[6BQ5]

What I'm saying is that, perhaps the exposure was a choice. That could be a stylistic thing. A higher exposure could have caused more of the image to be blown out. Secondly, whether your information was correct, the original poster in the thread started this thread essentially asking for help and information. In that instance, it is not necessary to be negative towards his or her abilities.

I personally like the image as-is. It's dreamy and has a sense of escaping a harsh reality. I think if you added too much contrast or did some HDR type recording on this shot then the dreaminess would disappear. Awesome shot, I say!

I've come to appreciate the natural grain and texture of film. It makes images look a little less sterile to me. Some people pay money for digital effects that simulate film grain for this reason. Why not just shoot film, right?

I would selectively change the WB or tint to the washed out window in the background. Maybe warm it up a bit to match that beautiful flare in the bottom left corner. A gentle vignette in the upper half of the picture to help frame the lady in the shot. That's just my own personal taste.

[DSims]

It does seem you'd be better off scanning the negative yourself, however, rather than having someone print it for you first. They probably don't save your negative scans. Just because they ask for your negative doesn't mean they aren't scanning and printing digitally - you'd have to ask. Very few companies do it optically any more. They say digital is just as good, but it's not. The only advantage with digital is that you can make more extensive edits, and very quickly at that. Digitization of any kind of media incurs some loss of quality. Digital editing tries to mask that loss, largely by making changes that were difficult or impossible in the past. But by the time you finish scanning their digital print it's already been through 3 conversions to and from digital, with little or no editing to "make up" for it.

[montman]

I use Epson v500 and their original software (tried vuescan but I messed up even worst). See, of the 10 images I scan tonight (spend many time to adjust the tone in the scan setting), the only pic that I manage to get the color as close as the print is this one (others were just plain terrible! some like having a cast of blue, some like a cast of green), drove me crazy!



Uggh... I really need to get to sleep now. Thanks for hearing my rant!

I used to own a Frontier and now have a Noritsu. Depending on the film you almost always you have to adjust for cyan, there is usually to much, unless you are shooting indoors. What ever you scan with, some corrections will have to be made, well depending on your taste. The Pakon F135 Plus is a great scanner for 35mm, you only get 6mpx pictures but you can scan one roll at a time. I think they are about $250

[Silent Street]

I think I found out the single reason why people don't shoot film anymore:

**** Actually, people are returning to film from digital!

The scanning process is &^@$_#*(!

**** I can see another problem. Get the exposure right in the camera and the scanner will not have as much trouble with the task of correction. For that sample image, toggle auto exposure.

why in the world would someone design a scanner to difficult to use!!!

**** Because the user hasn't the necessary skill to use it?? Scanners of any type, size, shape and performance are easy, but you must have baseline skills to start with. Nobody drives a car without learning how to do it.

I really would pay someone to just teach me how to scan to get the correct colors!

**** "Correct colours" has got nothing to do with an incorrectly exposed photograph, if the one at the top of this thread is the actual photograph.

sorry for the rant! I can't seem to get the colors on screen to match the color in prints! uggh...

**** Profiling / colourimetrics! Another thing to learn.

[Nuff]

What I'm saying is that, perhaps the exposure was a choice. That could be a stylistic thing. A higher exposure could have caused more of the image to be blown out. Secondly, whether your information was correct, the original poster in the thread started this thread essentially asking for help and information. In that instance, it is not necessary to be negative towards his or her abilities.

---------- Post added 04-11-14 at 11:37 AM ----------



Thanks a million! I really appreciate these resources, and I will check them out. I'm not sure if my model has a focus adjustment, but I sure hope it does. It breaks my heart every time I scan film and it's not sharp, then I look through a loupe and it is sharp.

I'm not being negative. The OP posted that the photo isn't meeting his expectations. I said why he's not getting the results he's after, whether people like it or not. He's clearly after some kind of resutl and he's not getting it.

I think what the OP is after is the what a lot of Japanese photographers get out of Pro400 (not Pro400H). But no one will get the look they get by underexposing or even getting the exposure "correct", they get it by overexposing the film by 3-8 stops.

---------- Post added 04-13-14 at 11:00 PM ----------

**** Actually, people are returning to film from digital!


**** I can see another problem. Get the exposure right in the camera and the scanner will not have as much trouble with the task of correction. For that sample image, toggle auto exposure.


**** Because the user hasn't the necessary skill to use it?? Scanners of any type, size, shape and performance are easy, but you must have baseline skills to start with. Nobody drives a car without learning how to do it.


**** "Correct colours" has got nothing to do with an incorrectly exposed photograph, if the one at the top of this thread is the actual photograph.


**** Profiling / colourimetrics! Another thing to learn.

You should not talk like that, I have been called an ass above for saying that

[Swift1]

There isn't really such a thing as "correct color". Color photography is an interpretation of reality. One persons eyes see colors differently, just as different lenses and different films see colors differently.
If you are trying to get your scans to match the prints from the lab, you need to have the same interpreter (scanner). With color negative film, the scanner, software, film, exposure, scanner operator, monitor, and color profiling, all can have vastly different effects on the final outcome.
Once you throw out the idea of "correct color", the whole process becomes less frustrating.
That's not to say it isn't still very frustrating, especially with Ektar.

Here are a few very important factors to keep in mind.

All daylight films are color balanced for sunlight. That means the film will produce it's most accurate interpretation outdoors in daylight sunshine.

Exposure shift means color shift, to a certain extent. FWIW, can't really tell if a negative is over/under exposed from the lab print or a scan.

If you're not working with color profiles, you will never get consistent results.

If you are on a profiled system, in Epson Scan, if you are using the continuous auto exposure, the preview image is unprofiled. So, what you see will never be what you get.

[desertscape]

Hi LF-- I use a Plustek 120 with Silverfast. I don't scan negative film but have had good success with scanning slide film. Any scanning software takes time to master, especially Silverfast. If you spend much time with your current setup and it still does not deliver the results you expect, I suggest trying slide film for your scanning. Scanning is as complex as using a camera ( maybe a 4x5). Don't expect to master it in one month.

[revdocjim]

I find color slide film scanning somewhat complex but definitely doable. My v700 scanner gives me something close enough and I've created presets in LR for RVPF and RVP50 that get it pretty close to what I see on the light table.
But I too find color negatives much, much more difficult. I don't know if I've ever gotten results that I like. I've watched countless "how to" videos, read all sorts of threads, and asked for advice on multiple forums and I still find it so difficult. If anything Epson Scan gets it closer with their generic setting than anything I've been able to get with vuescan, even after lots of tweaking, setting the black point with the orange... etc., etc. For these reasons I've pretty much quick shooting color negative film in MF.
I have had very pleasing results scanning and processing monochrome negative film.

[gofour3]

Hi LF-- I use a Plustek 120 with Silverfast. I don't scan negative film but have had good success with scanning slide film. Any scanning software takes time to master, especially Silverfast. If you spend much time with your current setup and it still does not deliver the results you expect, I suggest trying slide film for your scanning. Scanning is as complex as using a camera ( maybe a 4x5). Don't expect to master it in one month.

Yeah I use Silverfast as well for my slides and it works fine. It came with a Kodachrome profile which was nice for my old 35mm slides and Silverfast also does a pretty good job of my b&w slides. I find scanning negatives is a pain compared to slides. With slides you can easily compare the scanned results to the original slide, which is pretty hard to do with a negative.
My scanner only does 35mm, so I have my Lab scan my 120 stuff at the time of processing. It costs around $10.00 with tax, for medium resolution scans of a 120 roll. I get 18mb TIF files on a CD that just need a bit of tweaking in Photoshop.

Phil.

[desertscape]

An observation about Silverfast/Plustek combination-- It seems to prefer Velvia 50 over Velvia 100. I'm betting that the Silverfast "Positive" mode was designed around Velvia 50. Velvia 100 is rendered as too violet and it is much work to bring it to reality. The fact that there is a Kodachrome setting says that each type of slide film needs a different software to render it correctly.

[Silent Street]

Velvia 100 is a difficult film from the start. It does have a heavy magenta channel designed to boost pale colours e.g. sunrise and sunset; it is favoured here in Australia by pano photographers; the colours they record of course are nowhere near what was actually there at the time, such being the capacity of the film to 'cook' colours. It is better rated at EI80 or EI64. Somewhat better results are obtained by drum scanning and inversion colourimetrics but it is still a difficult emulsion to scan well without it looking too garish — especially when it is printed. I predict it will be next on the film chopping block at Fujifilm while Velvia 50 marches on.

Epson's own software is perfectly alright for scanning anything, including transparencies. Anything else (especially Silverfast) adds layers of complexity and doubt that only complicates and frustrates beginners. Nothing is helped by scanning on an uncalibrated monitor. That is task No. 1 before anything else. Also remember that the scanner is only there to capture the image. After that, it goes to Lightroom or Photoshop or Elements where the serious business goes on (HSB, tone, USM, colourimetrics/profiling, sampling and print-matching etc.). The scanner is a means to an end, but absolutely not the end in itself.

[revdocjim]

My experience with Velvia 100F and Velvia 50 is similar to that of desertscape. Vuescan scans of Velvia 50 on my V700 are pretty accurate and need only a little tweaking. Velvia 100F scans come out far more red or purple than the actual slide and I have to cool things down a lot. I'm using the generic preset in Vuescan for both since trying to create film profiles in Vuescan is something I have yet to try. I do have a calibrated monitor and have created a scanner profile with an IT8 in Vuescan. But I agree that Mr. Hamrick really should have profiles for the major film types, considering that Vuescan is touted as the most flexible and powerful tool for scanning.

I have found the results for monochrome negative scanning in Vuescan to be far superior to that of Epson Scan.

[desertscape]

Silent Street and Revdocjim-- Without a doubt, scanning software needs to delineate the different film types being scanned and have software to reflect that. A separate icon is needed for Kodak E-6 film, Kodachrome, Velvia 100f, Velvia 100, Velvia 50, Provia 400X, Fuji negative film and Kodak negative film. Without these, there is too much compromise when scanning a slide/neg that does not fit the software profile provided. I'm glad that most of my work is on Velvia 50!

[Silent Street]

Well, a scanner's only task is to capture the image.A scanner also bears no relationship to the printer at the end of the job. Profiling (print/screen), dust removal, USM etc., etc is the job of the external software into which the scanned image is exported. A lot of scanning software is unnecessarily bloated and complex; many beginners become very frustrated and aggrieved with scanning (I see this very often!) through a mix of lack of experience and confronting unfamiliar territory in scan controls — I have stood there and watched as a Velvia 100F scan was turned bright red! These difficulties are understandable. The differences in results among films is par for the course when scanning; many professionals use plug-ins to handle profiling of individual films (e.g. IrfanView).

[DSims]

Well, a scanner's only task is to capture the image.A scanner also bears no relationship to the printer at the end of the job. Profiling (print/screen), dust removal, USM etc., etc is the job of the external software into which the scanned image is exported.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that scanner calibration is unimportant? Or is it something else?