scanning chromes v. negatives

[Dan Ryan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Experimented over the weekend scanning some Kodachromes - using Epson scan - all features turned off except dust reduction - set scan for an A4 print, to print at 300dpi

 

Post processing in View NX2. Getting the colours right and properly saturated was easy, much easier than with colour negative scans handled exactly the same way.

 

The sharpening process also seemed to produce a much better result from the chromes than in the case of negatives.

 

The results from the chromes - in terms of sharpness, but not that over-sharpened look - were so much better than anything I have achieved with b&w negative scans. To the point where I am thinking of switching to slides and just doing b&w conversions in post.

 

Anyone else had the same experience? Any comments on why I am finding this? Perhaps the Epson scanners have focus kick in at just the right place when the machine senses that a slide is there to be scanned? Is it unique to Kodachrome?

 

thanks

 

Dan

[Advertisement]

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

[Mikael Siirilä]

You don't get the lovely grain and tones of b/w film if you convert them from color images.

 

I enjoy Tri-X 400 because of the special look that the emulsion gives. If I just want black and white images I might just as well use digital.

 

Metro | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[tgray]

Well a couple things. Slides typically have finer grain than negative films (and certainly B&W film). Also, you have a reference that is easy to check in the form of the original slide while you are doing your color correction. Those two things make it 'easier' to deal with.

 

Sometimes you have to make larger corrections on a color neg scan to get a particular result, and it seems to me that some people are afraid of doing that. The nice thing about color neg is that there is a lot of flexibility to adjust things, so it's usually up to big corrections when they are performed.

 

All in all, I've been getting pretty good scans out of my Kodachrome slides recently, especially after I ordered a target and profiled my scanner. It was a great film with nice colors, fine grain, and a classic look. It's a shame it's gone. I do have to jump through some hoops with multi exposure to dig into the shadows though. On the flip side, the newer color neg like Ektar and Portra 400 (or even 400NC/400VC) has been giving me some great results too. A bit grainier with the 400 speed film obviously, but tones of dynamic range and great skin tones.

[adan]

Point by point, in reverse order:

 

No, the focus does not "kick in" in some way because a scanner "senses" a chrome. In fact, Epson flatbed scanners don't focus at all. They are prefocused at a point just above the glass surface that is deemed a good compromise for paper documents and also for film in slide mounts or the provided film carriers.

 

It is possible that your slides just happen to fall a bit closer to the pre-focused setting than negs in a negative carrier (due to the difference in thickness between a cardboard slide mount and the plastic carriers).

 

But more likely is simply the fact that Kodachrome in particular was an extremely sharp film. Chromogenic films (E6 slides and C-41 negs) have generally thicker emulsions, because they carry a load of extra molecules (color couplers) built in from the factory.

 

In the Kodachrome process, the film was essentially a 3-layer B&W film from the factory, with the color couplers added during processing. The thinner emulsion(s) mean less diffusion of the image by the "Jello" coating, both at the time of exposure, and in reproducing the image (scanning or traditional enlarging).

 

(Recent chromogenic films do better, a combination of thinner coatings, and what amounts to chemical unsharp masking (edge effects) during development (notably Velvia). And, of course, ISO is a factor. Kodachromes of ISO 25-64 will always have an advantage over ISO 100 films of any type).

 

ISO also plays a role in grain, and grain limits the amount of sharpening one can add (unless one likes one's loved ones' faces reproduced as a bowl of oatmeal ) Scan some ISO 400 chromes, and you'll find out that they are closer to ISO 400 negs than to Kodachrome 64.

 

As tgray and I debated on a different thread, the orange mask and tone reversal of color negs is not perfectly handled by most scanner software.

 

Yes, it can be corrected manually. And the newer films touted as designed for scanning do seem to produce more neutral scans right off the film. But it is a more straight-forward task for the software to make white "white" than to make orange "black".

 

But tgray and Mscore are right in that what slide film gains in resolution and color fidelity it loses in tonal range.

 

Similar experience? - yes.

 

In my early scanning days 15 years ago, I did like the way low-ISO chromes/positives scanned as B&W.

 

I dreamed of a reversal (E-6 chrome) B&W film. Even bearded a Kodak rep at a conference about the possibility. He said the problem was that small processing inconsistencies between labs would be much more obvious with monochrome images, and that while they might be good for scanning, people would be disconcerted by slide shows where the images had varying brown, cyan or blue tints - even extremely subtle ones. (The variations are there in color chromes, but overwhelmed and hidden by the color imagery itself, unless one exclusively shoots gray walls).

 

I even tried cross-processing Ilford XP2 in E6 chemistry - not a huge success.

 

For a while there was Agfa Scala, but the mail-order processing took too long. Eventually I just shot Ilford Pan F (ISO 50) for that "almost a slide" look in B&W.

 

(EDIT): Note that there is also the dr5 lab, which will process almost any silver B&W film as reversal positives. http://www.dr5.com/

[Dan Ryan]

I really appreciate all this detailed advice, and I am mulling it over. So much has been explained so clearly. Thank you.

 

I am about to try a roll of the new Portra 400 and I'll see how it compares.

 

In the old days - when I had a darkroom - I used some Pan F. Now that you have mentioned it Andy I recall that the results were slide-like, particularly on my contact proof sheets. Still have some Pan F negatives from those days so I'll experiment with them too.

 

How do you order a target and profile your scanner?

 

Dan

[andybarton]

The closest I have got to a "b&w slide-look" negative is with Rollei ATP. To all intents and purposes, it's grainless. But it needs special developer (a small bottle comes with every roll - it's not dangerous, just special) and it's only ISO 25

[jpattison]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How do you order a target and profile your scanner?

 

Dan

 

IT8 Targets for Color Calibration :: LaserSoft Imaging

 

John

[Stealth3kpl]

How do you order a target and profile your scanner?

 

Dan

 

I got mine here for about £15. Follow Vuescan help docs to implement it. I'm not sure I did it right but I don't really use slides at the moment.

Pete

[tgray]

I got my Kodachrome target from Lasersoft and my Ektachrome target from Wolf Faust. I made the profile using ArgyllCMS. It gave me much better results than the one I generated with Vuescan.

 

If you are happy with your results without profiling, it might not be worth the effort to profile.

[tobey bilek]

I have scanned a few chromes, and they come out looking just like chromes, to much contrast. They do match the original perfectly in all respects. I suppose you could double scan and make HDR from them, this works by the way, or make a contrast mask and register it, but that is a royal pain too.

 

Newer color neg such the current new version of Kodak 160 Portra is made for scanning. Has finer grain and less contrast and is much sharper than old neg films. That neg films are soft was true 20/30 years back. it is no longer true. Some things just will not go away. There are others like tele lenses compress the image and surge marks form on developing film from too much agitation. But that is another issue. Presoaking film a fourth.

 

Take a picture of a MacBeth Color checker or find a target with detailed blacks and detailed whites and memory colors like flesh

and blue sky and spring green grass, perhaps a USA flag.

 

Scan it in PROSESIONAL MODE and adjust the color balance and density to match the original scene. Then save those settings at the top by putting a new title at the top where it says current setting, call it Portra 160. Next time you scan Portra, get the settings from the drop down menue at the top called Portra.

Do not reinvent the wheel every time. Your film will come out with the correct color balance and density providing you exposed it properly and used it in studio or sun like the film was made for or you filtered it for tungsten light, fluorescent, or shade or overcast.

Now you see why digi is nice! All built in and raw can be rebalanced later, JPEG not so much but a little. There is even an auto setting that works half way.

You will need a new preset if you abuse color film like that. Any color, slide or neg.

 

STAY AWAY FROM THE EASY SCAN OR HOME SCAN MODE OR AUTO ANYTHING.

 

Do the three step sharpening in photoshop plus curves, dodge, & burn. DO NOT SHARPEN IN SCANNER SOFTWARE.

 

Real World Sharpening, Frazer & Schewe, $35 @ Amazon.

 

I get results that easily equal what I get with my Nikon D3, but your scanner will limit you a bit. Flat beds are not the best plus you are scanning thru a glass that does you no good at all.

 

Enjoy your leica.