad not knowing the cause!!!
 
Last edited:
They're very interesting Asha, its quite clear the results are better at box speed though no doubt they'd all be salvageable in post.

What would under/over fixing cause? I'm kinda grasping at straws here! I know what you mean about being driven mad!

I've been looking through other pictures on Flickr and there are some with similar examples but its hard to tell at web size if its just grain.
 
steveo_mcg said:
What would under/over fixing cause?
Click to expand...

If too short a fix then the silver halide would continue to darken thus ruining the images ( they would, over a period of time become fogged)

As for fixing for too long .......I have accidently left film in fixer for in exces of 20 minutes and not had any noticable adverse effects.

I know some emulsions are more delicate than others but unless left for something daft like an hour or something, I doubt the fixer would cause a problem.
 
Hooray. The speckling, whilst still there, has been better managed by turning off the scanning software's unsharp mask and upping the scanning resolution to 2400 dpi. With sharpening on at either 1200 or 2400 the pin holes are present and noticeable, off at 1200 they're still apparent but at 2400 they're not noticeable when not pixel peeping.

So was a scanning issue after all! Cheers Guys.


Scanner issue, resolved by steveo_mcg, on Flickr
 
The unsharp mask on a lot of scanner software is quite aggressive, so it was likely to be 'jaggedness' from the low scanning resolution being exacerbated by the unsharp mask. I've found it better to use the unsharp mask in elements etc as you can have it a lot gentler then the software will apply (thinking about it Vuescan has given similar artefacts to yours but not too as great an extent when I've tried the unsharp mask setting in that)
 
steveo_mcg said:
Hooray. The speckling, whilst still there, has been better managed by turning off the scanning software's unsharp mask and upping the scanning resolution to 2400 dpi. With sharpening on at either 1200 or 2400 the pin holes are present and noticeable, off at 1200 they're still apparent but at 2400 they're not noticeable when not pixel peeping.

So was a scanning issue after all! Cheers Guys.
Click to expand...

Excellent news to hear you've located the source of the problem!:thumbs:
 
s162216 said:
The unsharp mask on a lot of scanner software is quite aggressive, so it was likely to be 'jaggedness' from the low scanning resolution being exacerbated by the unsharp mask. I've found it better to use the unsharp mask in elements etc as you can have it a lot gentler then the software will apply (thinking about it Vuescan has given similar artefacts to yours but not too as great an extent when I've tried the unsharp mask setting in that)
Click to expand...

I was never sure whether it would be better to sharpen at scanning or in LR, I guess this resolves that dilemma.

Asha said:
Excellent news to hear you've located the source of the problem!:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Me too :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top