[pathdoc]

All it means is that I won't touch Photoshop with a bargepole because I am ethically uncomfortable with the degree to which it can manipulate images. I take photographs to record what happened, not to produce what I want others to see.

Everyone else can do as they please.

All this means in practice is that you are relinquishing control over crucial aspects of the correction process to algorithms pre-cooked into the 'black box' that is your "simpler" program.

No. What I don't want is a program that can put things into an image which weren't there to start with. I want to be able to make corrections (colour, brightness, contrast, shadows, highlights, exposure etc), but I do not want the ability to cleanly make additions or subtractions within the image. Border crop only, no layers, no cloning tools. I feel nervous enough cropping the edges as it is - it feels like tampering with evidence. This is why almost all the crop shots you see from me have their originals in Flickr, and in ALL cases I have the original JPEG from which I cropped; I don't throw anything out unless it's either a complete blur, pitch black or blown out to hell.

[dsmithhfx]

I take photographs to record what happened

But this is not what photography does at all.

[bobbotron]

All it means is that I won't touch Photoshop with a bargepole because I am ethically uncomfortable with the degree to which it can manipulate images. I take photographs to record what happened, not to produce what I want others to see.

Everyone else can do as they please.



No. What I don't want is a program that can put things into an image which weren't there to start with. I want to be able to make corrections (colour, brightness, contrast, shadows, highlights, exposure etc), but I do not want the ability to cleanly make additions or subtractions within the image. Border crop only, no layers, no cloning tools. I feel nervous enough cropping the edges as it is - it feels like tampering with evidence. This is why almost all the crop shots you see from me have their originals in Flickr, and in ALL cases I have the original JPEG from which I cropped; I don't throw anything out unless it's either a complete blur, pitch black or blown out to hell.

I usually use Rawtherapee to adjust levels of my negative scans. It's good stuff. The only photoshoping I've ever done to them is dust removal, when some stray hair is ruining another wise wonderful scan. :-P

Anyway, your photos look good. You should try level correcting that macro shot, it's neat.

[dsmithhfx]

my fellow Canadian

Apropos of nothing -- glad to see you are on 'our' side! Niagara Ca. is a fantastic place in which to photograph, hope to make it back soon.

I also happen to agree with your very sensible comment.

[pathdoc]

I usually use Rawtherapee to adjust levels of my negative scans. It's good stuff.

Does it do a negative-to-positive B&W invert? Then all I'd have to do in-camera is use the monochrome WB.

I've got Raw Therapee on my other laptop, now that I think about it. Will reshoot that frame in raw and give it a shot.

[bobbotron]

Does it do a negative-to-positive B&W invert? Then all I'd have to do in-camera is use the monochrome WB.

I've got Raw Therapee on my other laptop, now that I think about it. Will reshoot that frame in raw and give it a shot.

It does. I'm at work now so can't elaborate, but I can document my workflow tonight if you'd like.

[pathdoc]

I can document my workflow tonight if you'd like.

A summary would be good; PM me. Thanks.

[bobbotron]

A summary would be good; PM me. Thanks.

I'll post it here, I'm on lunch now. :-) I'm curious to get feed back from other people.

My rough workflow is:

1. Open PEF/DNG file in rawtherapee
2. Straighten negative and crop to fit negative (I don't get full slide coverage in my process)
3. Flip/rotate as necessary
4. Go to colour tab, click black and white
5. Go to main tab, exposure section - everything from here on is just my recommendations, not best practices by any means!
6. Click Neutral button -
7. Select tone curve 1 -> custom, this will bring you to a levels display
8. Invert that curve, this will turn the negative positive, I can explain in more details if this doesn't make sense
9. Play with curves, exposure settings to taste. I used to play with the exposure settings more but many sliders work backwards because you've inverted the curve. I think selecting neutral and then playing with the curves to adjust contrast, lightness, etc is better, but may be incorrect! I would love to get feedback on this section.

---------- Post added 03-21-16 at 12:26 PM ----------

I took a screenshare of it too, as I want to get some experience making them. Sorry for the low res, you should be able to see what I'm talking about, this might clear up some ambiguities with the steps above.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

---------- Post added 03-21-16 at 12:48 PM ----------

Does it do a negative-to-positive B&W invert? Then all I'd have to do in-camera is use the monochrome WB.

I've got Raw Therapee on my other laptop, now that I think about it. Will reshoot that frame in raw and give it a shot.

Btw, rawtherapee will ignore the in camera monochrome, raw really is raw.

[pathdoc]

Sorry for the low res, you should be able to see what I'm talking about, this might clear up some ambiguities with the steps above.

That all makes good sense. Obviously the trick will be getting that curve modification just right, but it's better than wasting sheet after sheet of photo paper trying to do it! And as for the frame coverage, I'd rather be cropping than failing to get it all in. I think I know what to do about the latter, BTW - I've got an old rubber folding hood attachment that the rubber long since came away from, plus a 49-52 and 52-49mm stepping ring; all of that together should buy me a bit more standoff distance with the slide copier alone, without me having to play around with the bellows part. And there may be another solution, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

[bobbotron]

That all makes good sense. Obviously the trick will be getting that curve modification just right, but it's better than wasting sheet after sheet of photo paper trying to do it! And as for the frame coverage, I'd rather be cropping than failing to get it all in. I think I know what to do about the latter, BTW - I've got an old rubber folding hood attachment that the rubber long since came away from, plus a 49-52 and 52-49mm stepping ring; all of that together should buy me a bit more standoff distance with the slide copier alone, without me having to play around with the bellows part. And there may be another solution, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Getting the curve right, and all the these steps is an artistic judgement to my eyes. I would like to get the most out of my negs but also modify their levels quite a bit based on contrast requirements. It can be a really fun process.

Cheers!

[pathdoc]

You should try level correcting that macro shot, it's neat.

First stumbling effort:



Original for comparison.



There is IMO a definite improvement. I need to study - carefully - how the sharpness tool works and why. But for now everything seems to have a far more natural and less way-blown-out look. Practice makes perfect.

[Jonathan Mac]

First stumbling effort:



Original for comparison.



There is IMO a definite improvement. I need to study - carefully - how the sharpness tool works and why. But for now everything seems to have a far more natural and less way-blown-out look. Practice makes perfect.

I agree that's better but still lacking contrast.

I don't use any extra sharpening on my DSLR "scanned" negatives as I find it unnecessary. Regarding the tones, what I'd recommend is opening a tool that allows you to adjust highlights, mid-tones and shadow independently (this is like a more refined version of a contrast slider). Adjust the highlights to get them as light as they should be, adjust the shadow to get them as dark as you feel they should be, then adjust the mid-tones to get a good balance across the whole image.

[edmundrt]

A bit late, but re: Delta 3200, I've found that careful exposure is key for making really good negatives. I use modern, multi-segment metering cameras for it, mostly my Z-1p. I also send it off to a lab to have it processed, since I use Rodinal - I knew it would result in a grainfest, and didn't want to invest in a new developer just for one film.

Anyway, here are a couple from the Z-1p, with DA35 (I think)

[jcdoss]

First stumbling steps. Feel free to criticise.....

It's pretty exciting the first time you develop a film and find actual images on the finished product, isn't it? I only started in the past year myself, and it's still satisfying to see *something* each time I run a process.

Don't ask for criticism yet... this is a personal process. You're on the left side of the learning curve, therefore the early stages of your ascent is something you should do in your own way.

[pathdoc]

It's pretty exciting the first time you develop a film and find actual images on the finished product, isn't it?

LOL yep.

Don't ask for criticism yet... this is a personal process.

So far I've scored a very useful observation (from Jonathan Mac) and a good leg-up at getting into raw processing (from bobbotron, though my hard drive is nearly full as it is and me shooting raw is going to have it screaming in terror), so I reckon it was more than worthwhile. Right now I'm just tearing my hair out waiting for more B&W film to arrive! Looking at it not quite seriously, I reckon if I underexpose by one stop and develop/scan as I did before, the SOOC JPEGs will look just right.