It's amazing how many alleged film issues are really scan related or somewhere else in the digital workflow. The short story is, that the smaller the sample, the better the scan you need. This is because a small sample size (typically 35mm film using something less than a drum scan) will not
accurately reproduce nuances in film curve shape one dye layer relative to another. Add this to the
kinds of problems I noted earlier regarding improper exposure in the first place, and you're not going
to get ideal results, to put it mildly. Yeah, someone might be able to dither and paint and who knows
what else for days on end in Fauxtoshop, but it's a helluva lot easier to do things right in the first place. And why bother if it's just for the stupid hokey web anyway?
As hinted above, there a couple of surefire tests for whether a film is behaving properly: 1 - Can you make a good analog print (with an enlarger) of the negative? 2 - If you must scan, when using a reliable, calibrated scanner, can you correct any color shift using the controls provided in popular software like Photoshop? If the answer is no to either of these, you really need to find an answer. Since the major manufacturers (Kodak and Fuji) are very fussy about quality control, the problem almost certainly lies in either exposure, processing, or storage.
Scanners have improved quite a bit since 1980, I've had one since 1985 (replaced in 2005), and they have improved quite a bit, even for that one. What we forget is that no two films have the same colour response and the orange mask is not always the same either. Almost all scanner software does some processing of the image, this is often the problem, it makes assumptions about the film image in order to process it.
Originally Posted by hrst
What I think would make the ultimate film scanner is to remove the assumptions, instead they include a special target, you shoot that target at the beginning of the roll, later on, you put that target image into the scanner, hit a button labelled setup, this then scans the image and sets the scanner up based on the differences between the scanned target and an internal digital copy of the target. That would remove the assumptions. I had an enlarger for many years, the problem is I didn't have a place to set it up, so I finally donated it to a school that teaches photography....
See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com
The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....
Here are some Ektar shots, some without adjustment and some with adjustments, and one converted to B&W, see which of those you prefer the most? Forget about calibration and accuracy or whatever, just if someone newbie like me don't know about calibration and profiling and just doing simple adjustments.
All taken on one roll, same day, same lighting condition, between shadows and open space, so how the exposure affect the color or that doesn't matter at all.
You can "remove the assumptions" with any scanner if you use VueScan or SilverFast. With these two programs you can scan and save a "raw", i.e. a file which contains no "assumptions" but the actual result of the scanning. You can also have the "raw" file to include some basic corrections (dust, black point, white point, and have a profile attached to the raw file).
Originally Posted by wogster
The nice of these scans is that you save the raw and then you can "develop" the raw with different settings without having to repeat the scan each time. I save my raw scans so that, years from now, I can work again on a picture, maybe with different programs, without having to scan it again.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Scanning discussion is simply off topic for APUG outside of whatever minimal discussion is necessary to explain how to post in the APUG galleries. Someone interested in printing optically shouldn't have to wade through all the scanning talk to find the few posts here on printing color neg with RA-4.
Please continue the scanning conversation at: