Back to film but will try hybrid workflow for the first time. Image acquisition and negative processing questions. Is a flatter file better?

[ymc226]

Left film for digital in 2009 (had a complete darkroom and printed B&W then in my basement in NJ). I am a completely self taught amateur so forgive me if this question does not make sense. Returning to 35mm film as my daughter is now a photo major in art school, is showing an interest in film which has renewed my interest as well. I am more interested in final prints showing more film-like qualities such as retained details in the highlights and grain so no medium format and higher speed film is preferred. My plan is to develop both B&W as well as color print film (C41) myself, scan via a digital camera, process in Lightroom Classic and then print on inkjet up to 17" x 22" using Imageprint.

My question regarding B&W and maybe color negatives as well is, should I try to shoot and process the negatives for lower contrast as it is hard to take away contrast but easier to increase it in LR? When the Leica M9 Monochrom initially came out, there was concern that the files were too flat but in actuality, that allowed more latitude in post processing. Is this the same case for the hybrid workflow? Specifically for B&W, would one omit the usual yellow, orange, red filters so as not to increase contrast on film but to allow for more options during the digital part of the process? Not ever shooting or processing color film, to get a flatter file, would one not push nor push process color film? Similarly for B&W film, to reduce contrast, would one not push process and use a speed retaining developer such as Ilford DDX?

 

[MattKing]

I've moved this to the Misc. Hybrid Discussions sub-forum, because of how hybrid it is.
Your questions are interesting, and I hope you get useful answers.
On the question though of using black and white film and filters, I would point out that the "usual yellow, orange, red filters" actually don't have much effect on "contrast". What they do is increase the differentiation between the parts of the image that have similar tones in a black and white presentation, but relate to differently coloured parts of the subject.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yellow, orange and red filters darken the sky but do not change the overall contrast as @MattKing posted above.

 

[ymc226]

Thanks Matt & Sirius Glass regarding the effect of filters on B&W. It's been a long while and I need to be reminded of what certain filter do.

 

[wiltw]

If shooting color negative, the bigger issue is simply "what software to convert negative scan to positive image with GOOD color balance?"

My scanner software has its own negative-to-positive conversion capability, and I have found that it results in a better image, than scanning the negative (without conversion) and then using postprocessing software's negative-to-positive conversion!

Negative scanned w/o conversion by scanner software

'best' possible conversion using postprocessing software capability

Converted negative using scanner negative-scanning capability

Yes, I know the images are mirrored...it was an experiment and I didn't bother scanning the negative oriented correctly, when I was experimenting with postprocess 'invert' (during a separate scan session from the negative scanned by negative scanning software.)

 

[koraks]

My scanner software has its own negative-to-positive conversion capability, and I have found that it results in a better image, than scanning the negative (without conversion) and then using postprocessing software's negative-to-positive conversion!

This depends a lot on one's aptitude in using post processing / photo editing tools. Given e.g. your first example, it takes very little time adjusting some curves to get close to the second example.

should I try to shoot and process the negatives for lower contrast as it is hard to take away contrast but easier to increase it in LR?

Not necessarily. For color/C41 you don't really have a choice anyway as contrast is inherent to the material and process. So don't worry about that one. For b&w it turns out that scanners (and dSLR's) will generally easily handle any negative as long as it's somewhat decently developed.
If you want to emphasize grain, choose a grainy film stock (e.g. Fomapan400) and develop a little harder than normal.

 

[ymc226]

This depends a lot on one's aptitude in using post processing / photo editing tools. Given e.g. your first example, it takes very little time adjusting some curves to get close to the second example.



Not necessarily. For color/C41 you don't really have a choice anyway as contrast is inherent to the material and process. So don't worry about that one. For b&w it turns out that scanners (and dSLR's) will generally easily handle any negative as long as it's somewhat decently developed.
If you want to emphasize grain, choose a grainy film stock (e.g. Fomapan400) and develop a little harder than normal.

Thanks Koraks,

I read the CineStill C41 development instructions and they stated that push processing did increase color and contrast. Does that mean contrast and saturation can be changed but not as much as in B&W film (contrast only obviously)?

 

[koraks]

Does that mean contrast and saturation can be changed but not as much as in B&W film (contrast only obviously)?

Yes, that's pretty much the case.
But I'd suggest running c41 by the book instead of altering the process, and just enhance contrast and colors in digital post processing. In case you ever decide to RA4 print your negatives, you'll have usable ones to work with, and the digital domain is more than capable of any kind of contrast, color, saturation etc adjustment you'd need.
I only push or pull C41 in very specific cases when I want a distinct contrast, saturation and acutance boost in an RA4 print or the exact opposite. In practice, this is virtually never.

 

[bernard_L]

Yellow, orange and red filters darken the sky but do not change the overall contrast as @MattKing posted above.

(from https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ger-sell-black-white-contrast-filters.196351/)

I went to Samys Camera on Fairfax yesterday and I was told that they no longer sell black & white contrast filters. They advised that I use the internet. Oh the humanity!

So... There must be a reason they are called contrast filters. I can see at least two:

• contrast of clouds against sky
• under blue sky, open shadows are lit by skylight, therefore blue. A yellow/orange/red filter will increase the contrast between shadows and sunlit areas.

 

[koraks]

Yellow, orange and red filters darken the sky but do not change the overall contrast as @MattKing posted above.

That's a simplification. Yes, they will darken skies, but they will darken anything else as well that's outside the pass range. As a result, they often appear to change overall contrast even though this technically wouldn't be an accurate description.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If shooting color negative, the bigger issue is simply "what software to convert negative scan to positive image with GOOD color balance?"

My scanner software has its own negative-to-positive conversion capability, and I have found that it results in a better image, than scanning the negative (without conversion) and then using postprocessing software's negative-to-positive conversion!

Negative scanned w/o conversion by scanner software

'best' possible conversion using postprocessing software capability

Converted negative using scanner negative-scanning capability

Yes, I know the images are mirrored...it was an experiment and I didn't bother scanning the negative oriented correctly, when I was experimenting with postprocess 'invert' (during a separate scan session from the negative scanned by negative scanning software.)

What scanner and scanner software did you use?

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's a simplification. Yes, they will darken skies, but they will darken anything else as well that's outside the pass range. As a result, they often appear to change overall contrast even though this technically wouldn't be an accurate description.

Start with small steps for people starting out. If too much information is provided at once, people get overwhelmed.

 

[koraks]

Then I'd suggest that the small step is that yellow, orange and red filters increase contrast, with increasing magnitude in the listed order. As that is the intuitive effect that most people witness. Stating that they don't increase contrast is just confusing. In my opinion.

Btw, I'm not a huge fan of the 'dumbing things down' approach. It always creates confusion at some point, especially if the initial 'lesson' inaccurate. Besides, I don't see why it would be difficult to wrap one's head around that a yellow filter cuts blue and does so regardless if it's a sky, a blue bucket etc. On top of that, if this is the vehicle that someone ends up learning complementary color theory through, then they'll reap the benefits of that knowledge in other related areas as well.

 

[runswithsizzers]

My question regarding B&W and maybe color negatives as well is, should I try to shoot and process the negatives for lower contrast as it is hard to take away contrast but easier to increase it in LR?

No.

My experience has been that any negative that is suitable for making a darkroom print is also suitable for scanning - no special exposure or development is needed. If you can't get good scans from well exposed, correctly processed negatives made by a mainstream film manufacturer, then you need to troubleshoot your scanning workflow, not the negative.

And, you never know - you may want to try darkroom printing someday. So I would encourage anyone working with film to keep in mind as the ultimate goal: aim for making negatives that will print well.

On the other hand, there are some combinations of film+exposure+processing that result in very high contrast negatives. These are often "special" B&W films not intended for traditional pictorial use. I would probably try to avoid those combinations, no matter whether I intend to scan or wet-print. Some people like that "chalk and soot" look (not me) -- but as you say it is easier to create that look in postprocessing that it is to try to recover shadow and highlight detail from an excessively contrasty negative.

 

[wiltw]

What scanner and scanner software did you use?

