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

about to extinct

D
about to extinct

  • 0
  • 0
  • 22
Fantasyland!

D
Fantasyland!

  • 9
  • 2
  • 97
perfect cirkel

D
perfect cirkel

  • 2
  • 1
  • 121
Thomas J Walls cafe.

A
Thomas J Walls cafe.

  • 4
  • 6
  • 281

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,745
Messages
2,780,275
Members
99,693
Latest member
lachanalia
Recent bookmarks
0

Adrian Bacon

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
2,086
Location
Petaluma, CA.
Format
Multi Format
Adrian,
Thanks for the info on your process. I think with a smaller sensor camera the focusing would be easier. I've often wondered how well I would do with a Sony A7r3 or other similar camera that can do the pixel shift. With my Rollei 6008AF + CF528 I need to get obviously close to 1::1 magnification to 'scan' a 6x6 negative. I do see such a big improvement in tonality and detail with the multishot vs single shot that I wouldn't want to do it otherwise. I have tried using the bowens Illumitran (look it up if you aren't familiar - it's an older negative copy stand and light) but didn't find that much improvement over the Kaiser light table. I do use with the light table a second diffuser also far away from the film. I hold the film with a bowen negatrans which makes advancing from one frame to the next convenient and also holds the film flat. But as I wrote, mostly now I am going to the iqsmart 3 even though I do believe the 6008AF can yield a better result than the iqsmart when done properly. The focus at 1::1 magnification isn't trivial and is time consuming. btw - I see that you're just up in Petaluma so perhaps we'll cross paths at some point.

APS-C sensors are better for 35mm frame sizes as you don’t have to go 1:1 and focusing is easier. Full frame is better for medium format for the same reason.

Re: location, the lab address and phone number are on my website, any time you want to stop by and run some film through the darkroom or make prints or whatever, just give me a ring at let me know. Visits are by appt. only, but I have 24 hour access to the building, so I can accommodate off hours and weekends if I’m not otherwise already booked with customer work or have something else going on. I stock a good number of film developers and Ilford paper/chems and have a large format pigment printer on site, so you can get relatively large pretty good output. If you use my consumables you’ll need to pay for them, but other than that, it’s not a problem for lab time as long as I’m available to be there.
 
Last edited:

StepheKoontz

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
801
Location
Doraville
Format
Medium Format
Not true. That might be the origin of tilt, but it has so many artistic uses.
Want a slight tele effect on top of your frame to enhance clouds? Presto!
Want the whole forrest floor in sharp focus, while the treetops near to far are out? There you go.
For any shift you do, you will almost always want to control focus either by aperture, which can go very tight without refraction blur on LF, or by slight tilt.

If these are important, why are you shooting with 35mm worried about getting a sharp/big MP scans from them for cheap? This is starting to feel like someone looking to argue instead of looking for answers. Good luck with your.. whatever you are trying to do here.
 
OP
OP
Helge

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
If these are important, why are you shooting with 35mm worried about getting a sharp/big MP scans from them for cheap? This is starting to feel like someone looking to argue instead of looking for answers. Good luck with your.. whatever you are trying to do here.
Look, I’m really asking a rather simple question at the outset, and might I ad, being quite clear about it.
I’m not looking for cheap especially.
Lr just doesn’t appear to be for me, and I don’t want a monthly sub on it. Not for ten dollars, if that is really even possible, or for more.
I’d gladly pay double the price of NLP for a good orange mask removal’n reversal stand alone program that does a good job.

I just hoped to be able to survey the landscape a little quicker with the help of you guys.

I don’t really see why you bring in the whole format discussion and whether 35mm is high enough resolution or not for this or that (it is :smile:.
I’m scanning any and all formats.

There are well documented reasons why people are migrating from scanners of various kinds to macro/DSLR setups. Quality being one of them.
 
OP
OP
Helge

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
Point taken. It’s all too easy to forget that everybody else is at their own knowledge level.
Well, the basic technique might be simple, but writing real programs is like playing an instrument proficiently, a black art to most people, with a seemingly insurmountable steep learning curve.

There is even a word for that predicament which I can’t find right now.

PE, no problem.
 

