Scan Results

[colin_d]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I went away with the cook for a week for a family wedding and to visit the wineries in the Hunter Valley region recently taking Ektar, Sensia 100 and FP4 film with me. I use a Plustek 7200 with Silverfast software to scan.

 

I have never had much success scanning negatives and I read that Ektar was a good option film for this purpose. My results this time are disappointing to say the least when scanned yet the negs look great. In particular the skin tones look peachy and no amount of adjusting can get a better result.

 

This leads me to believe that negatives are not as reliable to scan as transparencies but I am not qualified to make this assessment. Is there a body of thought around this?

[tobey bilek]

If it is in color balance other than the skin tones, then it is the film, not scanner. Amateur films are never optimised for flesh. Pro films are.

 

Buy a roll of Portra which does not have jacked up color and you will get pro scans. Use the vivid control above saturation in ACR and it will increase saturation in all colors but the flesh.

 

Ot just make a mask in photoshop.

 

Now if the overall color is off, it is the operator. Learn to color balance.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rob_x2004]

Forget the porta and go back to c41 100iso or low iso fuji consumer till you find your feet. A lot of people struggle with Ektar but the results will be hiding in there when you learn the ropes. Fuji is about as good as you can get for on the coast.

Ps ... Negative is far more forgiving in the scan process than transparencies, it does sound like you are struggling with the silverfast and post process.

Edited October 22, 2010 by rob_x2004

[noah_addis]

Many people say that transparency film scans better than negative film. But it's a complicated issue and if done right both can scan very well.

 

When you scan a negative you have no reference point as you do with a chrome, other than your memory of what the color looked like in the scene and your knowledge of color correction in general. With a chrome you can just look at the chrome and try to match that, at least as a starting point.

 

Color negative film also can be harder to scan due to grain aliasing. When scanning at high resolutions grain can become emphasized moreso than with a good, slow transparency film. Drum scanners allow you to match the aperture of the scanner to the film grain to produce a scan and print that looks very much like a wet print. But if you try to scan at high resolution with a ccd scanner sometimes the results aren't as good as you'd expect. This doesn't sound like the color issue you're asking about but I'm just mentioning it because it's a big reason that some say negative film isn't good for scanning.

 

These are the primary reasons that some labs will tell you that transparency film is better for scanning than negative film. The first issue is real, its hard for a lab tech to know what the color looked like in the original scene or for them to know how you want your negative interpreted. The second reason is not necessarily valid. Many commercial labs don't want to take the time to get things right, experiment with the proper scanning apertures, etc.

 

I've never used Ektar but it's supposed to be good for scanning. As a film with a high color saturation, I'm not sure if it's known for good skin tones. It's a curious choice for a wedding. Having said that I would imagine you could get close if you get your scanning and processing routine down.

 

Depending on the quality of your scanner and software, you may have more luck by doing less work in the scanning stage and more in Photoshop. Try scanning it a bit flat to make sure you're not clipping any detail then do more precise adjustments in photoshop.

 

It's very hard to judge skin tones when looking at a color negative. You might want to try to get a couple of wet prints done by a good lab to make sure it's not a characteristic of the film that's making the skin tones look bad. Though this too is subject to the interpretation of the lab technician.

 

I'd definitely give the Portra films a try. They have great skin tones and scan very well. The forthcoming Portra 400 (which will replace the 400NC and 400VC) is supposed to be even better.

 

It might be helpful for you to post a few samples so we can see what you're talking about.

[MPJMP]

I, too, had issues getting what in my opinion are realistic colors from Ektar. I eventually decided that it's just not my style and I don't use it anymore.

 

I am using Fuji Pro 160S and 400H for color negatives and find that they scan well and that the colors are realistic. I also tried some cheap Fuji Superia 200 a while back and the scanned results, while not quite as good as the pro stuff, are still pretty good.

 

The new Kodak Portra is supposed to be optimized for scanning and not optical enlargement like the old emulsions were. I will probably try some when I run out of Fuji.

 

My personal experience is that C41 negatives (including chromogenic black and white) scan much better than either transparencies or traditional B&W. I use a Nikon film scanner which has an LED light source. A flatbed scanner with brighter flourescent light source might do better with slides and B&W to bring out shadow detail.

 

For sheer convenience in sorting and previewing, though, nothing beats mounted slides.

[ndjambrose]

I like Ektar and find it scans well. No problems at all with colour fidelity. In fact it's one of my favourites, and I use it liberally in situations where accurate colour matters.

 

But, in common with all colour negatives, Ektar does need accurate colour correction after the scan is made. You need to apply a colour curve (graded for black point, white point and neutral) for accurate colour matching. After a lot of experimentation I've concluded this can only be done accurately after the scan is made, and not during the scan process and certainly not with the scanner software - there's just not sufficient control, especially if working from a lo-res preview.

 

I scan at full neutral. No adjustments made to brightness, no curves, no contrast, no clipping, no colour tweaks. The resulting scans look wrong to the naked eye, with a green cast and weird gamma. Although they look bad, all the colour information is in there and it's the best starting position for a correction curve.

 

A single levels adjustment fixes the gamma. Then I apply three curves - one each for black, white and grey. If the saturation is a bit intense I might tone it down with a small HSV adjustment. Final result is a colour perfect file.

 

If your working process isn't something similar to the above then that may have some influence on why you're getting bad results with Ektar.

[MPJMP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I scan at full neutral. No adjustments made to brightness, no curves, no contrast, no clipping, no colour tweaks. The resulting scans look wrong to the naked eye, with a green cast and weird gamma. Although they look bad, all the colour information is in there and it's the best starting position for a correction curve.

 

A single levels adjustment fixes the gamma. Then I apply three curves - one each for black, white and grey. If the saturation is a bit intense I might tone it down with a small HSV adjustment. Final result is a colour perfect file.

 

Neil,

 

I usually do an auto curves and auto LCH adjustment pre-scan, but am anxious to try your approach (neutral scan/adjust in post). Maybe it will prompt me to give Ektar another go.

 

-Mike

[andybarton]

Ektar also needs to be processed by someone who knows what they are doing. I have never had a good result from it and will never use it again.

[ndjambrose]

Andy, not sure if the processing needs a specific tolerance. I do my own and treat it no different to any other C-41 film. I don't make any special allowances for it - Ektar just goes in the pot with anything else I'm developing - and I wouldn't consider myself any kind of expert. AFAIK, C-41 is just plain vanilla C-41.

 

The tricky stuff comes with the scanning. Not many labs get Ektar right because, unless you're at a pro service, most of them tend to use a Noritsu on full-auto and the default settings are all calibrated for Fuji film stock.

Edited October 22, 2010 by ndjambrose

[ndjambrose]

Neil,

 

I usually do an auto curves and auto LCH adjustment pre-scan, but am anxious to try your approach (neutral scan/adjust in post). Maybe it will prompt me to give Ektar another go.

 

-Mike

 

FWIW, I use VueScan with everything set to neutral, and use adjustment layers in Photoshop for colour matching. If you decide to try it I'll be interested to see how you go.

[andybarton]

Andy, not sure if the processing needs a specific tolerance. I do my own and treat it no different to any other C-41 film. I don't make any special allowances for it - Ektar just goes in the pot with anything else I'm developing - and I wouldn't consider myself any kind of expert. AFAIK, C-41 is just plain vanilla C-41.

 

Interesting.

 

I used to have my C41 processed locally, before the shop closed down. They never had any trouble with the usual stuff, from Royal Supra to Portra, but the Ektar I tried was so contrasty and with such outrageous colours, it was just ridiculous. I couldn't get a half decent scan from the negatives at all.

 

Personally, I think it's an "Emporer's new clothes" film.

[ndjambrose]

Personally, I think it's an "Emporer's new clothes" film.

 

Fully respect your opinion - these things always come down to personal choice.

 

FWIW, this is a blog post from Jonathan Canlas, a US portrait photographer who works entirely on film. Not significant to this thread except as a good example of what Ektar is supposed to look like when scanned. It's definitely high contrast and saturated, but look at the beautiful skin tones.....

