Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: VincentDJohnson on July 22, 2018, 02:17:05 pm
-
I have an Epson v750 Pro scanner I bought new back in 2008 to scan mostly 4x5 film. It typically gets used for a few week period about once as I catch up with new film I've shot, so it's not like it's a daily workhorse. About a year ago I took it apart cleaned the bottom glass as scans seemed muddy and it had a grayish film layer on the interior side. Yet I'm still not getting good detail on things that should be obvious; like close blades of grass, and words on buildings.
My typical scanner settings are:
-Pro mode
-48 bit color
-3200/4800 dpi
-unsharpmask at medium
-Digital ICE at Quality
and I always use the film holders that came with the scanner.
Any suggestions on ways you've improved the quality, or is this scanner just that limited and I haven't noticed till recently?
Here's a 1-to-1 zoom of the scan from a recent 35mm color positive.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/vincentjohnson/28685333047/in/dateposted-public/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vincentjohnson/28685333047/in/dateposted-public/)
-
I have a similar Canon 9000F flatbed scanner and the results with 35mm film is very similar (not too good).
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV750Pro.html
The optical resolution of the Epson 750v is only about 2300 ppi according to the above test report. You should get slightly better results by placing the 35mm slide or negative directly on the glass since that's where the scanner's lens is focused. You're going to need to apply sharpening with a large radius and amount, which is probably better done after the scan using PS, LR, or other editing application.
The attached Canon 9000F scan is of a 35mm Kodacolor negative using the film holder (Left) and with the film flat on the glass (Right). Same toning and sharpening settings applied to both using LR.
-
From what I can see the slide is both out of focus and over processed. I don't know what software you are using, but to start with I would recommend turning off ICE and turning off all sharpening within the scan software. Use a powerful air blower on both sides of the slide for cleaning it and deal with anything residual in post-scan spotting. I think you should solve the focus problem before you do any sharpening, but when you get to sharpening, sharpen the scan in post-scan software using a gentle, non-destructive sharpening application, such as Photokit Sharpener which does very well with film scans (for Photoshop) or Lightroom's own sharpening tools if you are working in Lightroom post-scan.
The focus issue may be a more mechanical problem. The V750 should definitely produce better results than what your photo indicates, provided of course the media itself is sharp; often we don't know how unsharp our originals are till we see them enlarged from a scan - check them with at least a 6x magnifier to be sure you know what you are working with. You say you took the scanner apart to clean the glass. Are you absolutely certain that you re-assembled it exactly right? Putting the film into the holder should work well enough provided the film is flat - if the holder has height adjusters you may try rescanning at different settings for those adjusters and see whether one of those settings solves the problem. If you are getting no joy from the holder, I would suggest using the Fluid Mount Accessory, pinning the film to the glass using either a piece of Museum glass (that specific brand) on top of the film, or film cleaning fluid to very temporarily hold the film onto the glass.
-
I have a similar Canon 9000F flatbed scanner and the results with 35mm film is very similar (not too good).
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV750Pro.html
The optical resolution of the Epson 750v is only about 2300 ppi according to the above test report. You should get slightly better results by placing the 35mm slide or negative directly on the glass since that's where the scanner's lens is focused. You're going to need to apply sharpening with a large radius and amount, which is probably better done after the scan using PS, LR, or other editing application.
The attached Canon 9000F scan is of a 35mm Kodacolor negative using the film holder (Left) and with the film flat on the glass (Right). Same toning and sharpening settings applied to both using LR.
Todd, I agree with the 2300 effective PPI for that scanner; it coheres with my measurements as well. But that doesn't explain why scans should come out unsharp - if the optics are working properly and the software is being used properly FOCUS should be OK and the scans should look sharp enough as long as they are not being magnified beyond 100% at their native resolution. So to be clear about what's implied - if we're talking a 35mm slide, he has about 2300x1.4 or 3220 total pixels on the long dimension. If prepared for an Epson printer at 360 PPI, his long dimension could be about 9 inches without resampling. Put-up on a high-res display at no more than 100% magnification (1 image pixel per screen pixel) the results should look OK, particularly in the center, IF the focusing were correct. All those scanners except an Imacon have problems with edge/corner sharpness regardless of the focus, but the center should be reasonably good. If his media image is sharp and the scan isn't I suspect a mechanical focus problem.
-
Mark, I have an Epson Expression 11k flat bed scanner. I bought a piece of Museum Glass for holding 35mm strip film flat but have not had cause to use it yet. That glass has a coating on one side. The frame shop said they put the coating side down towards the art work, photo, so to protect the coating from glass cleaning products.
Do you put the coating side up, or down, relative to the film?
I have 2 glass cleaning products from Sprayway. A USA made product. One of them is very powerful stuff, Formula 40, also very toxic. I talked to them and they said they have never tested it on Museum Glass. The other is called Glass Cleaner.
What glass cleaner do you use for Museum Glass, or for the flat bed glass?
Hope this is not an "out of thread" question.
-
Put the coated side down on the film.
I wouldn't use any cleaning products on Museum glass unless specified by the manufacturer. A bit of warm water on a rag is usually sufficient for both the Museum glass and the scanner glass. I haven't needed to use most cleaning products so I don't know what the risks would be. I have occasionally removed stubborn specks with lens cleaning or eyeglass cleaning fluid. That seems harmless and works.
