Scanning - Leica + B&W Film + Plustek OptiFilm + VueScan

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not sure what to do about this.  Quite a few of my negatives seem to be reacting to the glassine negative holders in my albums, and it's almost as if the negatives are "melting".  They have this "oily" stuff on them that I need to clean off, and it attracts dust and dirt.  For negatives like that, I spend more time in "dust removal" than everything else added together.  I'm not sure if I should remove the negatives and wash them again (and if so, in plain water or ???).  It all seems to be on the back of the film, not on the emulsion.  Any ideas?

Here's the last scan for today, the engineer of the New York Central engine that I photographed.  He even "looks" like what I think engineers looked like back then.  I like that he's looking back at the station, where people were boarding the train, and NOT at me!  That might have made a nice portrait, but I was trying to capture what was going on, and not cause anything to be done differently because I was there.  I figured I should try my best to be invisible.  Besides, with my little black Leica, nobody paid any attention to me, which was great.  Had it been a more formidable camera, I'd probably have attracted much more attention.  My words for this back then were "candid photography".

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!

[MikeMyers]

Another photo from this series.  I walked around both sides of this train, but stopped to take a photo of the engine head-on.  I wanted everything balanced, and I was lucky that the father and his two kids were still standing there.  I see they are now staring at me, but the engine is also staring at me, so I think that's OK.

Seems to me that the most difficult part of scanning old negatives, is to remove any dust and debris that might be "stuck to" the negative.  With PL4 it's not difficult, just time consuming, but if it's an image I enjoy, so is this "polishing" of the image to look its best.

I wonder if I would still be allowed to take photos like these, or would I be arrested for "trespassing" onto railroad property?  Even if I could though, today's new engines look so "boring" by comparison to the past.

Note - I'm trying very hard to NOT go overboard on the image processing, once the image is scanned.  I'm now viewing images in the "I like film" thread, and so many of them don't look real to me.  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought adding   contrast, or making things darker stops when the histogram reaches the end.  Any more, and what might be important information in the image is lost, and besides, what I see on my computer screen no longer looks "real".  I would prefer that any images I post here look as close as possible to what I remember seeing.  I very much dislike it when areas in my image get "too dark" or "too light",  when I would rather see detail in those areas.  I'm not going to ask about it in the other thread, but I feel free to explain what I'm thinking in "my" thread.  

 

Oh, and about the Plustek and VueScan - I'm sure I could have done essentially the same things in my Epson V500 PHOTO, but it is *SO* much easier to do the same things with the Plustek.  As to VueScan, once you guys helped me get a good set of "settings" in VueScan, I haven't seen any need to change anything.  I doubt I'll need to do so until eventually I get around to color negatives and color slides.

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 September 3, 2021 by MikeMyers

[Doug A]

Hi Mike, I am a regular lurker on the I Like Film thread but I haven't posted anything there in a long time. One of the things I particularly like about it is seeing the different ways that others approach the medium. 

When I think about my early days commuting on the New York Central Harlem division the pictures in my head are gray and gritty. And your photos are among the best I have seen in capturing that feeling. But I expect that may be not because that is a look you are after but because you are carefully avoiding blowing out the whitest part of the image, the locomotive headlights. If I was printing your head-on shot of locomotive 4020 I would bring the snow on the ground up to a realistic white and let the bright circles in the headlight fend for themselves. A little flare might actually be more realistic but, if not, it would be easy to burn them down a bit in post. 

[MikeMyers]

Hello, and thank you!  To reply, I'm not really trying to capture a "feeling".  I figure I did that when the camera was in my hands.  As you suggest, I am making sure I don't "blow out" the whitest whites, nor the darkest blacks.  The finished result reminds me of what I saw with my eyes, and most importantly, how I "felt".  

Whatever was the "brightest" in the image, in this case, the headlights, that will be the brightest part of my final image.  

BUT, having read what you wrote, I agree.  PhotoLab4 provides "control points", which allow me to selectively adjust many things in the photo, and since snow ought to be whiter than what I showed in my image, used control points to correct this.  What do you think of this version?

I think it's still "real", maybe even more so, as when I looked down at the snow, it would be white, as you point out.

I could make it even "whiter", but that would be for freshly fallen snow, not dirty snow that's from hours ago.  If you prefer, I can easily make it even brighter.

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 September 3, 2021 by MikeMyers

[MikeMyers]

47 minutes ago, Doug A said:

One of the things I particularly like about it is seeing the different ways that others approach the medium. 

For anything in this thread, please don't "lurk".  Any thoughts you have, good or bad, are welcome.  I learn so much more by seeing things through other people's eyes, and often, like with your post, you mention something I was unaware of, maybe because I was concentrating on other things.  I'm much happier when people give me useful advice, than when they say they liked something (without saying WHY they liked it).  As for me, I stopped doing that myself long ago, as so many people don't want advice as they think they're already perfect.  Ain't no way I'm going to feel like that - constructive feedback is one of the best ways (for me) to improve.

Edited September 3, 2021 by MikeMyers
I wrote "don't", but my computer changed it to "don'g"

[Doug A]

23 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Hello, and thank you!  To reply, I'm not really trying to capture a "feeling".  I figure I did that when the camera was in my hands.  As you suggest, I am making sure I don't "blow out" the whitest whites, nor the darkest blacks.  The finished result reminds me of what I saw with my eyes, and most importantly, how I "felt".  

Whatever was the "brightest" in the image, in this case, the headlights, that will be the brightest part of my final image.  

BUT, having read what you wrote, I agree.  PhotoLab4 provides "control points", which allow me to selectively adjust many things in the photo, and since snow ought to be whiter than what I showed in my image, used control points to correct this.  What do you think of this version?

I think it's still "real", maybe even more so, as when I looked down at the snow, it would be white, as you point out.

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!

It's a bit of a slippery slope, isn't it? The snow in the lower right of the image now looks more like snow, but that in the lower left corner less so, and that in the rest of the image not much at all. I occasionally played with the control points in Silver Efex Pro when editing my wife's digital photos (she wants to see grain like in my film images but won't shoot film). I found that once I made a local change in one place something nearby now looked "wrong." I got some good advice on another forum about adding a grain effect using my regular application Affinity Photo and haven't used SEP in a long time. 

Edited September 3, 2021 by Doug A

[Doug A]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

For anything in this thread, please don'g "lurk".  Any thoughts you have, good or bad, are welcome.  I learn so much more by seeing things through other people's eyes, and often, like with your post, you mention something I was unaware of, maybe because I was concentrating on other things.  I'm much happier when people give me useful advice, than when they say they liked something (without saying WHY they liked it).  As for me, I stopped doing that myself long ago, as so many people don't want advice as they think they're already perfect.  Ain't no way I'm going to feel like that - constructive feedback is one of the best ways (for me) to improve.

No worries there. I have found the regulars on the Film Forum and Darkroom Forum to be very accepting of differing views. In contrast (pun intended) some participants on the other thread can be a little prickly.

[MikeMyers]

20 minutes ago, Doug A said:

The snow in the lower right of the image now looks more like snow, but that in the lower left corner less so,

Yep, but the snow at the right is mostly pure snow, and at the left there is all the dirt and stuff coming off the platform which apparently has been salted or more likely sanded.  I agree with what you see, but I think that's because of the "purity" (or lack of) in the snow.  

[MikeMyers]

I think I have a small problem - check the size of this file:

I suspect I ought to change from 7200 dpi to 3600 dpi.

I'll try that on a different negative in the same series, and see if 3600 is still acceptable.  

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!

[MikeMyers]

Scanned at 3600 dpi:

I think I'll try editing this, and if I can't notice any difference, from now on I'll use 3600.  The file size is much more reasonable.

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!

[MikeMyers]

Last entry for a while, just to see how things look after starting with 3600dpi scan.  My eyes can't see any loss of resolution.

Using PL4's "control points" I not only made the snow lighter, but I found I could bring out the details underneath the engine. 

Changes from when I started on these images include changing the PL4 "preset" to Black & White, along with using "control points" for local corrections to the image.  

Gee, I wonder how this might compare to what I could do with a Leica Monochrom camera?  One thing is for sure, I didn't have the skill to accomplish this in my old darkroom.  Other than the grain, I'm not sure how using film helped me get a better Black & White image than I could get from my M10.

With Ansel Adams' special enlarger (on railroad tracks) with the multitude of lights behind the negative that Ansel could switch on/off at will, he could accomplish much of what I did in PhotoLab, but with a 35mm negative in my old Simon Omega enlarger, I never had the skill to do this, even if I had all the tools.  I will post a reduced size scanned image below, no corrections, straight from the Plustek.

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!

[Steve Ricoh]

16 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Not sure what to do about this.  Quite a few of my negatives seem to be reacting to the glassine negative holders in my albums, and it's almost as if the negatives are "melting".  They have this "oily" stuff on them that I need to clean off, and it attracts dust and dirt.  For negatives like that, I spend more time in "dust removal" than everything else added together.  I'm not sure if I should remove the negatives and wash them again (and if so, in plain water or ???).  It all seems to be on the back of the film, not on the emulsion.  Any ideas?

Here's the last scan for today, the engineer of the New York Central engine that I photographed.  He even "looks" like what I think engineers looked like back then.  I like that he's looking back at the station, where people were boarding the train, and NOT at me!  That might have made a nice portrait, but I was trying to capture what was going on, and not cause anything to be done differently because I was there.  I figured I should try my best to be invisible.  Besides, with my little black Leica, nobody paid any attention to me, which was great.  Had it been a more formidable camera, I'd probably have attracted much more attention.  My words for this back then were "candid photography".

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!

Serendipity can be artistic, have a quick look at these by Robert Farber.

http://farber.com/collections/wet-series.php

[250swb]

Mike, you've posted some brilliant images, but I feel you may be letting the images down a bit with a lack of post processing. They are remarkably free from grain and digital noise and can take a lot more contrast done in Lightroom or Photoshop. To my eye the train driver (is it Casey Jones? 😉) craves a more graphic style.

[MikeMyers]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

To my eye the train driver (is it Casey Jones? 😉) craves a more graphic style.

Hmm, you're certainly right about a lack of post processing.  All I did (other than repair and cropping) was to adjust the histogram to fill the histogram window.  With PL4 I can select parts of the image to adjust, the way I brightened up the snow in the earlier image.  So, I selected Casey ( 😐 ) and added a little more contrast only for him.  I didn't go too far - hopefully nobody who sees the new image (below) will realize what I did - but I enjoy the photo more with your suggestion.  I very much do NOT want the photo to look like it was obviously manipulated, but your suggestion with just a little enhancement, doesn't spoil what I was after, and actually improves it, as Casey is what the whole image is about.  Your thoughts?

Because my room is lit way too much by daylight, I had to review this on my iMac screen, which is excessively bright.  My calibrated Asus screen sometimes looks way too dark until after sunset.  According to my histogram, I didn't over-do this - I can add even more. contrast, but I think it will then be obvious that the image was manipulated......

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!

[MikeMyers]

I thought I was done with my railroad negatives for a while, but then I found this one.  I don't know if regular people will consider it anything special, but for anyone interested in railroading, it's a wonderful capture of what used to be.  It's the same engine as before, so I suspect I took it in Ann Arbor, Michigan, but I'll have to check with a friend of mine who knows all about these things.  Near the top of the photo is something I never realized I captured - those hanging wires are supposed to tell train people that an area of low overhead clearance was approaching.  Back then, trainmen needed to get up on the roofs of the cars to do something with the brakes.  Lionel sold one of these, which is how I (think I) know what it is.

Another bonus of scanning and editing is that back then, unless one had a view camera, when you aim a camera upwards, the perspective looks strange.  In my original image the station building was leaning one way, and the pole at the right was leaning the other way.  Long ago, I had to prop up my enlarging paper to compensate for this, so verticals remained vertical, but in editing software, if it's smart, this is an easy fix.  PL4 makes it effortless.

I added a little more contrast than I used to.  The suggestion for Casey seemed to work on this image.

I have no recollection of taking this picture.  I suspect it was within walking distance of the passenger station, and with a highway bridge close to the station, that might explain the presence of the overhead warning wires.

I guess I need to walk around with my D10 set for black & white, and compare those images with my old film images.  Maybe it's the grain - I'm not sure - but there is something about these scanned film images that I really enjoy.

(And to be honest, I am starting to really miss the 1960's, when I had so many fascinating places close to my home to capture interesting photos.  Next time I visit India, I might leave my digital gear mostly at home, and just take my M3.  I can buy and develop film once I'm there, so I don't need to worry about airport scanning ruining my film.)

I added another version of this, lightening up the end of the boxcar and the lower parts of the engine and cars that is too dark to see all the details.  Maybe this is cheating.....    ??

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 September 4, 2021 by MikeMyers

[MikeMyers]

This photo was in bright sunlight, which gave me a lot more contrast to work with.  

I am pretty sure it was still with my M2 and 50 Summicron.  

Gee, sure would have been nice to have analog exif data recorded!   🤔

 

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 September 4, 2021 by MikeMyers

[MikeMyers]

For various reasons, such as I am more familiar with it, I decided to use VueScan instead of Silverfast for scanning software.  I noticed the box that came with my Plustek included a DVD for SilverFast version 8, but I was reading there is now a version 9.  I did some checking, and found this:

https://blog.plustek.com/2021/02/24/silverfast-9-upgrade-for-plustek-opticfilm-scanners/

"If you purchase any new Plustek OpticFilm 8100 / 8200i SE / 8200i Ai scanner on or after October 10th, 2020, you can stay with the SilverFast 8 included in the package, or upgrade to SilverFast 9 without additional cost within two months after your scanner purchase. If you choose to upgrade, please follow the steps below.  NOTE: Please have your purchase proof (invoice or receipt) at hand. You will be prompted to upload your purchase invoice/receipt during the process."

While I have no plans yet to use Silverfast, I guess I better do this now, instead of forgetting about it until it's too late.  I wish B&H had said something about this on their online store.  I'll call them about it tomorrow, and suggest they notify customers who already bought, or who are about to buy, the new Plustek.  Maybe this is already posted in the forum some place.  If not, it should be.

 

[frame-it]

26 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

For various reasons, such as I am more familiar with it, I decided to use VueScan instead of Silverfast for scanning software.  I noticed the box that came with my Plustek included a DVD for SilverFast version 8, but I was reading there is now a version 9.  I did some checking, and found this:

https://blog.plustek.com/2021/02/24/silverfast-9-upgrade-for-plustek-opticfilm-scanners/

"If you purchase any new Plustek OpticFilm 8100 / 8200i SE / 8200i Ai scanner on or after October 10th, 2020, you can stay with the SilverFast 8 included in the package, or upgrade to SilverFast 9 without additional cost within two months after your scanner purchase. If you choose to upgrade, please follow the steps below.  NOTE: Please have your purchase proof (invoice or receipt) at hand. You will be prompted to upload your purchase invoice/receipt during the process."

While I have no plans yet to use Silverfast, I guess I better do this now, instead of forgetting about it until it's too late.  I wish B&H had said something about this on their online store.  I'll call them about it tomorrow, and suggest they notify customers who already bought, or who are about to buy, the new Plustek.  Maybe this is already posted in the forum some place.  If not, it should be.

 

yes its better to install it and get the free upgrade, they can be very fussy about licensing at a later date..and after installing it whether you use it or not is upto you but at least it's available

[250swb]

9 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

I very much do NOT want the photo to look like it was obviously manipulated, but your suggestion with just a little enhancement, doesn't spoil what I was after, and actually improves it, as Casey is what the whole image is about.  Your thoughts?

 

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!

As far as manipulation goes just treat the image as it if it was a traditional darkroom print, where you'd have a choice of chemicals and six grades of paper available to manipulate the contrast, plus all the dodging and burning that a great photograph would have applied to it (haven't you already posted a photo of James Dean with the printers notes, does the end result look manipulated?). For Casey I think you need to accentuate the highlights a lot more. Here is another example of how news and fine art photos are manipulated in the darkroom, no negative is perfect and the art is to see what type of treatment tells the story of the photograph in the best way.....the dodging and burning notes for Don McCullin's 'Shell Shocked Marine'

Edited September 4, 2021 by 250swb

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ianman]

13 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

According to my histogram, I didn't over-do this - I can add even more. contrast, but I think it will then be obvious that the image was manipulated......

I don't like too much contrast either. But IMO it doesn't need more contrast because that would ruin the overall atmosphere. I would just boost the mid mid/high tones slightly.