73 megapixel scan of a 6x9 negative (Portra 800)

[runswithsizzers]

I keep looking at the version by @brbo (post #14), and thinking his looks more subtle and "filmic" and my version (post #24) looks a little too garish. So I started over in Negative Lab Pro, and I rediscovered a setting I had forgotton about. Basically, it's a preset called "Kodak Portra" -- and with a very few minor tweaks to those settings, I got this...

... still needs some warming up on that right side, but otherwise, I'm done.

 

[cerber0s]

I keep looking at the version by @brbo (post #14), and thinking his looks more subtle and "filmic" and my version (post #24) looks a little too garish. So I started over in Negative Lab Pro, and I rediscovered a setting I had forgotton about. Basically, it's a preset called "Kodak Portra" -- and with a very few minor tweaks to those settings, I got this...
View attachment 376179
... still needs some warming up on that right side, but otherwise, I'm done.

That also looks really good!

 

[koraks]

I got this...

That looks nice to me. Yes, the right side is blue, but that's really due to the RAW file. You could do a layered adjustment on that area (as well as the left side).

I couldn't leave the earlier issue w.r.t. the crappy RAW conversion on my end alone, so I went back and noticed that RawTherapee used an unfortunate white balance setting for the image. I set it to something more sensible (I think I just ended up setting it to 5000-5200 or so) and most of the blue balance issue I complained about earlier clears up just fine. With my standard inversion approach followed by an overall contrast adjustment to taste, I end up with this:

The reason why I asked about fixing earlier is the way the frills on the blanket render:

That looks oddly muted in terms of contrast - however, on closer inspection, it looks like there's just a shadow cast on that area.

The reds/magentas still look cooked, but I think this is due to the white balance that I used for RAW conversion not matching up with the color balance of the light source used.

What I personally take from this is that white balance setting for the RAW file is more critical than I had anticipated. I played around with it a bit and the effects are dramatic after inversion & color balancing. I wasn't sufficiently aware of this initially!

 

[cerber0s]

I have no experience wet printing color on paper, but from this it seems to me it's pretty darn hard to nail down the colors of a scanned negative to match those printed on paper? How much can you adjust/mess up colors when wet printing?

 

[koraks]

it seems to me it's pretty darn hard to nail down the colors of a scanned negative to match those printed on paper?

Yes, that's correct. It's usually easier to optically print and then photograph or scan the print...

How much can you adjust/mess up colors when wet printing?

Totally and just as badly as with digital. Just in different ways. The possibilities are virtually unlimited either way. However, with optical printing, it often sort of magically 'falls into place' in a way that's more elusive in digital color balancing. My subjective experience, of course. Some might feel the opposite.

 

[cerber0s]

That looks nice to me. Yes, the right side is blue, but that's really due to the RAW file. You could do a layered adjustment on that area (as well as the left side).

I couldn't leave the earlier issue w.r.t. the crappy RAW conversion on my end alone, so I went back and noticed that RawTherapee used an unfortunate white balance setting for the image. I set it to something more sensible (I think I just ended up setting it to 5000-5200 or so) and most of the blue balance issue I complained about earlier clears up just fine. With my standard inversion approach followed by an overall contrast adjustment to taste, I end up with this:
View attachment 376195

The reason why I asked about fixing earlier is the way the frills on the blanket render:
View attachment 376196
That looks oddly muted in terms of contrast - however, on closer inspection, it looks like there's just a shadow cast on that area.

The reds/magentas still look cooked, but I think this is due to the white balance that I used for RAW conversion not matching up with the color balance of the light source used.

What I personally take from this is that white balance setting for the RAW file is more critical than I had anticipated. I played around with it a bit and the effects are dramatic after inversion & color balancing. I wasn't sufficiently aware of this initially!

That also looks really good! That area on the frills should be the shadow from the handle bar.

 

[warden]

Thanks for letting us play with your work, @cerber0s!
I made these in Photoshop after an inversion and a curves level in RGB mode. Switching to LAB mode after the original edit I adjusted the overall color until the whitewalls looked about right to me. (They were originally blueish and I dialed that out.) That's where I stopped.

Initially the whitewall on the rear tire was LAB 64, -7, -15, and I adjusted it to 67, 0, 1. I just figured it should be a little warm, and the rest of the image seems close enough to my eye.

 

[GLS]

Here's my quick attempt using NLP with the "Cinematic - Log" preset, with further small tweaks.



The patch of sky in the upper right looks overly blue to me, but the rest looks reasonably balanced so I left it. Could easily be selectively adjusted with a mask etc.