-
Todd, I agree with the 2300 effective PPI for that scanner; it coheres with my measurements as well. But that doesn't explain why scans should come out unsharp - if the optics are working properly and the software is being used properly FOCUS should be OK and the scans should look sharp enough as long as they are not being magnified beyond 100% at their native resolution.
I did a quick search on Epson 700/750 focus issues and found out they both use a two-position focusing system. For reflective scans the focus is at the top of the glass and for transparency scans the focus is above the glass. So placing the film on the glass isn't going to help. Apparently the film and slide holders have focusing legs that can be set for three different heights above the glass (2.5mm, 3mm or 3.5 mm). So perhaps adjusting these legs may help to fix the focus issue. I agree with your previous suggestions concerning other issues (ICE and other processing settings) also contributing to the poor scan results. More info here on the focusing issue:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/epson-v700-v750-focus-height-finding-the-sweet-spot.151784/
-
I did a quick search on Epson 700/750 focus issues and found out they both use a two-position focusing system. For reflective scans the focus is at the top of the glass and for transparency scans the focus is above the glass. So placing the film on the glass isn't going to help. Apparently the film and slide holders have focusing legs that can be set for three different heights above the glass (2.5mm, 3mm or 3.5 mm). So perhaps adjusting these legs may help to fix the focus issue. I agree with your previous suggestions concerning other issues (ICE and other processing settings) also contributing to the poor scan results. More info here on the focusing issue:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/epson-v700-v750-focus-height-finding-the-sweet-spot.151784/
Yes I went through with setting up my 750 using the different height settings and it made a big difference. Also with large negatives, keeping them perfectly flat is an issue and the holders that come with the V750 are not that great. Take a look at Betterscanning filter holders, they are worth the cost.
-
I did a quick search on Epson 700/750 focus issues and found out they both use a two-position focusing system. For reflective scans the focus is at the top of the glass and for transparency scans the focus is above the glass. So placing the film on the glass isn't going to help. Apparently the film and slide holders have focusing legs that can be set for three different heights above the glass (2.5mm, 3mm or 3.5 mm). So perhaps adjusting these legs may help to fix the focus issue. I agree with your previous suggestions concerning other issues (ICE and other processing settings) also contributing to the poor scan results. More info here on the focusing issue:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/epson-v700-v750-focus-height-finding-the-sweet-spot.151784/
Right. That's why I recommended trying the Fluid Mount Accessory, which is a framed piece of glass that sits raised from the scanner bed. And yes, adjusting those legs (what I called the height adjusters above) can help quite a bit, so we're talking about the same thing here. Chez's suggestion to use Betterscanning holders may well be worthwhile. I haven't tested them myself, but I've heard good things about them from people who have. I would just re-iterate two points I made above: the re-assembly of the scanner should be checked for proper seating and the sharpness of the media being scanned should be reviewed to know for sure what to expect.
-
I agree with all of Mark's suggestions, and a +1 for the BetterScanning film holders from Doug Fisher. They are very rigid and well made holders and also height adjustable. Definitely worth the cost if quality scanning is what you are looking for. I've also used the Epson Fluid Mount with the Museum Glass, mostly for 4x5 film, but occasionally roll film as well. It does a great job for both. For more years than I would admit to I have been using the Ilford Antistaticum clothes for removing dust etc. from film, both in the darkroom and later for film scanning purposes. I don't know if they are still available, but I do know that they do a great job at dust removal and setting up an anti-static environment on the film so that it does not attract more dust. I made sure I had a good supply of these clothes many years ago and still using them. A good, filtered compressed air system works as well, but best after using the cloth, since a high pressure air flow can sometimes set up a static charge on the film which can attract dust. I just checked and the Antistaticum clothes ares still available from camera stores etc., B&H for example.
Gary
-
What if you had a piece of glass that had thickness equal the the hight of the film holders? Place the film on that and Museum Glass on top of the film.
I have a digital thickness gage for paper but the battery is dead. With a ruler it looks to be 1/16 inch. for the Museum Glass I have.
-
What if you had a piece of glass that had thickness equal the the hight of the film holders? Place the film on that and Museum Glass on top of the film.
I have a digital thickness gage for paper but the battery is dead. With a ruler it looks to be 1/16 inch. for the Museum Glass I have.
I don't think you can use just any piece of glass - it should have appropriate optical properties. You would have to know the exact height of the top surface of the glass above the scanner flat bed. Remember with the Fluid Mount Accessory which is measured exactly, the glass is placed within a frame that sits on the scanner bed. The thickness of the Museum glass is a non-issue - the Museum glass is only for holding the film to the FMA glass without having to use liquids.
-
Hey, thank you all for the detailed suggestions. Lots of reading to do and testing afterwards. I'll be sure to post up any improvements it might have made.
I have been looking at third party film holders too, but at the cost for some sets I was also thinking I might be able to buy a dedicated consumer 35mm scanner for just a bit more. As any change might be better than what I'm getting now. We'll see. Got a busy summer ahead so hopefully I've got a solution before fall.
-
Hey, thank you all for the detailed suggestions. Lots of reading to do and testing afterwards. I'll be sure to post up any improvements it might have made.
I have been looking at third party film holders too, but at the cost for some sets I was also thinking I might be able to buy a dedicated consumer 35mm scanner for just a bit more. As any change might be better than what I'm getting now. We'll see. Got a busy summer ahead so hopefully I've got a solution before fall.
A dedicated 35mm scanner will do a better job, but I thought you also scanned 4x5.
-
He could keep the Epson for the large format and still use a dedicated film scanner for the 35mm. The problem though is that there are few current model dedicated film scanners that will do a much better job than that Epson V750. If he can find a lightly used A1 condition Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400, either the original or model 2 for a low enough price he'll be getting something really good. The discontinued Nikon 5000 costs a fortune, just not worth it. He can buy a Plustek 8200 - not bad but still around 450 dollars, or a Plustek 120 for $1800 at B&H - this one is optically very good, but had operational teething problems in the early days and is slow - not sure how reliably they perform these days.
-
Or he could go the scannerless route! ;)
https://luminous-landscape.com/scannerless-digital-capture-and-processing-of-negative-film-photographs/
-
YES INDEED TODD:-) :-)
BTW, on that subject - not to hijack the thread, but I got tired of letting my Phase One P40+ just sit in a closet gathering dust - mea culpa it was an expensive mistake buying that rig because I learned after the fact that it just doesn't respond to my style of photography; but no question it can make very fine photographs, so just this past couple of weeks I've been rigging it up as a camera scanner. I got really very good pricing on a Schneider 80mm lens that can be used in reverse at the end of a Mamiya bellows unit built for that camera, which I also found on eBay for a very good price. So I have all that set-up now, and what's nice is that I can use it tethered to a laptop with Capture One 11 (free for owners of Phase backs). Capture One is a learning curve all to its own and I'm still at the stage of optimizing alignment, which is very exacting, but it all looks promising. So far I'm seeing VISIBLE resolution (from the USAF target) of about 4600 PPI, with the potential that I could push it to around 5000, which is more than twice that of the Epson V750/850. I can get the mag ratio close to 3:1, which would allow me to make stitched scans of 35mm negs capable of quite huge prints at high resolution - most likely far exceeding what the original media holds. At the processing end I'm still using that MakeTIFF/SilverFast HDR workflow for negatives I discussed in my part of our shared article - it remains efficient and robust. So the total procedure is to make the capture with Capture One, send it to MakeTIFF, send the resulting TIFF to SilverFast HDR for inversion, and then onward to Lightroom or Photoshop for any further processing.
So good you remind of this - scanning is not the only option by a long-shot.
-
IMHO anyone considering purchasing a dedicated film scanner who has a 20+ Megapixel camera should consider the "scannerless" option. The cost using readily available parts should be no more than a good dedicated scanner. The benefits are speed (seconds), reduced grain, dust and scratch rendering due to using a diffused light source and high image quality.
That P40+ setup sounds good. With 2:3 aspect 35mm film you have a 27 Megapixel image, which is probably only limited by the lens and film image resolution. It's been requested that Adobe add a native raw data "Invert' function, which would allow processing negative film images totally in LR without the controls working backwards. New XMP profile capability has already been added, which opens the door for creating "film specific" LUT based camera profiles.
-
Hi Todd,
Actually, with a P40+back shooting a full frame 35mm transparency, the arithmetic makes it an effective 35MP raw image (7320/1.5)v*7320h = 35.7MP. The important thing though is that I've now got the resolution perfected to 5161 PPI based on photographing the USAF, looking at the center and all four corners. Alignment is really a delicate business but it works. This is really very close to Imacon and good drum scanner territory. You are right that the capture process is much faster than scanning, but there's stuff in front of pushing the button that consumes some time. An alignment check should be performed at frequent intervals, especially after changing any magnification or positioning of the media, and it is necessary, at least with this camera, to allow a good 20 second interval between the mirror-lock-up and the capture. This wouldn't apply to mirrorless cameras, but it applies in spades to a 645DF or any other mirrored DSLR. This sensor is so sensitive at these resolution levels that ALL vibration needs to be excised before capture. Effective raw image size can be increased substantially by photographing the 24mm dimension of the media magnified across the 44mm dimension of the sensor in two captures, one displaced from the other so both ends of the film are photographed and blending them. I haven't tried that yet to see exactly how well it works and what raw dimensions I end-up with, but should be interesting.
Capture One does have an invert function, but only in the version of the application targeted for the conservation/institutional market and it costs about 2500 dollars, so I'll stick with my established workflow for now. I would really like to see Adobe add the invert function into LR as you mention, because if it were possible to confine the whole workflow to Lr it would save a huge amount of storage (a rendered P40+ file is about 220 MB in 16 bit) and cut the workflow time substantially - let's hope.
-
Hi Todd,
I would really like to see Adobe add the invert function into LR as you mention, because if it were possible to confine the whole workflow to Lr it would save a huge amount of storage (a rendered P40+ file is about 220 MB in 16 bit) and cut the workflow time substantially - let's hope.
Mark:
Can't you invert in LR by going to the curves menue and invert by dragging left side up and right side down? Would be simpler to just check an "invert" box.
-
You would think so but it doesn't work very well. The orange mask gets in the way - it's not only inversion, it's also neutralizing so it gets complicated. Todd and I played around with that extensively before we did the article he referenced above. I've also written-up on this website in some detail quite some years ago how to invert with Curves etc in Photoshop - can work well, but also not so straightforward.
