I have to say that I am surprised that any "trusted" lab would admit that they have a visible recurring processing fault caused by their equipment, and which they don't seem able to eliminate, particularly as dip-and-dunk is probably the most established system used now, and for many years, for B&W, C41 and E6. Doesn't give any confidence, and you should perhaps complain and ask for, at least, replacement film and refund of processing costs ??
I have to say that I am surprised that any "trusted" lab would admit that they have a visible recurring processing fault caused by their equipment, and which they don't seem able to eliminate, particularly as dip-and-dunk is probably the most established system used now, and for many years, for B&W, C41 and E6. Doesn't give any confidence, and you should perhaps complain and ask for, at least, replacement film and refund of processing costs ??
Thanks Laclan. I'll look into it and see if it can help meFrequency Separation approaches work well in my experience with this sort of problem.
Banding comes from missing data. If you get your scans are in JPEG, the compression algorithm throws out data. Another issue could be the bit depth of the original scan. The more data, the less possibility of banding.
Just goes to show there is really no perfect way to process color film. Our Noritsu V30 (leader card type) requires regular up keep and cleanings, but I love the results I get from it (C41). High volume shops need dip/dunk but the leader card machines can be great for those of us doing less than 1000 rolls a week. For sheet film we are moving to Expert Drums. I personally wouldn't want to have to maintain a dip and dunk line. The big shops that run them need them but it introduces a lot of complexity.
Hey Mainecoonmaniac, thanks for your reply. It is definitely not a scanning issue as I'm scanning raw on Flexlight scanner at 3200 dpi. The light banding in the top sky is due to the tech issues in my lab's dip and dunk process.
Yeah, I'm not seeing any problem with the image you posted. Can you draw an arrow to the defect?
I'm a bit confused here: did the lab say the banding was a processing issue or a scanner issue?
Mach banding is where density shifts occur when the bit depth is too low to accurately transition on subtle density graduations. Most typically, it happens on 8 bit images; 10 bit being the minimum to keep this artifact from occurring.
If it is the scan (and not the negative) with banding issues, then the lab is probably down-converting the image to 8 bit and screwing the pooch to keep data wrangling to a minimum. If this is the case I would go back and tell them this is unacceptable and ask them to give you at least 10 bit images.
An old trick to minimize banding in 8 bit images is to lightly add noise to the image (yes, random noise). This breaks up the gradient enough to minimize the artifact and was extensively used in the early years of CGI in motion pictures when 8 bit was the only game in town.
Additionally, I should add it's not banding as in the digital variety. There are bands of very thin lines running across the images, wasn't sure what else to call it.
Hey Mainecoonmaniac, thanks for your reply. It is definitely not a scanning issue as I'm scanning raw on Flexlight scanner at 3200 dpi. The light banding in the top sky is due to the tech issues in my lab's dip and dunk process.
If you use the healing brush or even the clone tool you can fix that no problem. To get it to go faster, pick one spot, then you can go to the next area that has a break in the information (change of density/color/structure) of the line and hold the shift key down and click. PS will fill the line in for you. If there is a big density change between the line and the surrounding area sometimes it is better to use the clone tool to get the density closer then the healing brush. You can just stack the layers if you want. Sometimes the healing brush tool works a lot better if you break the line into small pieces.
I can think of some other ways to deal with this too, but no need to overcomplicate it.
I'm assuming you know this, but I'll mention it for others. Always retouch first. Always use a separate layer for the retouching.
Hope that helps you.
This looks like dirty scanner glass if the scanner used glass.To me, this doesn't look like a processing problem...
View attachment 235746
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?