• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

An alternative to Negative Lab Pro and Lr has to exist (C-41 reversal and orange mask removal)?!

JTK,

I also snagged the NIK bundle when Google made it a free download. Which tool(s) out of the bundle do you use?
Out of curiosity, are you running a Windows 10, an earlier verison of Windows, or a MacOS system? I seem to recall that the free version had some compatibility issues.
 

Phil, Win 10. I like Viveza, SFEX, and HDR tone mapping. I rarely sharpen... I often go back to PS to tune color locally.
 

Purple is not a phototechnical color.
 
I hadn't realised Nik had been acquired by DXO.

I still use the free Google bundle sometimes. I doubt any revolutionary features have been added to the DXO version, and the Google version 1.2.11 is still available to download.
 
I'm trying to find out how to say orange in phototechnical terms but I'm stuck at "phototechnical" not being a English word.
 
I hadn't realised Nik had been acquired by DXO.

I still use the free Google bundle sometimes. I doubt any revolutionary features have been added to the DXO version, and the Google version 1.2.11 is still available to download.

I hate it that NIK went to DXO, which doesn't add value for me. Nonetheless I bought the DXO package after carefully considering and rejecting several NIK "alternatives"....
 

One former member of APUG insisted that Magenta was not a color. His arguments became so emphatic, he was eventually banned. That is how I remember it anyhow.

PE
 
I hate it that NIK went to DXO, which doesn't add value for me. Nonetheless I bought the DXO package after carefully considering and rejecting several NIK "alternatives"....
Why? What alternatives? What were your main criteria?
 
Why? What alternatives? What were your main criteria?
Google for "alternatives."
My main criteria were simplicity of visualization process and direct relationship with Photoshop.
The "alternatives" seem designed for photographers who fear Photoshop. NIK does offer easy answers for preliminary consideration but it doesn't propose them as best answers.
 
Hi everyone!

I'm working on a new inversion method for both DSLR scans and actual scans.

This method is different from CNMY and provides absolutely fantastic results, but at the moment this is an internal manual inversion that I do, and likely will be for a while.

I'm inviting anyone and everyone to send me DSLR scans so I can demonstrate.

It uses a custom raw linearisation method, custom film profiling, 3DLUTs and batch processing to scale it up and do whole rolls of scans at once.
Alternatively, once the profiling is done, the user can do their own inversions using just a LUT but this will only work on a per roll basis, or on the same film stock developed in the same batch.
This method is currently available as a subscription on my Patreon, with unlimited scans.

The truth is that any other solution is based on approximation and assumptions. Think of this method as the high end of scan conversions, with personalised color grading
 
One former member of APUG insisted that Magenta was not a color. His arguments became so emphatic, he was eventually banned. That is how I remember it anyhow.

PE

Hmm... It's not a wavelength like red, yellow, green, cyan, blue, etc, but it is absolutely a color we humans perceive, so it's a color that we can see. Maybe he meant that Magenta didn't exist on the electromagnetic spectrum, and therefore wasn't a "true" color like the other colors on the spectrum are.
 
Adrian, color is defined as the presence of absence of certain wavelengths of light. Thus we have CMY and RGB or Subtractive and Additive systems. But he argued that M was not a color because it does not exist on the electromagnetic scale. It does by inference and observation. Best leaving sleeping dogs lie, or not beat dead horses.

PE
 

You’ll get no argument from me... I don’t really care whether it exists on the electromagnetic scale or not, just whether or not I can see it, which clearly I can.
 

That sounds similar to what I’m doing, except you have to send me your film to process and I give you floating point DNG files in return. I do it for C-41, black and white, and E-6. Not sure what you’re specifically doing internally, but I’ve not had a problem dealing with any reasonably processed film. In fact I just finished digitizing a fairly large collection of C-41 that was shot and processed back in the late 70s, early 80s and it came out great. I had to work out the contrast of each channel for each unique emulsion, but once I did, it just worked for the rest of the film shot in that emulsion.
 

That sounds interesting! Would you be willing to do a comparison?
You can PM me a few of your uninverted scans that I can use my method on, and then post here to compare with yours
 
That sounds interesting! Would you be willing to do a comparison?
You can PM me a few of your uninverted scans that I can use my method on, and then post here to compare with yours

Sure, though I’m in the midst of doing customer work, so it’ll be at least a couple days before I have any of my film scanned in. In the meantime, you can look at my media page, it has a number of images shot on film and run through my process.
 
Digital cameras do not "scan".

In video modes they do. If you are trying to be semantic about it.

A single instantaneous sensor readout won't give you oblong pixels (unlike certain Nikon scanners).
 
In video modes they do. If you are trying to be semantic about it.

A single instantaneous sensor readout won't give you oblong pixels (unlike certain Nikon scanners).

Not mere "semantics." Honesty. And btw, where do you see oblong pixels? Certainly not in 20X30 prints.