-
You can use the LR Tone Curve to invert by dragging the endpoints in opposite directions, but then all of the Tone controls work bassackwards. I've also observed some non-linear behavior of the Tone controls, which are designed to work on specific areas of the image such as Blacks/Shadows and Whites/Highlights controls. The reason for this behavior is that the Tone Curve is applied AFTER all of the other controls. The invert function really needs to be done at the raw data level BEFORE the camera profile and settings are applied. That's what we're hoping for from Adobe Engineering!
-
Yep, you need to null out the orange mask. I'm sure it wouldn't take much work for adobe to put in a negative scan mode to invert and null out the mask. But of course that leads them wondering how many users really need that function, that's the real decision maker!!!
-
I'll bet if they offered it (a) a lot people with scads of negatives to "scan" would come out of the woodwork, and (b) they would have a one-up on Capture One which only offers it in a very high-end pricey version of the application. I just tried what I wrote Todd about a few posts up: two captures filling the wide dimension of the sensor with the narrow dimension of the negative (so fitting 24mm to 44mm) and stitching them. Produces one integrated photo about 18 x 25 inches at 360 PPI. One can do a lot with that, but the file size is also impressive, coming in at about 400MB before any layers. That's why it would be so nice to do this all in raw!
-
You can add your 'Me To' vote and 'Follow' here for an invert function in LR/ACR:
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/inverting_in_camera_b_w_negative_scans_to_positives_lr4_feature_request
Concerning orange mask removal you can do that now using the LR WB sliders. In most cases you'll run out to the low end (2000K) of the Temp slider, but you can edit the camera profile using the Adobe DNG Profile Editor to increase the range. Use the Color Matrices tab -Temperature and +Tint such as -50 Temp and +50 Tint up to +100 and -100 settings. The Adobe supplied profiles are dual illuminant (5500K Daylight and 2700K Tungsten) so you need to keep the LR WB Temp setting above about 4500K to keep it in the Daylight LUT. Of course it would be nice if Adobe simply added an option to extend the WB range along with the invert function.
Some people (self included) have used Acetate CP filters between the light source or color enlarger heads to remove the orange mask during the actual camera capture process. It doesn't work as expected due to the heavy Cyan filtration required, which increases UV spectrum light in certain film image areas (i.e. Red = Cyan inverted), causing nasty color shifts.
-
"MakeTIFF"+"SilverFast HDR8" make such quick and effective work of all this in a couple of clicks. It's amazingly good and simple.
-
You would think so but it doesn't work very well. The orange mask gets in the way - it's not only inversion, it's also neutralizing so it gets complicated. Todd and I played around with that extensively before we did the article he referenced above. I've also written-up on this website in some detail quite some years ago how to invert with Curves etc in Photoshop - can work well, but also not so straightforward.
Epsonscan seems to do the job, I believe. What are they doing? MAybe we can duplicate it in LR.
-
That's true if you are scanning film with a scanner. We're discussing the post-processing of negatives captured with a digital camera. Nothing Epson Scan can do with such files.
-
But what algorithm does Epsonscan apply? Can't that be duplicated?
-
They don't publish their algorithms. Vuescan and SilverFast 8/HDR Studio 8 also have many "negative profiles" - they aren't ICC profiles, they are their own algorithms for doing these inversions. The SilverFast ones are capable of being edited within the application, but the underlying code is not provided. Todd has outlined ways of doing these inversions in Photoshop and Lightroom, as had I in previous articles on this site quite a few years ago for Photoshop. It can be done, but it's just not very straightforward.
-
Who's the genius at Epson who came up with the algorithm? I bet it's pretty simple.
-
There isn't "an algorithm". There's a large number of them because each film has different characteristics, so the inversion/remapping math differs somewhat for each. In software companies that aren't one-man operations, application development is worked on in teams with quality control engineers reviewing their output. But as users we aren't made privy to any of that, so your basic concern to know whether we can apply algorithms made for film scanning to camera capture of film images will remain unanswered, unless someone on this forum has inside information that they are allowed to share.
-
Epsonscan does not know which color film it's scanning only that it is a negative. So it's removal of the orange mask has to be a common and simple algorithm that applies to all negative color film.
What if applications of color reversal were applied until the rebate section became clear? Then you wouldn't be concerned which film was being used or how deep the color mask was.
-
I'll bet if they offered it (a) a lot people with scads of negatives to "scan" would come out of the woodwork,
I would get LR CC tomorrow if they added that feature!!!! I had a Nikon 5000 but was not using it all that much so I donated it for a hefty tax deduction to a local photography share studio last year. I still have a lot of slides and negatives that I didn't scan as they were not of primary interest. Nikon makes a nice accessory that mounts on my 60mm macro lens; I think the kit cost with negative holder is about $100 which is cheaper than any scanner option. I know the D850 has a negative to positive feature on it but alas I only have a D810.
-
LaserSoft Imaging's complete negative to positive conversion and editing package is included in their SilverFast HDR Studio 8 application, which one uses without needing a scanner. It does not accept raw files, but it does accept rendered formats such as TIFF, JPEG. It's very good software, but it does cost USD399.
-
Epsonscan does not know which color film it's scanning only that it is a negative. So it's removal of the orange mask has to be a common and simple algorithm that applies to all negative color film.
What if applications of color reversal were applied until the rebate section became clear? Then you wouldn't be concerned which film was being used or how deep the color mask was.
Just because EpsonScan provides a very elementary and therefore limited algorithm for negative inversion doesn't mean there isn't a lot more to these processes beyond what Epson provides, so you can't draw any conclusions from this about whether algorithms are "common and simple". You would need a certain amount of training in the mathematics of digital imaging or a significant body of relevant experience handling these materials to be able to make such assertions with any authority.
Your question regarding rebates is unintelligible. What on earth are you talking about?
-
"MakeTIFF"+"SilverFast HDR8" make such quick and effective work of all this in a couple of clicks. It's amazingly good and simple.
I totally agree, but then you lose the non-destructive raw file workflow that LR provides. LaserSoft used to provide support for raw files in Silverfast, but dropped it a long time ago. It's a daunting task to support all of the camera models plus new models as they are released!
-
That's true about the raw file workflow, but for most purposes most of the time for me that's a lower priority concern, especially considering the quality of the processing algorithms we have in current software. As well, through the raw capture, MakeTiff process and HDR inversion, it's all linear till the inversion, and there's nothing that needs to be preserved except the results; then you can take the HDR result into LR where all the rest of the editing is metadata and one has the preserved history track.
Yes, LSI had a raw conversion application at one point in the distant past (I don't recall it being part of the SilverFast scanning application - if I remember correctly it was stand-alone) but I too noticed it disappeared after some time. I'm not sure HDR ever supported true raw formats. Recall what they name a "raw" file is really a rendered RGB linear image out of a scanner with no adjustments.
-
I would get LR CC tomorrow if they added that feature!!!! I had a Nikon 5000 but was not using it all that much so I donated it for a hefty tax deduction to a local photography share studio last year. I still have a lot of slides and negatives that I didn't scan as they were not of primary interest. Nikon makes a nice accessory that mounts on my 60mm macro lens; I think the kit cost with negative holder is about $100 which is cheaper than any scanner option. I know the D850 has a negative to positive feature on it but alas I only have a D810.
The D850 negative digitizer has some serious issues so not a great loss that you have the D810!
https://petapixel.com/2017/10/24/review-nikon-d850s-negative-digitizer-isnt-ready-prime-time/
The Nikon ES-2 film adapter looks like a cost-effective solution for your D810 with 60mm macro. You can start processing slides today using just LR (any version) and negatives using LR and PS or LR and SilverFast HDR. Please refer to the article Mark and I co-wrote detailing both workflows.
https://luminous-landscape.com/scannerless-digital-capture-and-processing-of-negative-film-photographs/
-
Just because EpsonScan provides a very elementary and therefore limited algorithm for negative inversion doesn't mean there isn't a lot more to these processes beyond what Epson provides, so you can't draw any conclusions from this about whether algorithms are "common and simple". You would need a certain amount of training in the mathematics of digital imaging or a significant body of relevant experience handling these materials to be able to make such assertions with any authority.
Your question regarding rebates is unintelligible. What on earth are you talking about?
If the orange mask is on the rebate section as well as on the area of the film that is exposed, would trying to change the rebate section to what it would look like without the mask be a way to develop an algorithm to get rid of the mask across the entire exposure? If not, why not?
-
If the orange mask is on the rebate section as well as on the area of the film that is exposed, would trying to change the rebate section to what it would look like without the mask be a way to develop an algorithm to get rid of the mask across the entire exposure? If not, why not?
Oh, so by "rebate" you mean the unexposed header or toe of the film strip or the separation strips between the frames. Never heard the term "rebate" applied to unexposed film before. Yes, it's helpful but it doesn't do the whole job, and for each different film (manufacturer/film type/ISO) you would need a different recipe. See my previous articles on this.
-
Oh, so by "rebate" you mean the unexposed header or toe of the film strip or the separation strips between the frames. Never heard the term "rebate" applied to unexposed film before. Yes, it's helpful but it doesn't do the whole job, and for each different film (manufacturer/film type/ISO) you would need a different recipe. See my previous articles on this.
Isn't the unexposed section on all films clear except for the orange mask? If so, then a program applies an algorithm that eliminates the orange mask to see no color in the unexposed section. Maybe that's the way Epsonscan does it. It doesn't care what film you used. Maybe it uses levels and uses then unexposed area as the black point and adjusts the color to get the black. Just some ideas. Does anyone have a DSLR shot with the unexposed rebate section that they can post here? A strait flat shot with no adjustments. Then we can try levels and some other tests.
-
Epsonscan does not know which color film it's scanning only that it is a negative. So it's removal of the orange mask has to be a common and simple algorithm that applies to all negative color film.
That's basically true of all scanning software although they may provide some film stock names as a starting point, in no way does that guarantee success of joy in the rendering. Not all software handles the conversions or even the auto (on what part of the film) equally. The Imacon mentioned did a good job with FlexColor in the old days. And it's sharp corner to corner and mentioned. The lens alone probably cost many times what anyone paid for the Epson in full. With the Imacon software, the trick with color negs was to crop small(er) areas of the exposed image and click Auto which when it found a 'good sampling' did a very good job inverting and removing the orange mask which is affected by exposure/development hence, one could save this auto setting and use it with good success with the rest of the film stock if treated equally. There's more to getting a good scan but the conversion and removal of the mask is the first and most important global scan setting to aim for.
-
The D850 negative digitizer has some serious issues so not a great loss that you have the D810!
https://petapixel.com/2017/10/24/review-nikon-d850s-negative-digitizer-isnt-ready-prime-time/
The Nikon ES-2 film adapter looks like a cost-effective solution for your D810 with 60mm macro. You can start processing slides today using just LR (any version) and negatives using LR and PS or LR and SilverFast HDR. Please refer to the article Mark and I co-wrote detailing both workflows.
https://luminous-landscape.com/scannerless-digital-capture-and-processing-of-negative-film-photographs/
Thanks! I had downloaded the article a while back but had not read it yet. I'll also look at SilverFast HDR as per Mark's earlier post.
-
Isn't the unexposed section on all films clear except for the orange mask? If so, then a program applies an algorithm that eliminates the orange mask to see no color in the unexposed section. Maybe that's the way Epsonscan does it. It doesn't care what film you used. Maybe it uses levels and uses then unexposed area as the black point and adjusts the color to get the black. Just some ideas. Does anyone have a DSLR shot with the unexposed rebate section that they can post here? A strait flat shot with no adjustments. Then we can try levels and some other tests.
Ya sure. You didn't read what I've been trying to tell you? Are you trying to re-invent the wheel? We've been over that stuff through and through, years ago. And do you think that companies like Hamrick Software, LaserSoft Imaging etc. haven't devoted far more resources to this area than all the rest of us?
-
That's basically true of all scanning software although they may provide some film stock names as a starting point, in no way does that guarantee success of joy in the rendering. Not all software handles the conversions or even the auto (on what part of the film) equally. The Imacon mentioned did a good job with FlexColor in the old days. And it's sharp corner to corner and mentioned. The lens alone probably cost many times what anyone paid for the Epson in full. With the Imacon software, the trick with color negs was to crop small(er) areas of the exposed image and click Auto which when it found a 'good sampling' did a very good job inverting and removing the orange mask which is affected by exposure/development hence, one could save this auto setting and use it with good success with the rest of the film stock if treated equally. There's more to getting a good scan but the conversion and removal of the mask is the first and most important global scan setting to aim for.
Yes Andrew, the Imacon uses Rodenstock lenses that are apparently worth a couple of thousand dollars - i.e. twice the price of an Epson v800/v850 for the lens alone. Imcon still does a good job with Flexcolor from what I've seen out of a friend's Imacon. With SilverFast and Vuescan you don't need to do any of that sampling you mention. Their negative film "profiles" get you about 90% of the way, and then in SilverFast you can get the final 10% by minor editing of the "Negafix" profile of interest using tools provided in the Ai8 version of the application.
-
I'm re-posting my request.
"Isn't the unexposed section on all films clear except for the orange mask? If so, then a program applies an algorithm that eliminates the orange mask to see no color in the unexposed section. Maybe that's the way Epsonscan does it. It doesn't care what film you used. Maybe it uses levels and uses the unexposed area as the black point and adjusts the color to get the black. Just some ideas. Does anyone have a DSLR shot with the unexposed rebate section that they can post here? A strait flat shot with no adjustments. Then we can try levels and some other tests."
I'll work with you. Just post the DSLR "scan" with no adjustments, only a positive flat picture. Include the unexposed rebate portion
-
I modified my previous post. I deleted my criticism, It was wrong to say it and I apologize to the person effected. If anyone has a DSLR "scan" with no adjustments, please post it here. I'd like to play around with the orange mask.
-
I'm re-posting my request.
"Isn't the unexposed section on all films clear except for the orange mask? If so, then a program applies an algorithm that eliminates the orange mask to see no color in the unexposed section. Maybe that's the way Epsonscan does it. It doesn't care what film you used. Maybe it uses levels and uses the unexposed area as the black point and adjusts the color to get the black. Just some ideas. Does anyone have a DSLR shot with the unexposed rebate section that they can post here? A strait flat shot with no adjustments. Then we can try levels and some other tests."
I'll work with you. Just post the DSLR "scan" with no adjustments, only a positive flat picture. Include the unexposed rebate portion
Alan,
What you are trying to do is not going to work properly with a posted digital image of a piece of unexposed film. It won't have the spectral properties of the media and by the time it is processed for posting it won't be an accurate representation of any particular film stock. You need the piece of film itself, put it in your scanner and make the adjustments you want to make in order to invert it and neutralize it preferably in the scan software. So what you really should be asking for is for someone to send you by snail mail a piece of developed unexposed colour negative film. That's where to start from.
-
Alan,
What you are trying to do is not going to work properly with a posted digital image of a piece of unexposed film. It won't have the spectral properties of the media and by the time it is processed for posting it won't be an accurate representation of any particular film stock. You need the piece of film itself, put it in your scanner and make the adjustments you want to make in order to invert it and neutralize it preferably in the scan software. So what you really should be asking for is for someone to send you by snail mail a piece of developed unexposed colour negative film. That's where to start from.
OK Thanks. I'll have to scan it myself with my V600. I'll scan the negative with the rebate "flat" as a positive and work it from there.
-
Alan, if you're looking for a LR only color negative workflow please read my reply #21 and #24 in this thread. Mask removal is easily accomplished using the LR WB eyedropper on ANY neutral area of the negative. As mentioned you'll need to edit the camera profile (Adobe Standard is good) using the Adobe DNG Profile Editor to increase the range of the LR WB Temp control, which will probably bottom-out at the minimum 2,000K. Here's the link to the Adobe DNG Profile Editor (scroll down) and instructions:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html
Both Mark and I tried using a LR only workflow with only marginal success due to issues caused by the inverted Tone Curve. It's not just a matter of removing the mask, which is easy enough to do. The inverted RGB color channels also need to be "balanced" to provide proper color correction. This is accomplished in SilverFast HDR using its Negafix control, which is similar to PS's Auto Curves control. In fact Auto Curves is what I use in my PS workflow described in the article Mark and I wrote. There is no similar "automatic" control available inside LR.
LR 7.3 introduced the capability to create LUT based XMP camera profiles. It is possible to create a camera profile that includes the invert function and a color correction LUT that does provide a LR only workflow:
http://www.cuchara.photography/blog/2018/5/one-click-inversion-of-color-film-negatives-in-lightroom
I tried the above procedure and created a LUT based profile for Kodacolor II 5035 color negative film. The image I chose to use for creating the camera profile looks great in the LR only workflow. Unfortunately the LR adjustments don't work properly and the controls have non-linear behavior making it very difficult to adjust other frames from even the same roll of film. Until Adobe offers a "built-in" solution for inverting the image file raw data the two workflows Mark and I outline in the article are your best choice for processing camera captured color negative film images.
-
Alan, if you're looking for a LR only color negative workflow please read my reply #21 and #24 in this thread. Mask removal is easily accomplished using the LR WB eyedropper on ANY neutral area of the negative. As mentioned you'll need to edit the camera profile (Adobe Standard is good) using the Adobe DNG Profile Editor to increase the range of the LR WB Temp control, which will probably bottom-out at the minimum 2,000K. Here's the link to the Adobe DNG Profile Editor (scroll down) and instructions:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html
Both Mark and I tried using a LR only workflow with only marginal success due to issues caused by the inverted Tone Curve. It's not just a matter of removing the mask, which is easy enough to do. The inverted RGB color channels also need to be "balanced" to provide proper color correction. This is accomplished in SilverFast HDR using its Negafix control, which is similar to PS's Auto Curves control. In fact Auto Curves is what I use in my PS workflow described in the article Mark and I wrote. There is no similar "automatic" control available inside LR.
LR 7.3 introduced the capability to create LUT based XMP camera profiles. It is possible to create a camera profile that includes the invert function and a color correction LUT that does provide a LR only workflow:
http://www.cuchara.photography/blog/2018/5/one-click-inversion-of-color-film-negatives-in-lightroom
I tried the above procedure and created a LUT based profile for Kodacolor II 5035 color negative film. The image I chose to use for creating the camera profile looks great in the LR only workflow. Unfortunately the LR adjustments don't work properly and the controls have non-linear behavior making it very difficult to adjust other frames from even the same roll of film. Until Adobe offers a "built-in" solution for inverting the image file raw data the two workflows Mark and I outline in the article are your best choice for processing camera captured color negative film images.
I found that color negative film is harder to adjust. I had tried some Kodak Ektar 100. So I'm sticking now with Velvia 50. I know exactly what I shot. No question about exposure. I also bracket consistently. I also prefer its palette. But I'm willing to give negative color a chance again. It has a lot of advantages over slide film, especially Ektar.
Is there a way you could email a complete "scan" of an original negative image? I'd like to try some edits on my own. Thanks.
-
Is there a way you could email a complete "scan" of an original negative image? I'd like to try some edits on my own. Thanks.
Below is a link to the article PDFs, other processing information, and a Fuji Super G100 color negative raw image file using camera capture. There is no unexposed frame area, but there are many "neutral toned" areas in the image for white balancing with the LR Eyedropper. This image was used in the article for the LR/PS processing discussion.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u5pnzbesvqen1hv/AABZyaWAn33jCwEinkT45iFAa?dl=0
-
Below is a link to the article PDFs, other processing information, and a Fuji Super G100 color negative raw image file using camera capture. There is no unexposed frame area, but there are many "neutral toned" areas in the image for white balancing with the LR Eyedropper. This image was used in the article for the LR/PS processing discussion.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u5pnzbesvqen1hv/AABZyaWAn33jCwEinkT45iFAa?dl=0
Thanks for the image and links. Is the image without adjustment? How was it "captured"?
I'd also like to get the rebate area as well. Do you or anyone else have one?
-
It's a Canon 5D MKII CR2 file shot with 5,500K light source and being a raw file it has no processing applied. Sorry, I don't have any captures with the rebate non-frame area showing. That's unexposed film, which may be useful for mask removal, but then the image still needs to be white balanced dependent on actual scene lighting and film characteristics. The LR white balance eyedropper corrects both color temperature AND mask removal in one-step. As Mark mentioned this is academic stuff that has been discussed ad infinitum. What exactly are you trying to accomplish (details!) that hasn't already been discussed here or in the article and materials at the link supplied? Seriously, it's a futile effort to try and reinvent the wheel. Both Mark and I have been there and done that over hundreds of hours working with LR, PS and SilverFast HDR.
The area that still needs more investigation is the use of film specific color-correction LUT based XMP camera profiles. From my tests using an inverted Tone Curve in LR they don't work very predictably. To make this a viable color negative processing solution Adobe needs to provide a true raw data invert function.
-
Finally got around to working this out.
Did all scans with sharpening off and ICE off.
Tried flat on the glass. Flat on top of the removable glass plate that came with the Epson. And then again with the 4x5 film holders but the little removable boosting claws taken out. The last option seemed to work best. Still not 100% where i'd like it to be. Have a little color issues too. Need to see if I can get the now out-dated version of Silver Fast that came with the scanner upgraded.