 

Jonathan Canlas Photography: FUJI GF670 - Family Reunion #2 - behind the scenes

[Stealth3kpl]

My own experience with Ektar 100 was fine. These were developed by a pro lab on a Noritsu and they don't look bad to me.

Picasa Web Albums - Peter - North East 07...

Picasa Web Albums - Peter - North East 07...

Picasa Web Albums - Peter - North East 07...

Picasa Web Albums - Peter - North East 07...

 

Pete

[noah_addis]

..

I scan at full neutral. No adjustments made to brightness, no curves, no contrast, no clipping, no colour tweaks. The resulting scans look wrong to the naked eye, with a green cast and weird gamma. Although they look bad, all the colour information is in there and it's the best starting position for a correction curve.

 

A single levels adjustment fixes the gamma. Then I apply three curves - one each for black, white and grey. If the saturation is a bit intense I might tone it down with a small HSV adjustment. Final result is a colour perfect file. ...

 

This is definitely good advice. When I was using the Viewscan/LS9000 combo it was the best way to get good results, and to ensure I had an archive scan with as much information as possible.

 

With the drum scanner the software and hardware are much more precise, so I do try to get a little closer to my final result during the intial scan, but I still leave things a bit flat just to be sure.

 

I don't use anything auto, ever.

[colin_d]

Thanks for the useful advice everyone. My inadequacies at mastering the system has contributed a lot to my results. After making some adjustments to the settiings I am getting better looking images, but they are far from perfect. In comparison to the shots posted by Pete and those on the Jonathan Canlas link they are way off the mark.

 

I'll try the full neutral approach and adjust post scanning as well.

 

But I do have to agree with you MPJMP, nothing beats getting out the projector, digitising images is really just a way of sharing them around.

[NZDavid]

I used Ektar for the first time recently and wasn't sure -- colors seemed very-saturated, a bit thin overall -- but now I quite like these images (example below). They were pro scans, which meant I couldn't tweak them so much. I think there are so many variables with scanning -- not just the film, but technique and the scanner itself make a huge difference. Here's just one site on scanning:

 

Scanning Basics 101 - All about digital images

 

Also, some very thorough scanner reviews here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM

 

It was worth trying Ektar, but I think I'll stick with E6 films like Fuji Astia 100F, Provia 100F, and Kodak E100G.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited October 23, 2010 by NZDavid

[iriscaddis]

Guys, this forum has been beneficial but I am looking for tutorials and training resources on scanning film.

 

When I scan (not very often) there are issues of color: from monitor to print; from color transparency (velvia 50), and sharpness. My images just don't look sharp whether in digital or print. I know I am doing something wrong and Nikon's site is not too good of a resource. And I am not a pro. I'm just a guy who loves his Leica's and on the fence if I should drop 9K on a M9 (or M8.2)!

 

Tools:

Nikon CoolScan V ED (v4.0.2 software)

Epson R1800 printer

Leica M6, MP, M7

Velvia, Kodchrome, etc.

[Lucklik]

Guys, this forum has been beneficial but I am looking for tutorials and training resources on scanning film.

 

Take a look at the links in the post of NZDavid

[colin_d]

Just to update on my progress with scanning neg film. I appear to have finally mastered the Silverfast software using the tips provided in this thread and looking at the links provided by NZDavid, all proved to be useful in way one or another. Now the results are much more pleasing and have restored my faith in the scanner.

 

Thanks

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tobey bilek]

I will repeat. Portra 160. It is made for flesh tones and scanning properties are optimised.

 

Photoshop will get you all the saturation & contrast you want. Remember it is easier to go up than down in contrast/saturation. Use the vivid setting to protect skin from going off when increasing contrast or just use a mask. It is right above saturation in ACR. Scanned TIFF can open in ACR starting in CS3.

 

I and many others feel it is best not to optimise the scan, but just get color correct and histogram correct. The rest is photoshop.

 

Portra 400 also scans like a dream.

 

Lower contrast films are much easier to scan. Fuji 160S, no longer avail, and Portra are the film I wish I had when I printer color in my darkroom.