DSLR scanning 120 film

Hi GLS, agree with you, this is why I wrote „all other things being equal“ as there is a lot more to lens design than just size, as you state. And for the sensor size, this is indeed why we are shooting medium format (also with a new „sensor“ every picture )

One part of the negative-to-digital process that can be challenging is getting acceptable colors from color negative films. This requires a certain unavoidable amount of post processing. Once I have my digital camera set up to copy negatives, I really like the speed compared to using my film scanner. But once in Photoshop, I think it's faster and easier for me to get better color from my film scanner files. Part of my problem may be the LED light source I am using to copy the negatives. If the manufacturer knows what color temperature it produces, or the CRI, they aren't saying. I have done some very unscientific comparison testing by digitizing the same 35mm Ektar negatives with: a. My Fuji digital camera, and, b. My old Minolta film scanner, used with VueScan. The VueScan software comes with a film profile for Ektar film, which is far from perfect. But it seems to be a better starting point for me than doing the inversion and color corrections on the Fuji files. I am still learning the best way to post process, so I have not yet decided which method I prefer.

To see a comparison between the results I am getting from the two different methods, <click here>

runswithsizzers said:

One part of the negative-to-digital process that can be challenging is getting acceptable colors from color negative films. This requires a certain unavoidable amount of post processing. Once I have my digital camera set up to copy negatives, I really like the speed compared to using my film scanner. But once in Photoshop, I think it's faster and easier for me to get better color from my film scanner files. Part of my problem may be the LED light source I am using to copy the negatives. If the manufacturer knows what color temperature it produces, or the CRI, they aren't saying. I have done some very unscientific comparison testing by digitizing the same 35mm Ektar negatives with: a. My Fuji digital camera, and, b. My old Minolta film scanner, used with VueScan. The VueScan software comes with a film profile for Ektar film, which is far from perfect. But it seems to be a better starting point for me than doing the inversion and color corrections on the Fuji files. I am still learning the best way to post process, so I have not yet decided which method I prefer.

To see a comparison between the results I am getting from the two different methods, <click here>

Click to expand...

I use the ColorPerfect plugin for photoshop for this, and it does a fantastic job. It has dozens of profiles for colour neg films, including all the currently manufactured ones. I simply digitise the film in RAW with the DSLR as I normally do, then white balance off a blank portion of the film (i.e. make sure at least one of your shots contains some), which neutralises the orange mask. I then open the WB corrected RAWs in photoshop and perform the plugin conversion, which creates positive TIFFs. Unfortunately the plugin will not work on smart objects, so the conversion settings cannot be altered later. This is a minor problem though, as if you limit the conversion step to just the most basic options (film profile, and shadow and highlight clipping), then it's hard to go wrong. If any further corrections are required (such as colour tweaking), then they are best done afterwards in PS I find; however, the output of the plugin is typically already dead on in terms of colours.

The interface/workflow of the plugin is awful, but can be learnt without too much effort. It's also quite expensive, but it is the best option I have found for inverting C41 from RAW files.

GLS said:

I use the ColorPerfect plugin for photoshop for this, and it does a fantastic job. It has dozens of profiles for colour neg films, including all the currently manufactured ones. I simply digitise the film in RAW with the DSLR as I normally do, then white balance off a blank portion of the film (i.e. make sure at least one of your shots contains some), which neutralises the orange mask. I then open the WB corrected RAWs in photoshop and perform the plugin conversion, which creates positive TIFFs. Unfortunately the plugin will not work on smart objects, so the conversion settings cannot be altered later. This is a minor problem though, as if you limit the conversion step to just the most basic options (film profile, and shadow and highlight clipping), then it's hard to go wrong. If any further corrections are required (such as colour tweaking), then they are best done afterwards in PS I find; however, the output of the plugin is typically already dead on in terms of colours.

The interface/workflow of the plugin is awful, but can be learnt without too much effort. It's also quite expensive, but it is the best option I have found for inverting C41 from RAW files.

Click to expand...

I watched the ColorPerfect tutorial video and it almost scared me off. It's hard to believe it's any easier or faster than using the tools already available in Photoshop - of course, it's possible the end result may be better. I am still exploring how to get the best results from PS. At some point I might consider ColorPerfect or Negative Lab Pro. After reading more information about light sources. I decided I should probably get a better LED panel before spending money on software. I am reluctant to keep throwing money at my camera copy rig when I have a film scanner that's giving me OK results.

I guess my results are OK. Would you care to comment on the results you get from ColorPerfect compared to the results shown on my web page? Or do you have a link to some of your ColorPerfect conversions?

runswithsizzers said:

I watched the ColorPerfect tutorial video and it almost scared me off. It's hard to believe it's any easier or faster than using the tools already available in Photoshop - of course, it's possible the end result may be better. I am still exploring how to get the best results from PS. At some point I might consider ColorPerfect or Negative Lab Pro. After reading more information about light sources. I decided I should probably get a better LED panel before spending money on software. I am reluctant to keep throwing money at my camera copy rig when I have a film scanner that's giving me OK results.

I guess my results are OK. Would you care to comment on the results you get from ColorPerfect compared to the results shown on my web page? Or do you have a link to some of your ColorPerfect conversions?

Click to expand...

Do you mean the tutorial video on the official ColorPerfect website? I had a look at that too, and I agree it's not very good. The one I learned my current CP inversion technique from is here:
The author explains the basic key settings well and clearly. If you follow what he does the inversion process itself is actually very easy. I have tried Negative Lab Pro too (version 1.2.1), and personally I found the results wanting (heavy colour casts, way too much contrast by default etc). I understand there is a newer version released now though, which admittedly I haven't tried, and it may be improved. The only real advantage with NLP I can see is that you get to continue working in RAW after the inversion process, which is something you can't do in CP. However that's a minor nitpick, as 16 bit TIFF files still give you massive editing latitude.

Before getting CP I had real problems doing the inversions by hand in PS using RGB curves. No matter what I tried I always got some degree of colour cast; sometimes minor, sometimes heavy, but always there, and it could be a real pain to correct fully. Ektar is especially difficult to manually invert, and I never once got a result I was happy with. CP handles even Ektar without a single hitch. Below is an example of mine shot on Ektar and inverted with CP. Other than a touch of sharpening the only thing I did after the inversion was to add a tiny bit of saturation and warmth to the original colours, which for the effect I wanted were a little on the cool side (but accurately rendered in the CP inversion, as it was shot in a deep, open-shaded gorge). To me, CP would have paid for itself just for the ease of inverting Ektar, let alone all the other stocks.



As for colour temperature of the LED lightboxes, I'm not sure how critical the absolute value would be, as you can always white balance correct the results if digitising using RAW. I imagine the uniformity of the colour temperature across the panel would be more important. The panel I use wasn't very expensive (about £50), and I don't think the manufacturer even states what the CRI is.

I think the examples on your site are good for manual inversions. As for scanner vs camera versions on there it's a little bit of a toss up; I can see colour casts of different types on both. However I still generally prefer the camera versions.

About color temperature: isn't it possible to take a "picture" of the lightbox only (without any neg) and use this as a white point reference?

etn said:

About color temperature: isn't it possible to take a "picture" of the lightbox only (without any neg) and use this as a white point reference?

Click to expand...

I don't see why not. I haven't tried this approach though.

etn said:

About color temperature: isn't it possible to take a "picture" of the lightbox only (without any neg) and use this as a white point reference?

Click to expand...

The downside of this approach is that some lightboxes emit light in a non-continuous spectrum. There may be gaps in the colours, which may lead to certain colours not being scanned well, even if a light balance measurement averages out to something which appears to be useful.

Referencing the OP's original post, I'm wondering what sort of software is being used that generates 30 mb images. My Sony NEX 7's APS-C sized sensor has more megapixels than the 5DmkIII's (24.3 vs. 22.3) and I'm typically seeing raw files in the 24.5 MB range. Jpgs are usually 2 to 3 MB in size. I don't have my jpg conversion setting set to super high fidelity -- about 75% or so -- which is plenty good enough for me.

When I dupe my negs or slides, I don't stitch my images either -- mostly because I haven't felt the need. I have MF images in a variety of formats, all of which I can fit easily within the frame of my NEX (I'm using a Tamron 90mm macro as my taking lens -- a superbly sharp optic). I have my NEX mounted to a copy stand and the negs or slides are mounted in an Epson scanner film holder that I place atop a light box I built that sits on the copy stand. I set the lens's aperture to f/8, with the assumption that it provides enough depth of field such that any slight curvature of the film will be taken into account. Even so, MF film rides very flat in this holder, so it hasn't been an issue.