But once again, thanks for all the input. Just needed a good weekend to sit down and try it all. Also didn't hurt I have like 30 new 4x5 shots to scan in.
-
The scans need to be sharpened, but I wouldn't recommend doing that from scan software even though most of those products provide sharpening tools. The reason is that once you sharpen at the scan stage, that sharpening is baked-in and you can't change it unless you rescan, which is a nuisance. As well, the sharpening tools in scan software don't use the three stage sharpening work flows that Bruce Fraser introduced us to years ago, make so much sense and work very well, especially for film scans - Photokit Sharpener for example has an in-built sharpener at the Capture sharpen stage for film scans, which is also adjustable, adaptable and non-destructive s long you retain the sharpening layers. Sharpening film scans in LR is also a good option.
-
Mark What procedure do you follow to sharpen in LR?
-
Hey Vincent, you might want to take a look at Nick Carver's video about the best way to mount film for scanning on Epson scanners: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfGKd_AEZtY.
-
Mark What procedure do you follow to sharpen in LR?
LR provides for sharpening at two stages: Capture and Output. For capture, I start with the proposed presets for scenic or faces depending on the image, examine the results at 100% and see whether any fine tuning is needed. For output, one turns it on or off; it automatically calculates the needed sharpening based on dimensions. I keep it on.
-
I'll add that for certain papers, their apparent sharpness w/ 'normal/standard' LR sharpening really can make it crunchy. The old Harman Gloss was very notable for that. Always had to dial-down creative and definitely output sharpening.
-
OK Thanks
-
Oh, so by "rebate" you mean the unexposed header or toe of the film strip or the separation strips between the frames. Never heard the term "rebate" applied to unexposed film before. Yes, it's helpful but it doesn't do the whole job, and for each different film (manufacturer/film type/ISO) you would need a different recipe. See my previous articles on this.
Hi Mark,
Somewhat OT but the term "rebate" in reference to film goes at least as far back as the late 1960's when I first started working in a Custom Colour Lab in TO. At that point I had also never come across the term "rebate" in that respect, but when explained it certainly made sense, and I have used the term ever since. The simple definition as it applies here is the "rebate" is the unexposed area of either a negative or positive film. For many years while still printing colour "C" Prints in a darkroom environment I used a colour analyzer to create a colour balance when printing colour neg films. If possible I always tried to find a white area(not specular) in the neg to analyze, therefore reducing the possibility of inaccurate readings. However, within the colour analyzer I had also included settings for analyzing the "rebate" of particular film brands in the case of no noticeable white area to analyze. Another approach was the use of a diffusing filter under the enlarging lens to mix all colours for analyzing purposes, again using the "White Balance" settings in the analyzer. In many cases the exposure/print density reading was also done on the white area in the negative. Of course all of these analyzer settings had to be installed using a negative that had been shot and processed under very strict parameters, and redone occasionally to compensate for drift.
Just a bit of totally useless info from the past ???
Gary
-
Good for nostalgia. The kind of rebate I like is when Epson has a paper sales and REBATES me the cost of every third package in an order! -:)
-
I'll add that for certain papers, their apparent sharpness w/ 'normal/standard' LR sharpening really can make it crunchy. The old Harman Gloss was very notable for that. Always had to dial-down creative and definitely output sharpening.
Howard, are you talking of Epson v750 scans, or digital images in general from digital cameras?
-
Good for nostalgia. The kind of rebate I like is when Epson has a paper sales and REBATES me the cost of every third package in an order! -:)
Couldn't agree more Mark!ยก! When I still had a dealership with Daymen Photo in Markham, Jim, the fellow on the desk, would occasionally call to inform me of a "rebate" offer on Epson papers and other goodies. Those were the days when I had a rather substantial discount on everything I ordered from them, especially Epson products. It was a dark day for various reasons when Daymen pulled the plug, at least here in Canada, not sure about the US. Since then I've been buying from the Big "V" in TO, and since I have reduced my printing prices etc., it's becoming more of an issue to just keep up. My business is now unincorparated, which will at least help with accounting fees, but I imagine it will gradually dwindle to very little within the next few years. Probably time to start pulling the plug myself as well perhaps, although I've been doing this for so long it would be difficult to simply let it go.
Gary
-
I think it's good for the soul to keep up, even if on a reduced scale. There's more than money to it, as you well know.
-
BTW, I should add that you may wish to look into CCBC's pricing for paper and other accessories. He tends to be cheaper than the "Big V", and he's good to do business with.
-
I think it's good for the soul to keep up, even if on a reduced scale. There's more than money to it, as you well know.
+1
You're absolutely correct Mark, there is most definitely more than the money, otherwise I would have packed it in a couple of years ago when I was facing a move of my business to my home. The folks I do work for are great people and I always receive very rewarding feedback. Whether it's someone who's been working in photography for many years and has a lot of experience, or a new shooter who requires some help and perhaps advice, the positive side of my "business" definitely outweighs the occasional negative aspects. And BTW, I did originally do some comparisons between "V" and CCB and found them to be almost identical, but of course that may have changed since then. I shall do some more research again and hope for a surprise. I may be mistaken, but I believe CCB operates on a sort of discount basis built around one's volume purchasing history. I'll look into that again as well.
Thanks for the reminder Mark.
Gary