Color is off

[jayvo86]

I decided to order prints this time along with my negative processing at the local photo lab. (I mainly process my own BW and scan.)

Anyway, when I got my Porta 400 35mm prints back, my mind was simply blown. I couldn't believe how awesome they looked.

That being said, I like to share my work online. So, I went to work (literally my workplace) and fired up the Epson 4490 with the stock Epson scanning software and attempted to scan.

However, I could NOT get the scans to look ANYWHERE close to the prints I got back.

So...what am I missing? Is this just a flatbed thing? Do I need to find color profiles for the Portra 400?

I'm planning on purchasing the new Plustek Opticfilm 120 when it comes out, but the whole point to me shooting film again is to avoid hours in the digital darkroom trying to get things to look right.

Needless to say...I was a little discouraged today.

What am I missing?

 

[federico9001]

eh....it's a long story...

anyway, just few scanner operators in the world are able to "extract" natural colors from colour negs with outstanding fidelity.

you need AT LEAST a high-end 16 bit drum scanner, the best calibration and profile, and a lot of "high-end" skills. Otherwise, you'll have to accept several big compromises

 

[artobest]

Wow, that's a discouraging answer. What does 'at least' mean in that context? Anyway, it's largely irrelevant, except for the 16-bit part. For a start, I don't know of any ICC-compliant profiling options for colour negative. Transparencies, yes, but not negs. Furthermore, a drum scanner may get you the best resolution, but colour is another story.

FWIW, I find Epson scanners are capable of producing pretty good colour. Try a demo of Silverfast with its Negafix profiles - they're usually a pretty good start, although they tend to need tweaking to prevent clipping at both ends. In any event, stick with 16-bit in case you need to do major work in PP.

In other words, I'm afraid there is no real 'one-button' solution for scanning.

 

[pschwart]

Scanning color negatives can be challenging, but my own experience shows me this is vastly overstated.

 

[chuck94022]

I disagree completely with Bernard61. There are some good tutorials on the web for getting good scans from color negative, including how to correct for the orange mask.

I do agree that profiling your scanner and monitor are very important to getting things to look right when posting online.

There are also plugins for PS or PSE that can correct color negatives based on databases of color negative film. I've had mixed success with them. Sometimes they are perfect, sometimes just ok.

I think it is always the case for color negative (not E6) that you need to tweak a bit to get the color right. This is true even with wet darkroom printing. In the wet darkroom, you always had to tweak the color filters, almost just as you do with scan results. There is no magic with c-41 negatives.

But it isn't as hard or as time consuming as Bernard61 suggests, once you have refined your personal process and have had some practice.

 

[jayvo86]

The whole reason I got back into film is the "look" per se.

Also, I wanted to save time in post by having film already look like what I wanted it.

When I dropped the film off at the 1 hour photo, the girl wasn't even sure about processing the Portra 400. I had to explain that it was ok for her to do so.

Anyway, I doubt she had a hand making the prints look the way they did whether they were optical or digital scans printed. I just know they looked great.

So, I'm just hoping I can get close with my scans so I don't have to do a lot of post.

I thinking about picking up a Plustek 7600AI or the new opticfilm 120 when it comes out.

 

[chuck94022]

Here are the things you'll face regardless, in post:

1) eliminating the orange mask. You can do this at scan time with SilverFast or ViewScan. Silverfast is better for that I think, at least I've not been particularly happy with ViewScan in dealing with this. Or (my preference), you can do this post-scan. Photoshop and PS Elements have plugins for doing this. I don't know about Lightroom, I don't use it. If you are on a Mac, Aperture which I also use for some things, does not seem to have good support in terms of plugins for color negatives.
If you choose to do it manually, PS is the best tool I think. You get great channel level control. There's not much too it really, and it gives you more control of the process, which can be good especially if you have a problematic negative, or if you don't like the automatic clipping the scanner level conversion and the plugins might do, over which you'll have no control.
To do it manually, you scan your negative as a positive (slide), so it comes out of the scanner still as a negative. Then you invert in PS, and finally individually set levels per channel. That gets you pretty close to what the plugins do, then you can tweak from there. Once you understand this flow it takes just moments to get close.

2) Sharpen to taste: Sharpening will be needed depending of course on the quality of your scanner.

3) Other adjustments: Individual images (whether film or digital) may or may not need other creative touches: local dodging/burning and brightness/contrast tweaks, spotting (you can use ICE in the scanner for color negatives and slides, but not for silver-based black and white negatives), etc. All these will typically be done for both digital and film (spotting for sensor dust and other image flaws in digital).

The only thing that takes real time with all the above is aligning your vision for the final image with the tools and your workflow. Once you know what you want, achieving it in post is usually straightforward.

Film does give a look that is distinct, but it doesn't eliminate the need or opportunity to do creative work in post. The same happens in the wet darkroom, just using different tools.

 

[jayvo86]

Here are the things you'll face regardless, in post:

1) eliminating the orange mask. You can do this at scan time with SilverFast or ViewScan. Silverfast is better for that I think, at least I've not been particularly happy with ViewScan in dealing with this. Or (my preference), you can do this post-scan. Photoshop and PS Elements have plugins for doing this. I don't know about Lightroom, I don't use it. If you are on a Mac, Aperture which I also use for some things, does not seem to have good support in terms of plugins for color negatives.
If you choose to do it manually, PS is the best tool I think. You get great channel level control. There's not much too it really, and it gives you more control of the process, which can be good especially if you have a problematic negative, or if you don't like the automatic clipping the scanner level conversion and the plugins might do, over which you'll have no control.
To do it manually, you scan your negative as a positive (slide), so it comes out of the scanner still as a negative. Then you invert in PS, and finally individually set levels per channel. That gets you pretty close to what the plugins do, then you can tweak from there. Once you understand this flow it takes just moments to get close.

2) Sharpen to taste: Sharpening will be needed depending of course on the quality of your scanner.

3) Other adjustments: Individual images (whether film or digital) may or may not need other creative touches: local dodging/burning and brightness/contrast tweaks, spotting (you can use ICE in the scanner for color negatives and slides, but not for silver-based black and white negatives), etc. All these will typically be done for both digital and film (spotting for sensor dust and other image flaws in digital).

The only thing that takes real time with all the above is aligning your vision for the final image with the tools and your workflow. Once you know what you want, achieving it in post is usually straightforward.

Film does give a look that is distinct, but it doesn't eliminate the need or opportunity to do creative work in post. The same happens in the wet darkroom, just using different tools.

Thanks for your help. I've got a lot of experience with photoshop and everything sounds pretty reasonable.

I'll have to do some playing around with scanning when I finally decide which one to get.

 

[federico9001]

"a drum scanner may get you the best resolution, but colour is another story": no, false, if the 16 bit drum scanner is calibrated and profiled.

I've in my mind a "state-of-the-art" quality, and I write consequentely. Otherwise, you can pull out a decent quality from a Imacon+Flexcolor, or a quite acceptable quality even from a Epson....but it's not HI-FI: compromises....

 

[artobest]

How do you profile a drum scanner for negative film?

 

[chuck94022]

"a drum scanner may get you the best resolution, but colour is another story": no, false, if the 16 bit drum scanner is calibrated and profiled.

I've in my mind a "state-of-the-art" quality, and I write consequentely. ...

You may write that way, whatever that is, but do you know what you are talking about? Evidence (your previous posts) suggests no.




---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.029375,116.510983

 

[Alan Klein]

I use Auto exposure settings and everything else flat on my V600 with the Epson scanner program and have no problem with orange masks or color in general. There has to be some tweaking in post, but no basic problems. What are the settings you use when you scan using the Epsom program?

 

[jayvo86]

I use Auto exposure settings and everything else flat on my V600 with the Epson scanner program and have no problem with orange masks or color in general. There has to be some tweaking in post, but no basic problems. What are the settings you use when you scan using the Epsom program?

I used Epson's "color correction" which got rid of the cyan cast.

However, it seemed that nothing I did could get the color right.

I will say it got the image to look "ok," but not anywhere near the proof I had in my hand.