• I used a Canon 8800F scanner, with the MP Navigator software that Canon provided, to scan the negative as as if scanning a color transparency ('positive') (mimicing shooting the neg with a dSLR). T hen I used Paint Shop Pro's 'invert' function to reverse the scanned negative image, to create the positive image, with resulting very severe color imbalance (very bluish tint to entire photo). The posted photo (with modest residual blue tint) was the best that could be achieved, in altering Exposure, Contrast, and color balance etc. (blue tinted wood floors evident!)
• For the good photo (3rd image) which I posted in the same thread, I told MP Navigator to scan a Negative, so the software created the Positive image with fundamentally good Exposure, Contrast, and Color autmatically, with no further adjustment by me.
• Based upon past discussions on photography forums, I know there are programs that do a good job of color reversal of color negative shots with dSLRs. But given the failure of Paint Shop Pro to do the task adequately with its Invert function (above narrative), I wanted to provide the same fundamental caution to OP in response to OPs inquiry (about optimization of the negative for digital reversal to Positive image). After all, no point in worrying about contrast optimization if you cannot get a fundamentally good Positive image after scanning a negative first!

 

[koraks]

ADjustments on the 'bad'color image:

Result:

Editing time ca. 2 minutes in GIMP

From the negative scan:

Result:

Also about 2 minutes.

No other adjustments done than the curves shown above.

I'm not a PS wizard or anything; all I did was go through the three color channels, pulled the center, bottom and/or top a bit, and iterated between the three channels until I called it good.

This is just a quick & dirty illustration that it's not inherently more difficult to do it one way or another. It really all depends on personal preferences and whatever you find that works. I'd be very hesitant to try and convert this into some 'generic' advice since it's so personal. It's also not the case that one piece of software will consistently outperform the other on the same image data acquired by the same hardware.

 

[wiltw]

ADjustments on the 'bad'color image:
View attachment 325922
Result:
View attachment 325923
Editing time ca. 2 minutes in GIMP

From the negative scan:
View attachment 325924

Result:
View attachment 325925
Also about 2 minutes.

No other adjustments done than the curves shown above.

I'm not a PS wizard or anything; all I did was go through the three color channels, pulled the center, bottom and/or top a bit, and iterated between the three channels until I called it good.

This is just a quick & dirty illustration that it's not inherently more difficult to do it one way or another. It really all depends on personal preferences and whatever you find that works. I'd be very hesitant to try and convert this into some 'generic' advice since it's so personal. It's also not the case that one piece of software will consistently outperform the other on the same image data acquired by the same hardware.

Improved, but I still see blue tint of the wooden (brown) floor located at the feet and white chairs behind the lady in blue stripe dress in the photo. (That same blue tint is not visible (especially on the white chairs) with my third posted photo in that post, in which MP Navigator knew it was imaging a negative and had to create a resulting positive image). So I need to say "Not so" in reply to your statement, "it's not inherently more difficult to do it one way or another."

For anyone wanting to try making a better result, here is the actual file output by the MP Navigator software, in which it (exactly as I told it to do) treated a negative as a color transparency (thatis, to mimic shooting a negative with a dSLR and lens, and then psotprocess the resulting image)

I especially encourage the OP to try his hand at it, as it is a fundamentally required capability, even before worrying about optimization of contast in the negative.

 

[koraks]

Improved, but I still see blue tint of the wooden (brown) floor located at the feet and behind the ladies in the photo.

I didn't optimize for that in particular. It's a small nudge of the blue curve is all it takes.

Well, I made my point; I may not convince you and that's OK for me. I just wanted to give an alternative view on what you said.

So I need to say "Not so" in reply to your statement

Yeah. So that's where I'm not going. I see your point, I disagree, and for me that's the end of the matter.

 

[wiltw]

I didn't optimize for that in particular. It's a small nudge of the blue curve is all it takes.

Well, I made my point; I may not convince you and that's OK for me. I just wanted to give an alternative view on what you said.


Yeah. So that's where I'm not going. I see your point, I disagree, and for me that's the end of the matter.

I am NOT saying 'It cannot be done properly' But it is not 'simple' and requires a degree of skill that OP may not yet have with his postprocessing software.
There ARE some one-step programs available for specific 'reversal' of photographed color negatives (or scanner software that does not have color reversal capability)

The purpose of my first post was merely to alert the OP to the fundamental need to get something right (about the negative image) initially, before worrying about optimization of contrast of the negative! With my 'negative' image, the OP can try it for himself and come to his own conclusion about the ease/difficulty with his own chosen methodology/software...the real point of this discussion.

 

[koraks]

Alright, then I was confused by your initial formulation, which I interpreted to mean that one approach inherently yields better results than another. My point is that this isn't so; your point is that one approach may be easier than another, and I agree with that. I also think that which approach that is, depends on the preferences and capabilities of the person in question.

Thanks for clearing up your side of the matter.

 

[MattKing]

The invert function in Paintshop Pro and other image processing application is not intended to convert film negatives to viewable positives.
To use that, you first have to make adjustments to correct for:
1) the fact that the C-41 to RA-4 work path is designed to be used with a tungsten balanced light source; and
2) the presence of orange mask.
Once that correction is done, the invert function can be employed.
Here is a ten year old method for doing that, which probably is out of date with respect to the digital tool names and locations: https://forum.corel.com/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=47608&p=253982&hilit=Negative+image#p253982
I just use the Canon colour negative scanning software that was designed for my Canon 9000F or, in some cases, Vuescan. That software is designed for the light source built into the scanner, and does for you the adjustment for the colour temperature of that light source and the orange mask, as well as the inversion.
And as for the definition of "contrast", koraks and I will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Cholentpot]

If you're using CC Classic I highly suggest getting Negative Lab Pro and scanning with a DSLR rig. It's worth the small investment.

 

[runswithsizzers]

If you're using CC Classic I highly suggest getting Negative Lab Pro and scanning with a DSLR rig. It's worth the small investment.

The Negative Lab Pro plugin for Lightroom Classic is one of the better options I have tried. And worth the investment, for me. However, anyone who is hoping for a quick-and-easy, one-click solution when inverting and color correcting color negatives is likely to be frustrated when first starting out.

There are a lot of settings and adjustments to work with in NLP, and it can take quite some time to find the combination that works best. After you find effective settings for one shot on the roll, sometimes those settings can be applied to the rest of the roll. But often each shot on the roll will require different settings. For me, it is usually a slow process, involving a lot of trial-and-error.

 

[Cholentpot]

The Negative Lab Pro plugin for Lightroom Classic is one of the better options I have tried. And worth the investment, for me. However, anyone who is hoping for a quick-and-easy, one-click solution when inverting and color correcting color negatives is likely to be frustrated when first starting out.

There are a lot of settings and adjustments to work with in NLP, and it can take quite some time to find the combination that works best. After you find effective settings for one shot on the roll, sometimes those settings can be applied to the rest of the roll. But often each shot on the roll will require different settings. For me, it is usually a slow process, involving a lot of trial-and-error.

It is a bit of work but compared to how I used to do it? It's a breeze. And for B&W is super fast.

 

[ymc226]

No.

My experience has been that any negative that is suitable for making a darkroom print is also suitable for scanning - no special exposure or development is needed. If you can't get good scans from well exposed, correctly processed negatives made by a mainstream film manufacturer, then you need to troubleshoot your scanning workflow, not the negative.

And, you never know - you may want to try darkroom printing someday. So I would encourage anyone working with film to keep in mind as the ultimate goal: aim for making negatives that will print well.

On the other hand, there are some combinations of film+exposure+processing that result in very high contrast negatives. These are often "special" B&W films not intended for traditional pictorial use. I would probably try to avoid those combinations, no matter whether I intend to scan or wet-print. Some people like that "chalk and soot" look (not me) -- but as you say it is easier to create that look in postprocessing that it is to try to recover shadow and highlight detail from an excessively contrasty negative.

Thanks so much, your comments about just processing for a normally developed negative makes sense as the most malleable scanned negative file is my goal. I have done B&W darkroom printing when I had a basement darkroom back in NJ. Back then I shot 35, 6x6 and 6x9 and it was very fun; being self taught and being in NJ, no guilt or significant cost running the print washer for up to several hours. In California, I cannot see myself doing that ever again.