Color profiles for E-6 vs C-41

Hey guys, I have noticed that when I scan color transparencies, the colors from the scan seem vibrant and on target for what I see on the lightbox when I look at my transparency, however my color negative images seem dull and low in contrast.

Is it possible that my scanner has a different way of viewing color negative versus color transparency images, and that I actually need to calibrate the two different types of images to a different color profile?

I have never actually calibrated my scanner as at the time when I purchased the scanner the color calibration program that came with it was for an older version of the software on my computer, and they kept telling me they would soon come out with a new one but eventually I got tired of waiting and stopped looking, now I have upgraded my operating system again and I wonder if they even ever came out with a new version, but I certainly don't want to have to pay for a color calibration program when one already came with my scanner which I payed for new. An Epson V-750.

I do have the original color transparency sheet that came with the color profiling kit which shows all the colors and variations of Gamet and I assume is meant to somehow show target points.

Since I mostly shoot transparency film and B&W anyway, I've never really needed to do any kind of calibration as they always seem to come out just fine from the Settings out-of-the-box.

But just in case, in preparation for eventually someday potentially having to switch if color transparencies stop being made, I wanted to see how Kodak Portra400 and Kodak Ektar100 images would look when scanned, and they were all horrible. I know my exposure is good because I took accompanying transparency images which are all fine.

So anyway, does anyone know if you need to create a new profile for color negative film? In fact, as I understand it, Portra and Ektar100 have a different base color and so maybe that would also affect the scan and each film need his own color calibration?

I really don't know, and my skills are not that advanced so please educate me as if I'm a beginner because I am when it comes to this stuff, thanks!

Slides appear to be 'snappier' with more contrast, because their dynamic range is limited compared to negative film. Slides = 5 EV, Negative = 12 EV.

If you 'squeeze' the 12 EV into the 5 EV of slide film, the scanned negatives will look as crisp as your slides. It all depends on your personal preferences.

I am shooting slides in my job, but I personally prefer the tonal range of a Portra 160. Unfortunately I've calibrated my whole process to one emulsion (Fuji Provia 100F), one scanner (LS 9000 or drum scan) and a color calibrated system. If I would jump to Portra, I would have to re-calibrate the exposure, development and scan processes...<sigh>.

jens g.r. benthien said:

Slides appear to be 'snappier' with more contrast, because their dynamic range is limited compared to negative film. Slides = 5 EV, Negative = 12 EV.

If you 'squeeze' the 12 EV into the 5 EV of slide film, the scanned negatives will look as crisp as your slides. It all depends on your personal preferences.

I am shooting slides in my job, but I personally prefer the tonal range of a Portra 160. Unfortunately I've calibrated my whole process to one emulsion (Fuji Provia 100F), one scanner (LS 9000 or drum scan) and a color calibrated system. If I would jump to Portra, I would have to re-calibrate the exposure, development and scan processes...<sigh>.

Click to expand...

So you DO have to calibrate it to the Color Negative film?

I don't know how to "squeeze" the EV tighter, but the actual white balance is different and the colors are just dull

The easiest way is to search for a Wolf Faust target and order one. It's a print on A4. In short words, you take a picture from this target, then scan it and with your scanner software you perform a film calibration. In addition you'll receive a CD with some data according to the film you use.

Affordable IT 8.7 (ISO 12641) Scanner Color Calibration Targets

To squeeze the tonal range tighter, you might use the Levels tool in PS and move the left slider a bit to the center and the right slider to the center, until your white color and shadows don't have any details anymore.

jens g.r. benthien said:

The easiest way is to search for a Wolf Faust target and order one. It's a print on A4. In short words, you take a picture from this target, then scan it and with your scanner software you perform a film calibration. In addition you'll receive a CD with some data according to the film you use.

Affordable IT 8.7 (ISO 12641) Scanner Color Calibration Targets

To squeeze the tonal range tighter, you might use the Levels tool in PS and move the left slider a bit to the center and the right slider to the center, until your white color and shadows don't have any details anymore.

Click to expand...

I don't use ps... Do they have that in Lightroom?

Any image or raw editor at least features a curves tool. Just move the sliders (black and white triangles) at the bottom to the center or make the curve an S shaped curve:

Linear curve after scan:



S shaped curve:



Limiting tonal range:



Note that the histogram in the background of this sample resembles a perfect slide, that means your low contrast negative histogram will be flatter. Move the sliders to a point where the histogram (at the left end) starts to ascend a lot, and (at the right end) where it falls down to low values. This is a good point to start.

jens g.r. benthien said:

Any image or raw editor at least features a curves tool. Just move the sliders (black and white triangles) at the bottom to the center or make the curve an S shaped curve:

Linear curve after scan:

S shaped curve:

Limiting tonal range:

Note that the histogram in the background of this sample resembles a perfect slide, that means your low contrast negative histogram will be flatter. Move the sliders to a point where the histogram (at the left end) starts to ascend a lot, and (at the right end) where it falls down to low values. This is a good point to start.

Click to expand...

Thanks I'll try

You can't profile negative film with any software I have seen. I'm sure it's theoretically possible if you made targets in the same film, but I imagine you would also need different software as well.

Jens' advice is right on regarding the contrast. The only thing I can add is to make a curve adjustment per channel to get the color balance right. This could really be levels since you just need to move the end points to neutralize the overall color cast.

You can do all this in Lightroom, but it's much easier in Photoshop. Lightroom isn't the best package for handling scanned data.

Levels adjustment works great on scans in Elements. It brings the colors and proper exposure back correctly for about 95%. But it is more difficult in LR because there are no Levels. At least I haven't found a similar adjustment. Do you guys know any?

You can't profile negative film with any software I have seen.