Adrian Bacon

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
2,086
Location
Petaluma, CA.
Format
Multi Format
Well, the basic technique might be simple, but writing real programs is like playing an instrument proficiently, a black art to most people, with a seemingly insurmountable steep learning curve.

Somewhat true... however, it is a skill that can be picked up with enough attention and practice by most people that are even reasonably technical, assuming they are willing to put the time and effort in. Put shortly, if you're technical enough to learn how to expose and develop your own film and make your own prints, you can pick up C programming and learn how digital color spaces work. In this modern age, programming resources and information on how to do stuff in C has *never* been more accessible than it is now, and I would know since I'm a very long time coder (20+ years, I'm not old, but I'm not a youngster either). The bar has never been lower than it is right now. If you're seriously doing anything in digital imaging today, you should be putting effort in to learn how digital color spaces work if you don't already have it figured out. That is part and parcel of that medium and to not know anything about it is a lot like owning a car and never bothering to learn how to do your own basic maintenance on it. There are people out there like that, but for the people who rely on their cars for a living, it only takes getting burned once for them to get with the program.

My experience in the past on other projects has been that a lot of people would rather somebody else do the heavy lifting for them and they just reap the rewards at little to no cost to them. I'm not in it to give those people one of my cookies for free just because they want one. I have no problem dispensing what I know to others that are putting effort in to learn it, but have very little interest in helping people who just want a free handout.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Messages
117
Location
Bamberg
Format
Multi Format
Wonder software? lol... there's nothing wonder about it... In fact, it's shockingly simple and straightforward... anybody who knows how to write basic C or C++ code and has figured out how digital color spaces works can do it. I'm actually amazed more people haven't done it yet. The software isn't without value, but there's also a lot of value in the knowledge of how to take a raw image of a film negative and how to programmatically turn it into a positive image that conforms to a given digital color space. Most of my "aha!" moments actually came from reading the Adobe DNG spec, which is available for free. Once you have the samples inverted and linearized, they're actually not really any different from raw samples of an image you actually took with a digital camera, and the DNG spec lays out how to deal with them so you can put them into a DNG file.

I'm not going to share customer work, and have already pointed out where you can see sample output from film I've shot myself and run through the setup, and I've already described in broad strokes the physical set up of the scanner so I won't be disclosing finer detail as it's something that I've spent a fair amount of time and energy refining over the years, and it has potential market value. The same goes for the software. I see no value in releasing it for free only to have a huge amount of un-paid time sucked up supporting other people who want to use it but don't know how to get it to work and would rather you just get it to work for them so that they can use it for free. You can argue that I'd be doing the community a solid if I did that, however, I just don't have that kind of time and I have bills to pay.
Nobody was asking you to give anything to anybody for free here. What´s the reason for all this "For Free" paranoia here. By the way: That is coming from someone who gladly paid 80€ for Colorperfect and 100€ for NLP. These programs are worth their money. If you want to keep your workflow close to your chest, then that´s totally fine. But then you don´t need to brag about how easy and simple everything is. Claims should be backed by facts or at least examples.
 

Ces1um

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2015
Messages
1,410
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
Format
Multi Format
How do the DSLR scanners here reverse their colour negatives?
I don’t want to pay extortion prices for Light Room, for features I’ll never use and certainly not for the necessary Negative Lab Pro on top of that.
Advice would be much appreciated.
Have you tried this?


or this?
https://www.negativelabpro.com/guide/

I know lightroom is yet another cost and believe me, I like avoiding monthly recurring charges just like the next guy. I get where you're coming from. In my humble opinion though, lightroom is worth it's weight in gold. I just started using it (got it free until June) and I'm amazed at what it can do- and do easily at that.
 
Last edited:

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Adrian, there you go again. Helge is trying to make good pictures by learning the skill of scanning. Programming is another skill. It is not directly linked to his goal, but rather is peripheral. And, programming is like painting or as noted above, playing an instrument. It is a talent as well as all of the other things it has been called. And it involves some math.. well, actually a lot when it comes to some areas of color which to be done properly involves matrices.

Lets try and find him a solution. Mine works for me, but it derives directly from my scanner doing the entire job for me. It worked perfectly from day one.

So, I cannot describe anything except to say it works for me, but I cannot give a path for him. I'm hoping others can.

