Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-07-2019, 05:37 PM   #16
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
RobG's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,694
I'm curious whether the software I use could invert a photo of a negative. What lens did you use? I was thinking that the 100mm macro or 35mm macro might work.

06-11-2019, 11:41 PM - 1 Like   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Utrecht
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 29
Original Poster
I use 100 mm macro

Before I used an old M-100mm F4 macro with an extension tube. Works fine with very nice results, manual focussing full open, stop it down to F8-F11 for the best results. Now I own the DFA 100 mm F2.8 macro with manual focussing. Because it is one stop wider the manual focussing goes more precise. Both lenses are more than sufficient for sharpness, they both out resolve your film.


I think 100 mm is to prefer over 35 mm from point of view for the more lineair perspective and shallow DOF. On the front top of the LED light bulb there is a little manufacturing rub that I removed with fine sand paper to achieve as equal possible light source. I kept some cm's distance between the bulb and the film so the uneveness of the bulb disapears in the shallow DOF. With a shorter focus length this might be more difficult to do.
08-15-2019, 12:50 PM   #18
Veteran Member
titrisol's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: In the most populated state... state of denial
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,191
Haartelijk bedankt!
Great article, I do more or less the same; but keep the slide to camera space in the dark to eliminate another variable
LED illumination has improved this method so much, I had a GEPE light table earlier but it is dying, that keps the backlight constant both for color and exposure

Using my KX I get 4288x2848 pixels, which is ~3,000 dpi and in theory much better than the 2400dpi scanner I had before (It had a SCSI connection; so it became obsolete when my old desktop gave up)

Results are very interesting but yes the color management is very complex especially with negatives which tend to degrade over the years
Slides are somehow better but they also fade

Last edited by titrisol; 08-15-2019 at 12:58 PM.
08-18-2019, 01:17 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,493
QuoteOriginally posted by Henrico Quote
Thnx for your replies. The road from shooting a analogue picture on film to a scanned view on your monitor is very interesting. First of all, I'm not an expert..., and I think the color management is very complex here.
Seems to me you're an expert in the process you clearly outlined along with examples. Well done!

About how long to process a frame?
Does each frame within a roll require tweaking or do you apply the same settings for the whole roll?

BTW, what negatives did you apply your process on or was it a good variety of different ones (i.e. Agfa Ultra 100, Agfa Vista, Fuji 100, Fuji Reala, Kodak Gold 100, Kodak Portra 160, etc.)?

08-19-2019, 02:31 AM   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Utrecht
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 29
Original Poster
LOL... not an expert, but more rather experienced. The days I scanned with my Nikon Coolscan V the scan itself (with ICE) took a few minutes. During a scan I pimped the former TIFF scan to a decent 4500x3000 JPEG. Big advantage of ICE was the automatic removal of dust and scratches, the starting point for post was a clean TIFF with little noise also. Scanning with a RAW-camera goes much faster. Most time is lost with positioning your film strips into the slider. Once your setup is OK you can shoot a frame in 2 seconds. With nowadays cameras and using a good lens you get extremely detailed information in 48 bit. For me it takes about two minutes to devellop a RAW picture to a JPEG the way I described. Scanning older negatives take more time because of the restoration often needed for the many scratches etc. But overall I think there is little difference in the time it takes to digitize negatives. I understand why Nikon and others stopped making filmscanners. The transition to digital photography went extremely fast and nowadays cameras are very good usable for scanning. Only thing missing is dedicated software for reversing RAW color negatives to JPEG positives. What I tried to find out is how to use the Photoshop toolbox to do this manually.

Interesting site for scanning and scanner test reports: Nikon Coolscan 5 V ED LS-50: Test report, review, field report, experiences, resolution, image quality: film scanner, slides negatives

In reaction on titrisol: Slides indeed do wear out, for sure the older ones. Color negatives seem to last forever...

Old Nikon scan, shot on Kodak Gold 100 in 2004 with Pentax M100 F2.8



Last edited by Henrico; 08-21-2019 at 12:34 AM.
08-19-2019, 02:25 PM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Utrecht
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 29
Original Poster
LesDmess; I missed your last question, apologize for that…. Myself I mostly used Fuji Superia 100 and Kodak Gold 100. I also used the first generation Kodak Ektar (25 and 125) and nowadays, I still sometimes shoot film, I use the new Ektar 100. The latter is a superior film with little grain and nice saturation. I also scanned older negatives from the 70's (Agfa, Kodak), it all works fine. Some of the older negatives are darkish orange/red, others are much more transparent. Most important is the shots on film are well exposured. I remember on 100 ASA best results always were achieved with one stop over-exposure. Because of the manual tuning and stretching the RGB curves as much as possible I get decent results. I also scanned a lot of old slides that were taken by family in the 50's and 60's with a Zeiss Contina I with interchangeable lenses. The ones taken with Kodachrome became bluish, the Agfa's are very easy to scan. In contrast to negatives, slides always used to be exposured correctly because of the smaller dynamic range.

Summarized: All well-exposured negatives can be developed to decent JPEGS. The results achieved with my RAW-methodology are rather similar than with a professional scanner, it only takes some more manual tweaking in photoshop because of the lack of a ICE-functionality.


Scanned AGFA Slide shot with Zeiss Contina I and Pantar 45mm F2.8 in 1963:




Scanned AGFA Slide shot with Zeiss Contina I and Pantar 45mm F2.8 in 1963:




Scanned old weared Fuji negative shot on 2nd WW Robot I camera with Zeiss Jena Tessar 32 mm F 2.8 in 1975:




Scanned Fujichrome shot with the old Zeiss Contina I and Pantar 45mm F2.8 in 2010:




The Zeiss Ikons were very nice camaras, even today I can shoot brillant pictures with this 60+ years old camera. Everything works fine, even the exposure metering works proper.

My Robot I died, the spring mechanism is not working anymore. I got an adress in Germany were it might be fixed.

Last edited by Henrico; 08-21-2019 at 01:58 AM.
08-20-2019, 08:57 AM - 1 Like   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,493
QuoteOriginally posted by Henrico Quote
LesDmess; I missed your last question, apologize for thatů. Myself I mostly used Fuji Superia 100 and Kodak Gold 100. I also used the first generation Kodak Ektar (25 and 125) and nowadays, I still sometimes shoot film, I use the new Ektar 100. The latter is a superior film with little grain and nice saturation. I also scanned older negatives from the 70's (Agfa, Kodak), it all works fine. Some of the older negatives are darkish orange/red, others are much more transparent. Most important is the shots on film are well exposured. I remember on 100 ASA best results always were achieved with one stop over-exposure. Because of the manual tuning and stretching the RGB curves as much as possible I get decent results. I also scanned a lot of old slides that were taken by family in the 50's and 60's with a Zeiss Contina I with interchangeable lenses. The ones taken with Kodachrome became bluish, the Agfa's are very easy to scan. In contrast to negatives, slides always used to be exposured correctly because of the smaller dynamic range.
You're process and results are encouraging. Certainly better then my casual attempts which are stymied by my continued use of the Coolscan.
BTW, the Nikon D850 dslr has a built in negative conversion that I've been meaning to try out.
08-21-2019, 01:11 AM - 2 Likes   #23
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Utrecht
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 29
Original Poster
My Workflow from Negative => Coolscan V => Silverfast => Photoshop => JPEG

In 2013 I sold my Nikon Coolscan V with Silverfast Ai 6.6 software because I had finished digitizing my private collection. I made a brief manual of my developed workflow that time to guide the new owner in the world of scanning and digitizing. I found this manual back on my PC and attach it here for you all (in PDF) . It is written in Dutch, but it might be helpful for you. Or try Google Translate….

Using Silverfast has the big advantage it uses specific "profiles" for the type of film you were scanning for an effective elimination of the the orange mask. For slides I always used a calibration slide that worked flawless too. Great software! Despite all the functionality of Silverfast I preferred doing the final post processing in Photoshop because of all its possibilities and my gathered skills for it. Siverfast for me was the bridge software between the scanner and the TIFF.

I hope the attachment works...

Attached Images
File Type: pdf Instructie LS 50 Silverfast.pdf (1.71 MB, 43 views)

Last edited by Henrico; 08-21-2019 at 02:10 AM.
08-21-2019, 02:55 AM   #24
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 6,332
Thanks for posting this - it's always good to get new info on DSLR-scanning colour negatives. It's a very difficult process and you're clearly much better at it than I am.
09-12-2019, 01:59 PM   #25
Pentaxian
womble's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,795
Colorperfect is a dedicated photoshop plug-in for converting raw files of negs. I use Vuescan to generate the raw files from my Epson V750.

QuoteOriginally posted by Henrico Quote
LOL... not an expert, but more rather experienced. The days I scanned with my Nikon Coolscan V the scan itself (with ICE) took a few minutes. During a scan I pimped the former TIFF scan to a decent 4500x3000 JPEG. Big advantage of ICE was the automatic removal of dust and scratches, the starting point for post was a clean TIFF with little noise also. Scanning with a RAW-camera goes much faster. Most time is lost with positioning your film strips into the slider. Once your setup is OK you can shoot a frame in 2 seconds. With nowadays cameras and using a good lens you get extremely detailed information in 48 bit. For me it takes about two minutes to devellop a RAW picture to a JPEG the way I described. Scanning older negatives take more time because of the restoration often needed for the many scratches etc. But overall I think there is little difference in the time it takes to digitize negatives. I understand why Nikon and others stopped making filmscanners. The transition to digital photography went extremely fast and nowadays cameras are very good usable for scanning. Only thing missing is dedicated software for reversing RAW color negatives to JPEG positives. What I tried to find out is how to use the Photoshop toolbox to do this manually.

Interesting site for scanning and scanner test reports: Nikon Coolscan 5 V ED LS-50: Test report, review, field report, experiences, resolution, image quality: film scanner, slides negatives

In reaction on titrisol: Slides indeed do wear out, for sure the older ones. Color negatives seem to last forever...

Old Nikon scan, shot on Kodak Gold 100 in 2004 with Pentax M100 F2.8

09-13-2019, 12:02 AM - 1 Like   #26
Pentaxian
fs999's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Luxembourg
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,485
Rawtherapee 5.7 has now a "Film Negative tool" in the Raw tab. -> RawPedia.
09-13-2019, 06:38 AM   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Utrecht
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 29
Original Poster
That realy is interesting. I think this is a very helpfull tool indeed. I found a demo on YouTube:


11-08-2019, 06:05 AM - 1 Like   #28
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
miguelfenoglio's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Madrid
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 159
QuoteOriginally posted by fs999 Quote
I'm sorry to say that, but I prefer the first shot, it looks like a real analogue photo.
The second one looks like a digital photo.
I too like the first example better. To me this is what my K1000, KX and LX usually output, although I have been shooting only B&W for a while now.

All that being said, it's the first time I come across DSLR scanning and I have to admit I will probably give it a go (just need to get my hands on a macro lens now). I think the looks of the 2nd example can easily be tweaked to look closer to the scan, if that's what you are after. Bottomline, it's a matter of personal preference and the important bit, at least for me, is to have a digital copy of your film.

Thanks for the article!
11-09-2019, 12:00 PM   #29
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Utrecht
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 29
Original Poster
Give it a try Miguel, in post with Photoshop you can do everything to get it to your personnal taste. Base is a good RAW extraction from your negative, optimal converting to JPEG / handling the orange mask. When that's done well you can do anything... Once you develloped skills for this you are going to like it. Results most are far better than it was in the analogue days with wet develloping.
12-04-2019, 01:50 PM   #30
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
miguelfenoglio's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Madrid
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 159
QuoteOriginally posted by Henrico Quote
Give it a try Miguel
D-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro WR is on it's way already. I studied graphic design and worked as a designed for a while so I know my way around photoshop relatively well.

I was wondering if anyone had any advice or suggestions on how to build the "hardware" part of the setup, to hold the light and negatives.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
color, coolscan, film, histogram, image, info, light, photography, photoshop, picture, scan
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-x AF "debug menu" calibration methodology question GibbyTheMole Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 03-01-2012 02:52 PM
Film Newbie - Q's about film choice, development and scanning Ryan Trevisol Pentax Film SLR Discussion 22 05-12-2011 07:44 AM
Best 120/220 film for scanning DigitalSlide Pentax Medium Format 21 07-14-2009 08:53 AM
Best B&W film for scanning? PeterAM Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 4 07-12-2009 03:02 PM
Some thoughts on lens reviews and methodology bsbxl Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 06-21-2009 05:48 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:42 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top