Click to expand...

True. Unless you could purchase a bunch of films with an identical emulsion number, as professionals do with slide film.

I'm sure it's theoretically possible if you made targets in the same film, but I imagine you would also need different software as well.

Click to expand...

If you use VueScan and the Wolf Faust target, you can at least come close to a calibrated process. 10 years ago I have done it with some Kodak negative film. It worked (at least for me).

However, you need to buy identical film and use the same lab, otherwise you'll run into problems.

BTW, there is a company that sells a software that is named color correct: ColorPerfect - ColorPerfect, which requires linearized scans.

Another one is PictoColor Software: Color Correction Software and Photoshop Plugins which is a point-and-click thingie (I've never tried any of these apps).

and

Photoshop is just way beyond my capability, I also do not like the way that it handled file that you have to create tired and you have to destroy the original image or make a copy of it, I said this many times before, it's just not something that will work with my current workflow, so it's a pain in the ass to have to import something to Photoshop and then re-exported into Lightroom.

I haven't gotten to a computer to try yet. But I'll report back when I do. It's less about the contrast and more about it not getting the white balance right from the beginning... It's annoying, I shouldn't have to adjust anything, it should be correct right out of the straight scan, since is exposed it properly...

Stone: You can adjust Levels either manually or set to Auto using the Epson scanner software during the can process. Then the range will output to the scan file so you have the full 0-255. Then you can tweak exposures and color in LR afterwards.

Alan Klein said:

Stone: You can adjust Levels either manually or set to Auto using the Epson scanner software during the can process. Then the range will output to the scan file so you have the full 0-255. Then you can tweak exposures and color in LR afterwards.

Click to expand...

Ugh... But I don't want to tweak... Lol, that's the point, that's why I like transparencies, If my exposure is right to begin with, the image is the way I want it, why can't CN film be the same, I don't want to tweak anything, I want it to scan properly in the first place.

If you get your scanner settings correct for one color negative scan you can use them for another frame, assuming the same emulsion and development. The results will be very close. If your exposure and lighting are consistent you should be able to copy the adjustments in LR over and have an easy workflow.

I find I end up tweaking slide scans as well as color negatives. I also find the results with color profiles are usually of lesser quality than if I just scan the full range of the slide and refine it manually.

L Gebhardt said:

If you get your scanner settings correct for one color negative scan you can use them for another frame, assuming the same emulsion and development. The results will be very close. If your exposure and lighting are consistent you should be able to copy the adjustments in LR over and have an easy workflow.

I find I end up tweaking slide scans as well as color negatives. I also find the results with color profiles are usually of lesser quality than if I just scan the full range of the slide and refine it manually.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I guess you're right, but there's so much wrong with the current scans of CN I don't know where to begin, they just look off. The sheet film is new, and I only bought it to give it a try, wish I hadn't.

Such is life... I'll use E-6 till it's dead... And then my heart will sink a bit...

I do find transparency film easier than negatives to get the colors and exposure right. But I still have to adjust Levels for both types either during the scan or in post. I've found that Levels is the one adjustment that seems to correct about 95% of color and exposure issues that the scanner doesn't copy from the film due to the scanner's range and the way they work.

I don't use any profiles but do all adjustments to what looks good to my eye. That means for each picture. I don't see how you can get a particular adjustment applied to all pictures unless it's Auto Levels. There are so many variables among lighting conditions, over and under exposed photos, development processes, etc. But Auto Levels often clips the image.

StoneNYC said:

Photoshop is just way beyond my capability, I also do not like the way that it handled file that you have to create tired and you have to destroy the original image or make a copy of it, I said this many times before, it's just not something that will work with my current workflow, so it's a pain in the ass to have to import something to Photoshop and then re-exported into Lightroom.

Click to expand...

There is no reason to destroy anything, or make copies of field (or background layers). Photoshop is a piece of cake. You just haven't had anyone show you who knows what they are doing.

There is a large piece of information missing from this thread. Color negatives contain an orange mask. There are reasons for this, anyone can read about the chemistry if they are interested. However, the mask flattens the entire image. Transparency film is clear, the rebate goes down to base fog, and so there is more contrast. However, color negative has a lot more range, to put it bluntly, there are more colors. Chromes are great for shooting outdoors but don't handle subtler lighting situations as well.

If your image is amount the things in the image, or the scene, etc., then chromes are great. If your image is about the subtlety of the color in the image, then color neg is for you.

Lenny

lenny said:

There is no reason to destroy anything, or make copies of field (or background layers). Photoshop is a piece of cake. You just haven't had anyone show you who knows what they are doing.

There is a large piece of information missing from this thread. Color negatives contain an orange mask. There are reasons for this, anyone can read about the chemistry if they are interested. However, the mask flattens the entire image. Transparency film is clear, the rebate goes down to base fog, and so there is more contrast. However, color negative has a lot more range, to put it bluntly, there are more colors. Chromes are great for shooting outdoors but don't handle subtler lighting situations as well.

If your image is amount the things in the image, or the scene, etc., then chromes are great. If your image is about the subtlety of the color in the image, then color neg is for you.

Lenny

Click to expand...

As far as PS, I knew enough to know that my entire catalogue is in LR, and if I don't want to change how I access my files, I have to continue working in LR, and when I export them to PS, do some things to them, and re-import them back to LR, the image is either duplicated, or the file completely changed depending on which option I choose. Neither is making me happy. At 150mb-500mb per image, I don't want to duplicate ANYTHING.

As far as chromes. For now, that's my medium for color, this was an effort to "prepare" for the inevitable. Also simply to understand why they are scanning so differently. I truly haven't been on a computer so this is all theoretical to me until I can find the time to fiddle around.

Thanks.