PE
 

Adrian Bacon

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
2,086
Location
Petaluma, CA.
Format
Multi Format
Nobody was asking you to give anything to anybody for free here. What´s the reason for all this "For Free" paranoia here.

Nobody has publicly asked here on Photrio, however I pretty regularly get requests via email from people that ask me to just outright give them the source code, or just give them a working copy that they can use. It happens all. the. time.

Claims should be backed by facts or at least examples.

Already have. In fact, if you actually look, you can even get sample DNG files.

PE: yeah I know... I'm on a bender... I'll pipe down. If Helge wants to scan with a DSLR his options are manually do it in PS (or equivalent), use colorperfect, use NLP, or write his own software. I'm not the only one who mentioned writing his own software, though I am being a bit outspoken about it.
 

GLS

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2018
Messages
1,726
Location
England
Format
Multi Format
I use the ColorPerfect plugin for Photoshop. It isn't cheap, has a terrible UI & unintuitive workflow, but if you take the time to learn the basics it gives extremely accurate results with minimal effort.

I tried NLP and found the results simply didn't compare; the levels and contrast were boosted too much, and I always got significant colour casts regardless of the initial settings I chose. However the software is still in its infancy, and maybe future versions will be improved.
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,939
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
I’d gladly pay double the price of NLP for a good orange mask removal’n reversal stand alone program that does a good job.

So, just to be clear, you want a point & click solution? No manual intervention until essentially colour correct?

If Helge wants to scan with a DSLR his options are manually do it in PS (or equivalent), use colorperfect, use NLP, or write his own software.

I'd say that the first and last options of that list are the only qualitatively good choices, unfortunately. Working manually demands a good level of colour correction knowledge - and many people don't want to learn that. And good software solutions will be dependent on getting/ building a 3D LUT/ profile that adequately models the response of RA4 paper to optical exposure - which, on the other hand, would solve most of the colour correction steps that people seem to spend so much time tripping themselves up on.
 

Adrian Bacon

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
2,086
Location
Petaluma, CA.
Format
Multi Format
I'd say that the first and last options of that list are the only qualitatively good choices, unfortunately. Working manually demands a good level of colour correction knowledge - and many people don't want to learn that. And good software solutions will be dependent on getting/ building a 3D LUT/ profile that adequately models the response of RA4 paper to optical exposure - which, on the other hand, would solve most of the colour correction steps that people seem to spend so much time tripping themselves up on.

It's not necessary to model RA4 paper. You're in digital space. All digital color correction is designed to work in linear light, and Lightroom internally is floating point linear light. The more correct thing to do is digitize it into a positive image of the negative in raw samples, apply gain/multipliers to each channel until the film base plus fog is the same exposure, which will render it as light grey to white, then adjust the gamma of each channel so that it's response is linear relative to the exposure that made the density, then invert that. From there, if you did that correctly, a series of grey cards shot over a range of exposures from -5 EV to +7 EV in full stop increments should render grey at each point with little to no color shifts going on. If you got the linearization of each channel right, you should also be able to adjust the exposure in full stop increments in LR and have each respective exposure land at ~46.6% in the Develop module histogram (46.6% is a correctly exposed grey exposure card in LR if you didn't know). If you got that far, you're over 75% of the way there. From there, shoot a MacBeth color checker chart with a ~5500K light (studio strobes are good for this sort of thing as they're as high a CRI as you'll probably get and very close to 5500K, and very consistent), digitize it and apply the previous steps. Up until now, you should be doing all that in raw unmanaged color. At this stage you conform it to a color space, so pick a color space and look up the XYZ to color space matrix for it, most common color spaces are public and readily available. You have to put that matrix into the DNG color matrix metadata so LR can take your samples and convert them to XYZ and render a correct output. From here, you apply a series of per hue angle twists and per hue angle saturation adjustments so that when LR applies the color matrix your colors end up where they're supposed to. If you picked your color space well, you'll have to apply a couple of twists and adjust the saturation, but otherwise, it'll be minimal touching. You can accomplish the same thing with a 3D LUT, but in all honesty, that's a lot of work (and math), and it's a lot simpler to just individually apply the twists with a simple look up table and apply the saturation changes with a different simple lookup table. Plus, if you see something that doesn't look right, adjusting it via a simple little text based lut file is very simple and straight forward. Most changes are a couple more (or less) degrees twist here or there, a little more or less saturation for a given hue angle, etc. Once it's to your liking, that's your profile. As long as you keep your dev in process, it's pretty static for a given emulsion. You'll also need to put the XYZ color coordinates of 5500K into the DNG file so that LR knows what to do for white balance adjustments if you want to change the white balance in the Dev module. The look I supply to customers very closely matches what you'd get from a digital camera that was ran through Adobe Camera Raw, but in reality, you can make it look any way you want. The sky is the limit here.

