This will be an interesting comparison.
Ektachrome ........ needing to increase 1.7 stops in Lightroom .... normal?
-
H
- Thread starter Dazzer123
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nagaoka 4X5 View Camera w/ Lens Boards
- Started by Beevo
-
For Sale FS: Fuji GF670 - Silver, recently serviced.
- Started by 0x001688936CA08
-
Found Mamiya RZ67 120 film back
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale Kodak 125PX Plus-X 35mm Film Lot (And More)
- Started by chuckroast
-
For Sale Large format Kodak 1443 Aerochrome color infrared film
- Started by MCB18
Forum statistics
This will be an interesting comparison.
The ECN2 discussion and the podcast from Bill X (one of the analog great podcasts on film) and his recent view that ECN2 films should be developed in ECN2 chems rather than Cinestill's effectively cross process approach... I have pretty much stayed away from Cinestill stuff and stuck with Arista, Tetenal and now Bellini. Love to see what you come up with.... using the Cinestill, but there seems to be enough buzz that perhaps the jurry's still out on their chem processes.
As to post development notes, I've done E6 with Nikon Coolscan (LS8000) and Vuescan software, I've since switched to an Epson V850 using SIlverFast 9 and upgraded software to HDR. Scanning under the Batch Scan with 64bit HDR seems to do a very good job Supposedly a Raw file equivalent scanned twice using Express Scan - 1st as a regular and 2nd time as infrared(?) to capture the full dynamic range. Perhaps.... but I will say they are pretty decent and the conversions work well with DxO in post. I am loving the Express Scan workflow. Can't say enough positive things about it.
Nothing's perfect. But FWIW, I found DSR scanning to be a dust magnet.... and just didn't work for me. SilverFast 9 with the upgrade just seemed to cure all of that. I'll be able to tell you more after my first Ektachrome 100 with Bellini E6 developed films are scannable - either tomorrow or Monday. I have a Tetenal E6 2.5L kit that's been sitting in the fridge, but didn't have that many films. So it was the Bellini 7-chem kit (including Stabilizer). Hanging to dry, they look "marvelous". I'm sure I'll be less enamoured when I get to see them on the screen, but I'm just amazed everything worked out fine (used my B's processor and following the Joel L. Bellini test notes, used 6:30 as my 1st tank time. And yes, it's nice when SOT (straight out of tank) they don't suck
'cause y'know sometimes.... sometimes they do.
But I am ALWAYS the rookie.
As to post development notes, I've done E6 with Nikon Coolscan (LS8000) and Vuescan software, I've since switched to an Epson V850 using SIlverFast 9 and upgraded software to HDR. Scanning under the Batch Scan with 64bit HDR seems to do a very good job Supposedly a Raw file equivalent scanned twice using Express Scan - 1st as a regular and 2nd time as infrared(?) to capture the full dynamic range. Perhaps.... but I will say they are pretty decent and the conversions work well with DxO in post. I am loving the Express Scan workflow. Can't say enough positive things about it.
Nothing's perfect. But FWIW, I found DSR scanning to be a dust magnet.... and just didn't work for me. SilverFast 9 with the upgrade just seemed to cure all of that. I'll be able to tell you more after my first Ektachrome 100 with Bellini E6 developed films are scannable - either tomorrow or Monday. I have a Tetenal E6 2.5L kit that's been sitting in the fridge, but didn't have that many films. So it was the Bellini 7-chem kit (including Stabilizer). Hanging to dry, they look "marvelous". I'm sure I'll be less enamoured when I get to see them on the screen, but I'm just amazed everything worked out fine (used my B's processor and following the Joel L. Bellini test notes, used 6:30 as my 1st tank time. And yes, it's nice when SOT (straight out of tank) they don't suck
'cause y'know sometimes.... sometimes they do.But I am ALWAYS the rookie.
The slight move of the second pass I believe also accounts for the smoothing of the result when combined.
It is my understanding that you never want a slight move on the subsequent passes--that this is considered an error and reduces quality and sharpness.
There is a theoretical advantage to multi-pass multi-scanning in that the longer period between scans could make it more likely that the noise pattern has changed and thus that the averaging of the multiple scans might be more effective in correcting for noise. But, this depends on having perfect positioning of the CCD sensor on each scan.
I think the single-pass multi-scanning is more likely on most scanners (that offer it) to provide high quality results, since the multiple samples are all taken on one pass of the CCD sensor, and so positioning errors are unlikely. But, the noise pattern might not have changed as much since each sample for any given location is taken in fairly close succession.
There is an additional or alternative method of noise reduction that might be of interest if you do not need the full resolution possible on the scanner. In VueScan (I am not sure if there is a similar option in SilverFast), there is an option in the output of TIFF size reduction.
For example, if you set TIFF size reduction to 2, then every 2x2 block of pixels would be written as a single pixel, which is the average of these 4 pixels. So, if you did a 7200dpi scan, you would end up with a 3600dpi scan, with the advantage, as VueScan describes, that "this option produces better results than reducing the resolution of the scan, as the averaging of multiple pixels results in a similar noise reduction benefit as multi-sampling" and that you are "increasing the number of effective bits of resolution by 2 bits".
For example, if you set TIFF size reduction to 2, then every 2x2 block of pixels would be written as a single pixel, which is the average of these 4 pixels. So, if you did a 7200dpi scan, you would end up with a 3600dpi scan, with the advantage, as VueScan describes, that "this option produces better results than reducing the resolution of the scan, as the averaging of multiple pixels results in a similar noise reduction benefit as multi-sampling" and that you are "increasing the number of effective bits of resolution by 2 bits".
Because supposedly most scanners don't deliver the full dpi resolution that they claim--my understanding is that they do scan at this hardware resolution, but the resolving power is not always there, maybe limited by the quality of the lens or something else--I have thought that scanning at the full resolution but with the TIFF size reduction of 2 might be a good way to get the best out of the scanner, with the added benefit of the potential noise reduction, and not wasting extra file size on resolution where the detail might not really be there.
I haven't gotten the chance yet, but I have wanted to compare four scans, all with the same eventual resolution (replace with whatever resolutions you can/want to use):
1.) 3600dpi plain scan
2.) 3600dpi multi-sampling scan
3.) 7200dpi plain scan with TIFF size reduction of 2 to get 3600dpi
4.) 7200dpi multi-sampling scan with TIFF size reduction of 2 to get 3600dpi
Also probably using IT8 target calibrated ICC profile for the scanner and appropriate color reversal film type and then Ekta Space PS 5 or DonRGB4 RGB working space.
I haven't gotten the chance yet, but I have wanted to compare four scans, all with the same eventual resolution (replace with whatever resolutions you can/want to use):
1.) 3600dpi plain scan
2.) 3600dpi multi-sampling scan
3.) 7200dpi plain scan with TIFF size reduction of 2 to get 3600dpi
4.) 7200dpi multi-sampling scan with TIFF size reduction of 2 to get 3600dpi
Also probably using IT8 target calibrated ICC profile for the scanner and appropriate color reversal film type and then Ekta Space PS 5 or DonRGB4 RGB working space.
Last edited:
Aim for the sharpest and best exposed scan you can, but whatever the scanner software produces it will not substitute for Lightroom, your eye, or opinion. Scanning in B&W is similar, just get all the information out of the negative and adjust the brightness and contrast in post processing (and for colour the colour balance). It cuts out chasing your tail in trying to get a perfect scan and then you proudly sit back and look at it and realise it still isn't right so you end up tweaking in Lightroom anyway.
There isn't a pattern to black noise or readout noise of a CCD sensor. It's random. If there was a pattern to noise it could be (largely) eliminated without averaging.
Yes, multi-pass is just an afterthought or more precisely a feature of a scanning software for scanners that don't support multi-sampling as it can still be beneficial for noise reduction provided that alignment is precise enough.
Yes & no!
I'm much less technically minded than most on this forum, so for me, there will be a point where it's "good enough", but i'm not there yet.
In my opinion there's much too much digital manipulation in modern photography. There's nothing wrong with it intrinsically, but people just don't know where to stop, it's like holding a magic wand and apparently it's so hard to just say "enough" and put it down.
All strictly IMO!
What people are saying here is that if you want to see your scans replicate what you see on a light table it will take a fair bit of digital manipulation. Even fully colour managed workflow only gets you so far.
Right, but my main problem is getting my slides to look nice on the light table!
If i can nail that, i'm not too worried about the scanning process because i already got good results with a crappy looking slide and a lot of digital tweaking!
Quick question: does this table look accurate?
You've gone just about as far as you can go with digital manipulation by scanning your slide, you have all the information and you aren't adding anything to it by post processing, just reorganising it so what you see on a screen or print matches your original. If I put your test shot into Photoshop (I don't use Lightroom but it does a similar job) all I have to do is adjust the brightness then press 'Auto Colour' and it comes out pretty much perfect, hardly extreme manipulation or hard work, five seconds in total.
Who needs that kind of (false) precision? Every film's reciprocity failure will be MUCH bigger than the approximation error of dividing a stop to fractions in a linear manner.
I never said the digital over-manipulation that's ruining modern photography in my opinion is hard work or takes a long time! 
All i'm trying to say is that i first need to find out for myself how good a slide can be on a light table, and after that i won't think much more about it much more because i know the final on screen or printed version will be fine.
By not striving for this, i'll never know if what i see on screen is as good as it can be.
All i'm trying to say is that i first need to find out for myself how good a slide can be on a light table, and after that i won't think much more about it much more because i know the final on screen or printed version will be fine.
By not striving for this, i'll never know if what i see on screen is as good as it can be.
Right, I simply meant the random pattern or locations of noise at any given time. And that with longer periods of time, the random pattern or locations might have changed more significantly than over a very short period of time.
You you are obviously way more serious about shooting LF than most of us.
So, stop f*cing around with Cinestill!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |