There has to be a way around this problem, or Negative Lab Pro, ColorPerfect, and the entire commercial software industry wouldn't be able to exist.I'm not that wild about going with a paid software model as all it takes is one guy to put a download link up somewhere and I can kiss ever getting compensated for my time and effort goodbye. I'm not saying anybody in this group would do that, but I've been in the technical software game for a really long time and have seen human nature at work. It's all too easy to lose your shorts.
This option would work great to get other labs to use your software, and to make money in the process. It would also be good for people like myself. However, I don't think it would help most of the other people on these forums. At least not without someone following up with an effort to build a full product around the code, only for the product to effectively become what you feared from a regular paid model (albeit on firmer legal footing).Another option I've been considering is a paid support model, where I simply make a bare implementation version of the source code available under GPL, and if you have the technical wherewithal to get it working for your environment, you can make the changes to the code to support your particular hardware/setup and profile your films to get results that work for you. If you don't have those skills, then that's where I would come in, but you would need to compensate me for providing technical assistance on an as needed basis. How much it would cost you would depend on how much assistance you wanted to book me for. I could provide a known good set of hardware specifications that are solidly supported by my code "out of the box" that provides really good output, and if you chose to use different hardware, you'd either need to get that working yourself, or again, engage me for paid assistance. I could see that potentially working were it'd be beneficial to the community at large, but allow me to recoup some of my investment.
There has to be a way around this problem, or Negative Lab Pro, ColorPerfect, and the entire commercial software industry wouldn't be able to exist.
This option would work great to get other labs to use your software, and to make money in the process. It would also be good for people like myself. However, I don't think it would help most of the other people on these forums. At least not without someone following up with an effort to build a full product around the code, only for the product to effectively become what you feared from a regular paid model (albeit on firmer legal footing).
I personally love open source software. I also make a point to open-source anything I write, especially if its something I don't intend to directly profit from. However, I've never had anyone actually explain to me a clear way to actually profit from making end-user applications open-source. Every single open source business model I'm aware of tends to involve forms of "support" and "dual licensing" that are great for business customers, but effectively useless for end-user applications.
I just have to comment on this part.FWIW - I think you should write the software. Make it stable and reasonably user-friendly, but make clear that it doesn't do 100% of the color correcting. Just 90% by inverting and removing the orange tint.
View attachment 239024
8x10 Portra 160VC - 300mm 5.6 Caltar - Scanned with an S1R in pixel shift mode and converted with NLP plus minor tweaks.
I really can't believe that this thread is still going. NLP is a fabulous piece of software that gets better with every generation. Maybe someone should start a thread about THEIR prefered way of converting color negative film instead of a thread that is basically anti-NLP for some reason.
I for one have been happily using NLP for months now. It's one of the best things to happen to my scanning workflow, in combination with Negative Supply tools and the Panasonic S1R.
[
I just have to comment on this part.
The mask isn't an overall orange tint. If it was, then dealing with it would be trivial.
The mask varies with the colour and intensity of the underlying image. It helps adjust for the non-linear peculiarities of the film dyes that form the image. It helps match the film dyes to the sensitivity of colour photographic paper.
Every approach to the issue - whether Negative Lab Pro's or Adrian Bacon's or Epson's or Nikon's or whomever's - needs to deal with that complexity.
Adrian, I'm relatively new to this, but I landed here searching for a solution to scanning color negatives and getting them inverted with colors that are close to what I want. Just CLOSE is close enough. I can make small tweaks to get it perfect. But when it's way off? I just cannot get it there manually.
Right now I'm scanning with my Olympus E-M10 III, then inverting with an app I can't remember the name of right now. For B&W, after the inversion, adjustments to brightness and contrast are pretty easy. For color, it's not that easy.
The software is free, but he asks for donations if you like it. Honor system. I used it for a month, then sent him $20. I'll probably send him another $20 in a couple more months. Of course, lots of people won't bother with that, so I'm not sure you could make your living off of it.
Irfan Skiljan did the same thing with IrfanView. (great basic JPG photo editor)
To me, there are three types of film photographers, these days:
1) Pure analog. Develop & darkroom print themselves. The old guard.
2) Those who love the look and tactile experience of shooting film. They are OK with a hybrid approach, but are not OK with all the fiddling. They want good scans and good prints. These are the guys who pay you to develop and scan their film.
3) The rest of us who are a bit handy. We can develop our own film sometimes. (esp. B&W, trying C-41 or E-6) Maybe we figure out how to scan and invert with a camera + macro lens. We are not the ones who want to pay for scanning and inverting, except for maybe a desperate situation or super important event. Some of this group are also the ones who would post the software online or share the keys, etc. Remember, some cultures just don't have a sense of honor or integrity.
FWIW - I think you should write the software. Make it stable and reasonably user-friendly, but make clear that it doesn't do 100% of the color correcting. Just 90% by inverting and removing the orange tint. Minor corrections would still need to be made by the user. Charge $20-50 and implement the one-time key thing, even if it costs more. It would protect your investment, so it'd be worth it. I don't think you'd lose your customers [ Group 2), above] as they don't want to fiddle with it. They just want it back and looking good and are willing to pay a bit for this convenience. Group 1 will stay where they are until they die.
But Group 3? We're on the lookout and some day soon, with this film renaissance, someone will supply this niche. I'd hate to see you miss the opportunity because you didn't want to take that last step.
To add a bit, here's a shot of mine that was lab-scanned by my local lab. I color-corrected it a bit myself, as it was a bit green:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/182935075@N04/49430338848/in/dateposted-public/
Still the lab scan was close enough; closer than I could get myself.
I have several images that I inverted and color corrected manually after scanning with my camera, but they don't look as good, no matter how much I fiddled. Those were negatives that were lab-developed in the mid-90s. Old family photos. I'll put one up when I think of it.
After I sent him a donation, I emailed the author of my software, asking him to implement an orange mask correction into a future version. He said he'd think about it. (I wish I could remember the name of it right now...)
If it's not clear yet, I'm with the OP. I don't want any more fingers in my paycheck. I want to pay once for a decent app to do one job and be done with it.
Separately, I attached a pic of my scanning rig. It consists of my camera with the Nikon ES-2 digitizer set ($125) a step-up ring to match my macro lens to the digitizer and a cheap ebay light box / tracing light.
OK Adrian, so are you going to do it?
just have to comment on this part.
The mask isn't an overall orange tint. If it was, then dealing with it would be trivial.
The mask varies with the colour and intensity of the underlying image.
Doing the pipette off whitebalancing on such border can be dilemma and auto WB of different softwares work differently
you’d be amazed at what you could do with a copy of the DNG spec and libtiff, both of which are free, assuming you’re willing to put in the time to read the spec and write the code to use libtiff. Libtiff can write DNG files, since DNG files are actually tiff tiles. The only major difference is instead of having a full rgb for each pixel, the image data is the raw CFA data, and there’s no embedded ICC profile because it’s raw data. There are a couple of tiff tags that are specific to DNG files, but libtiff can write them, so it’s no big deal.
I really can't believe that this thread is still going. NLP is a fabulous piece of software that gets better with every generation. Maybe someone should start a thread about THEIR preferred way of converting color negative film instead of a thread that is basically anti-NLP for some reason.
I for one have been happily using NLP for months now. It's one of the best things to happen to my scanning workflow, in combination with Negative Supply tools and the Panasonic S1R.
Another option I've been considering is a paid support model, where I simply make a bare implementation version of the source code available under GPL, and if you have the technical wherewithal to get it working for your environment, you can make the changes to the code to support your particular hardware/setup and profile your films to get results that work for you. If you don't have those skills, then that's where I would come in, but you would need to compensate me for providing technical assistance on an as needed basis. How much it would cost you would depend on how much assistance you wanted to book me for. I could provide a known good set of hardware specifications that are solidly supported by my code "out of the box" that provides really good output, and if you chose to use different hardware, you'd either need to get that working yourself, or again, engage me for paid assistance. I could see that potentially working were it'd be beneficial to the community at large, but allow me to recoup some of my investment.
If this is something that people would be interested in, or if somebody has other ideas for how to potentially make this work, I'm all ears. I know that there's a need that could be filled, and I am in a position that I could fill it, and I've been hearing the requests, but at the same time, I don't want to just give all that time and effort away.
I for one have been happily using NLP for months now. It's one of the best things to happen to my scanning workflow.
I really can't believe that this thread is still going. NLP is a fabulous piece of software that gets better with every generation. Maybe someone should start a thread about THEIR prefered way of converting color negative film instead of a thread that is basically anti-NLP for some reason.
you have missed the point or didn't read OP: it's not against NLP itself, but about the fact that NLP runs on top of Lightroom. It's not a standalone software but a plugin which requires LR. Which means, if one is to follow the legal speech and framework of Adobe, that an Adobe license is required. So you want to use NLP but in fact you will not buy just a license for it, but also a license for Lightroom. Get it?
For those of us who already use Lightroom, it is a positive, not a negative, that NLP is designed work with Lightroom, not outside of it.you have missed the point or didn't read OP: it's not against NLP itself, but about the fact that NLP runs on top of Lightroom. It's not a standalone software but a plugin which requires LR. Which means, if one is to follow the legal speech and framework of Adobe, that an Adobe license is required. So you want to use NLP but in fact you will not buy just a license for it, but also a license for Lightroom. Get it?
The software I couldn't remember earlier is called FastStone Image Viewer. It's great. Intuitive. Just mouse over each button and it says what it does.
I strongly support the latter idea.Yes, I don't know how many others would but I definitely would be interested. And with all the talk about NLP, had it not been based on Lightroom I would have bought it already but I'm no longer on the Adobe subscription train. I think there are plenty of people who scan using some kind of copy stand + light source + DSLR. Personally I only do black and white this way at the moment and I know that I invert the wrong way using custom curves in capture one. It's possible to get okay results but it's not the correct way to invert a negative. I'm also a programmer by trade and gave some effort into making my own tool. I even found a well written document explaining much of the process that I don't think I was supposed to find. However in the end I didn't really have the math skills to pull it off.
As long as there is at least some instruction on how to profile ones setup I think a bare implementation would be very valuable.
Another option, although I think the market may be too small for this, is to raise money (via kickstarter or similar) to let you have some financial gain by producing a basic open source version. There may be a problem with expectations though of what one would get out of it (resulting in much complaining ala the Ferrania story). Personally I think I would be fine but that is just because I can cobble code together, not everyone interested in such a tool can do that...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?