There are a couple of film specific situations that what I described above doesn't directly address or deal with, however, in practice, it doesn't do awful things to your image and in my experience has largely turned out to be effectively non-issues.

Where most people go wrong is the first thing they do is pull it into PS and use the levels tool to set black and white points then have no choice but to horse around with it to try to get rid of the color casts because they didn't linearize the channels correctly because PS doesn't give you a good way to do that, and once you're in PS, it's using a color space, which means any changes you make are actually relative to the color space it's using. The same goes for white balance adjustments. It doesn't apply gain multipliers the way you think it does, it does them relative to the Correlated Color Temperature line you see on the CIE XYZ chart relative to the color space it's using. If you're already color conformed and you're just trying to change the white balance for a different CCT, that's fine, but if you're trying to do a raw set of multipliers, it's not great.

Colorperfect does a pretty good job if you put the effort into it, but it's ill suited for a high volume environment. NLP can and does work, but has its own set of challenges because it has to work within the framework that LR gives it, and seeing some of the things it's doing, I don't think the author quite has everything nailed down as good as it could be at this point in terms of the finer details. It's very young software, so he should be able to get it there over time. But again, in it's current form, it's ill suited for a high volume environment.
 
OP
OP
Helge

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
Some very interesting posts here. I completely understand your stance Adrian. Though I think you'd make good money with a user-friendly version of your software.
So, just to be clear, you want a point & click solution? No manual intervention until essentially colour correct?
Yes, I'm after something that has a profile for various emulsions like all scanners used to have, Flextights still being the best I've tried.
It's actually quite strange that PS doesn't have something like it build in at least as a remnant, rudimentary feature, considering that for the first many years, the main source of images being manipulated in Photoshop was film.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
for the first many years, the main source of images being manipulated in Photoshop was film.
It is important to remember that, despite the emphasis that is now in place, Photoshop was and remains a graphics program, with some included tools that are useful for photographers, rather than a photography focused program.
I am surprised Vuescan and/or Silverfast haven't built something like this in.
 

Tom Kershaw

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
4,974
Location
Norfolk, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
It is important to remember that, despite the emphasis that is now in place, Photoshop was and remains a graphics program, with some included tools that are useful for photographers, rather than a photography focused program.
I am surprised Vuescan and/or Silverfast haven't built something like this in.

This is a good point and worth bearing in mind when some people seem to suggest that Photoshop is essential to photographers.
 
OP
OP
Helge

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop#Early_history
The main and oldest functions like dodge and burn, are clearly aimed at emulating a darkroom.
PS has a clear grounding in editing photos.

But really we shouldn’t even use walled off applications anymore. It has been known since the seventies to be the wrong approach/metaphor.

Vuescan seems to have been more or less abandoned for the last five or so years with only small incremental tweaks done.
It’s a circus sideshow to import a file that hasn’t been scanned by the program itself.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
The name of the software itself should also be a clue :tongue:
When Photoshop was created, digital photography wasn't yet a "thing", except in the laboratory and in areas like television broadcasting and space.
Photoshop was created as a tool for editing images that were digitized for that purpose, generally before they were used in the printing process.
At the very beginning, Photoshop files actually had to be transferred back to analogue systems (like film) in order to be printed.
The "Photo" in the name referenced that part of the printing industry that dealt with publication/printing of photographic images - think half-tone plates and printing presses.
 
OP
OP
Helge

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
When Photoshop was created, digital photography wasn't yet a "thing", except in the laboratory and in areas like television broadcasting and space.
Photoshop was created as a tool for editing images that were digitized for that purpose, generally before they were used in the printing process.
At the very beginning, Photoshop files actually had to be transferred back to analogue systems (like film) in order to be printed.
The "Photo" in the name referenced that part of the printing industry that dealt with publication/printing of photographic images - think half-tone plates and printing presses.
There where disc cameras that stored video files in SD or slightly better, and there where video grabbers that could take a frame from a normal videocamera. And of course document scanners.
But, if you wanted a print quality photo digitally manipulated (which was BTW quite common in the second half of the eighties) you had to scan a negative and invert it, or use slide.
That is the whole reason for the boom in slide popularity for professional uses at that point.

This is just the story of consumer Nikon scanners: https://www.nicovandijk.net/coolscan.htm

High res digital scans is nothing new.
 

Adrian Bacon

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
2,086
Location
Petaluma, CA.
Format
Multi Format
Some very interesting posts here. I completely understand your stance Adrian. Though I think you'd make good money with a user-friendly version of your software.

It has occurred to me, and while I do get a fair number of requests to give it away, I also do get purchase requests. The challenge is getting something that is easy for most people to use and still deliver good results with their equipment. That entails a lot more effort to support quite a bit more hardware instead of just the hardware I use. It’s doable, but I’m not convinced that it will actually provide a good revenue stream over the long run, as coding time is money.

Vuescan is a good example. It hasn’t significantly changed in quite a while because to do so means coding time. If that isn’t going to bring in new revenue to pay for that time and increase profits, it’s not going to happen as everybody who already bought it probably won’t buy it again unless it’s a dramatically different experience, and/or dramatically better.
 
OP
OP
Helge

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
It has occurred to me, and while I do get a fair number of requests to give it away, I also do get purchase requests. The challenge is getting something that is easy for most people to use and still deliver good results with their equipment. That entails a lot more effort to support quite a bit more hardware instead of just the hardware I use. It’s doable, but I’m not convinced that it will actually provide a good revenue stream over the long run, as coding time is money.

Vuescan is a good example. It hasn’t significantly changed in quite a while because to do so means coding time. If that isn’t going to bring in new revenue to pay for that time and increase profits, it’s not going to happen as everybody who already bought it probably won’t buy it again unless it’s a dramatically different experience, and/or dramatically better.
There are plenty of examples of people getting shafted by the same community they try to service.
One example I know of is Martin King’s transmission line calculation MathCad sheets, for building quarter wave speakers, that got pirated big time when he tried to share them for a fee.
So you’re probably right in being apprehensive.

To bring in revenue you’d probably want to use a really productive late binding VHLL to minimize coding time and making maintenance and alterations not suck so much time.
 
Last edited:

Adrian Bacon

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
2,086
Location
Petaluma, CA.
Format
Multi Format
There are plenty of examples of people getting shafted by the same community they try to service.
One example I know of is Martin King’s transmission line calculation MathCad sheets, for building quarter wave speakers, that got pirated big time when he tried to share them for a fee.
So your probably right in being apprehensive.

To bring in revenue you’d probably want to use a really productive late binding VHLL to minimize coding time and making maintenance and alterations not suck so much time.

Exactly. I’ve written code professionally for a very long time and this ain’t my first software rodeo. I do in fact have really long, really hard experience in dealing with the software world and end users in general. Lots of guys probably would be willing to pay and not post a copy of it online, but it only takes 1 guy to do that, and then it’s over, unless you’ve spent even more time and money locking it down with license keys.

Also, it’s not like you can’t get the results from my software. I don’t charge an arm and a leg to dev and scan, or if you’ve already got developed film, to just scan it. In some ways that’s my software subscription model.
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,939
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
It's not necessary to model RA4 paper. You're in digital space. All digital color correction is designed to work in linear light, and Lightroom internally is floating point linear light. The more correct thing to do is digitize it into a positive image of the negative in raw samples, apply gain/multipliers to each channel until the film base plus fog is the same exposure, which will render it as light grey to white, then adjust the gamma of each channel so that it's response is linear relative to the exposure that made the density, then invert that. From there, if you did that correctly, a series of grey cards shot over a range of exposures from -5 EV to +7 EV in full stop increments should render grey at each point with little to no color shifts going on. If you got the linearization of each channel right, you should also be able to adjust the exposure in full stop increments in LR and have each respective exposure land at ~46.6% in the Develop module histogram (46.6% is a correctly exposed grey exposure card in LR if you didn't know). If you got that far, you're over 75% of the way there. From there, shoot a MacBeth color checker chart with a ~5500K light (studio strobes are good for this sort of thing as they're as high a CRI as you'll probably get and very close to 5500K, and very consistent), digitize it and apply the previous steps. Up until now, you should be doing all that in raw unmanaged color. At this stage you conform it to a color space, so pick a color space and look up the XYZ to color space matrix for it, most common color spaces are public and readily available. You have to put that matrix into the DNG color matrix metadata so LR can take your samples and convert them to XYZ and render a correct output. From here, you apply a series of per hue angle twists and per hue angle saturation adjustments so that when LR applies the color matrix your colors end up where they're supposed to. If you picked your color space well, you'll have to apply a couple of twists and adjust the saturation, but otherwise, it'll be minimal touching. You can accomplish the same thing with a 3D LUT, but in all honesty, that's a lot of work (and math), and it's a lot simpler to just individually apply the twists with a simple look up table and apply the saturation changes with a different simple lookup table. Plus, if you see something that doesn't look right, adjusting it via a simple little text based lut file is very simple and straight forward. Most changes are a couple more (or less) degrees twist here or there, a little more or less saturation for a given hue angle, etc. Once it's to your liking, that's your profile. As long as you keep your dev in process, it's pretty static for a given emulsion. You'll also need to put the XYZ color coordinates of 5500K into the DNG file so that LR knows what to do for white balance adjustments if you want to change the white balance in the Dev module. The look I supply to customers very closely matches what you'd get from a digital camera that was ran through Adobe Camera Raw, but in reality, you can make it look any way you want. The sky is the limit here.

There are a couple of film specific situations that what I described above doesn't directly address or deal with, however, in practice, it doesn't do awful things to your image and in my experience has largely turned out to be effectively non-issues.

Where most people go wrong is the first thing they do is pull it into PS and use the levels tool to set black and white points then have no choice but to horse around with it to try to get rid of the color casts because they didn't linearize the channels correctly because PS doesn't give you a good way to do that, and once you're in PS, it's using a color space, which means any changes you make are actually relative to the color space it's using. The same goes for white balance adjustments. It doesn't apply gain multipliers the way you think it does, it does them relative to the Correlated Color Temperature line you see on the CIE XYZ chart relative to the color space it's using. If you're already color conformed and you're just trying to change the white balance for a different CCT, that's fine, but if you're trying to do a raw set of multipliers, it's not great.

Colorperfect does a pretty good job if you put the effort into it, but it's ill suited for a high volume environment. NLP can and does work, but has its own set of challenges because it has to work within the framework that LR gives it, and seeing some of the things it's doing, I don't think the author quite has everything nailed down as good as it could be at this point in terms of the finer details. It's very young software, so he should be able to get it there over time. But again, in it's current form, it's ill suited for a high volume environment.

That all makes reasonable sense - wasn't sure if you had gone all the way to creating a 3D LUT or not, however, I do have some questions/ comments: how well does the output resemble an optical RA-4 print (aka, removing the mask as a mask, not an overall colour cast - I take it that's what your grey card linearisation is aimed at?); & I'm not sure whether the colour checker is the correct choice for correctly representing the different fundamental colour balances of different films - the whole point of the colour checker profiling system is (as far as I understand it) to attempt to eliminate differences in colour reproduction between emulsions/ sensors - how well does it do this within your setup?
For what it's worth, my own approaches (not programming languages intensive, but needs a reasonable understanding of colour correction) let me get very close to the tonal response of an excellent optical darkroom print in a quick & coherent way (and no crossed curves!). That said, being able to take scanner output & automatically bring it to a point where only fine corrections are needed, while aiming towards the actual colour rendering behaviour of chromogenic papers, without the overly brutal 'corrections' that the Frontier software seems to deliver, would be very useful. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, I think the best answer is probably a 3D LUT model of RA4 paper. The necessary data is probably out there somewhere...

Yes, I'm after something that has a profile for various emulsions like all scanners used to have, Flextights still being the best I've tried.

And even those aren't very good compared to what can be done manually. The difference is quite startling in both quality & accuracy of colour.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom