Better than expected but...

[hoakin1981]

So, i checked again my Provia 100F slides back from lab. Turns out they are much better than what i originally thought. To the naked eye and even under a normal light they look very dark but when checked under a "light table" (android app) and with a loupe i realized that they are very well exposed especially considering the film's limited DR. Where i thought it was pitch black there is actual detail.

But, and here is the problem. I have scanned them and they look awful, this is basically why i thought i messed up in the first place as well.

I have an Epson V600 and considering they are all sunset shots i am afraid the total contrast its too much for what this scanner can handle, the lower (darker part) of all frames is almost completely black.

We are talking about MF 6x45 film by the way.

So, any tips?

 

[indigo]

So, i checked again my Provia 100F slides back from lab. Turns out they are much better than what i originally thought. To the naked eye and even under a normal light they look very dark but when checked under a "light table" (android app) and with a loupe i realized that they are very well exposed especially considering the film's limited DR. Where i thought it was pitch black there is actual detail.

But, and here is the problem. I have scanned them and they look awful, this is basically why i thought i messed up in the first place as well.

I have an Epson V600 and considering they are all sunset shots i am afraid the total contrast its too much for what this scanner can handle, the lower (darker part) of all frames is almost completely black.

We are talking about MF 6x45 film by the way.

So, any tips?

Use HDR? Make 2 or more scans at different exposure settings and merge them in post.

 

[Doyle Thomas]

Use HDR? Make 2 or more scans at different exposure settings and merge them in post.

Good plan, your shadows exposure may have noise and need some reduction

 

[hoakin1981]

Thanks for the replies. The mentioned HDR would be a solution but I would really like to avoid since I am not that skilled in PS and not a big fan of over-processed shots as well. What I want to achieve is to represent the frame as close as what it looks like when seen on a light table.

 

[Hatchetman]

rig something up to copy them with a DSLR and close-up type lens.

 

[Alan Klein]

Without seeing you results, there's little in the way of suggestions we can make other than you probably are not adjusting the scans correctly during the scan if the chromes are OK. Or in post processing assuming you're scanning "flat". While shadows often come out darker than in the original, you should be able to get pretty decent results overall.

I use a V600. You can check 35mm and 120 chromes on my FLickr page Although the V600 does a better job on 120 medium forma,t my 35mm are decent. But all required adjustments due to the scan process. You're shooting between 35mm and 120 with 6x45 so you should get pretty decent results. What are your settings on the V600? Post the scans.

 

[hoakin1981]

Without seeing you results, there's little in the way of suggestions we can make other than you probably are not adjusting the scans correctly during the scan if the chromes are OK. Or in post processing assuming you're scanning "flat". While shadows often come out darker than in the original, you should be able to get pretty decent results overall.

I use a V600. You can check 35mm and 120 chromes on my FLickr page Although the V600 does a better job on 120 medium forma,t my 35mm are decent. But all required adjustments due to the scan process. You're shooting between 35mm and 120 with 6x45 so you should get pretty decent results. What are your settings on the V600? Post the scans.

This is the best example. Straight from the scanner, believe it or not if you check the slide on a light table you see plenty of detail and data on the dark part in the bottom of the frame. Of course it is still dark-ish at the bottom but nothing like this.

 

[indigo]

Thanks for the replies. The mentioned HDR would be a solution but I would really like to avoid since I am not that skilled in PS and not a big fan of over-processed shots as well. What I want to achieve is to represent the frame as close as what it looks like when seen on a light table.

The problem is slide film has the narrowest dynamic range among all the capturing media. Much less dynamic range than negative (color or B&W) film and even some what less than digital. However, the slide is the display media that has the highest dynamic range as you can see the entire dynamic range captured on the slide, more than monitor or digital projector and a lot more than printing paper. So what you saw on the light table can be capture easily with a scanner or copy with a DSLR but you simply don't have a displaying device that can display the entire dynamic range that is on a slide.

 

[Doyle Thomas]

The problem is slide film has the narrowest dynamic range among all the capturing media. Much less dynamic range than negative (color or B&W) film and even some what less than digital. However, the slide is the display media that has the highest dynamic range as you can see the entire dynamic range captured on the slide, more than monitor or digital projector and a lot more than printing paper. So what you saw on the light table can be capture easily with a scanner or copy with a DSLR but you simply don't have a displaying device that can display the entire dynamic range that is on a slide.

had to read this a few times to figure out what was being said.

what Indigo means is that at the time of exposure slide film has the lowest ability to record brightness levels from light to dark. light values 2 stops under and 2 stops over your EV (exposure value) tend to go to black (no detail) or white (no detail). on the other hand, a transparency has the highest contrast from dark to light. this is why low contrast light is best for slide film. you can record the full range of brightness levels which is then expanded in the transparency. he then go's on to say that no monitor, projector or print can ever match the contrast of a transparency laying on a light table. I might take exception to the print, if you have ever seen Elliot Porter's dye transfers or Chris Burkett's Ilfochromes in person Indigo you may change your mind.

Having said all that, if you can see the detail on the light table but can not capture the full range in a single scan you can make multi scans and composite the results.

 

[Alan Klein]

You didn't post the scanner settings but my guess it was in Auto. The scanner did the best it could do with the exposures on this photo. If as you say, "To the naked eye and even under a normal light they look very dark ..." they probably are.

You shot into the sunset which is still very bright. The camera basically exposed for the sun and was properly exposed and scanned for it. However, the foreground shadow areas are too dark. In the film!! For pictures of this type, you should use a graduated neutral density filter to reduce the difference in stops between the dark and light areas. The V600 scanner will not be able to pull out the details, nor will any scanner be able to do a good job with this exposure. if you try to compensate the shadow areas by lightening them, you'll wind up with lot of ugly noise there.

If you want to check the scanner, work with normal lighting type photos first to develop a good work flow for scanning and adjustments. Trying to work with photos with wide exposure ranges first will only confuse you. Good luck.

 

[Bill Burk]

hoakin1981,

A neutral density graduated filter would have helped in this example. You did about the best I could expect without it. Looks good to me!

 

[artobest]

Thanks for the replies. The mentioned HDR would be a solution but I would really like to avoid since I am not that skilled in PS and not a big fan of over-processed shots as well. What I want to achieve is to represent the frame as close as what it looks like when seen on a light table.

THe HDR approach is your only solution, short of upgrading your scanner. Done well, the scan shouldn't look over-processed.

There's no magic bullet with film scanning. If you're not willing to upskill/put in the hours, you won't get the results.