I am about to scan maybe 10K B&W and about 5K C-41 and some ancient C-22 (before culling). And I do not want to do all that inversion work in Lightroom, with "inverted curves. I already own Silverfast, so I could use that program. But to be honest I now regret that purchase. If need be I will get VueScan. Given one of these applications, is there any net benefit to NLP?
Inverting Negatives? which software is best for B&W and Kodak color
-
H
- Thread starter PhilBurton
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: One of a kind Canonet QL17 GIII, PANDA
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale 3.25x4.25 adox CHS 100 II
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Fuji fp3000b & Fp100c fridgestored
- Started by belichten
Forum statistics
It is not something I have personally used yet, but you might consider the combination of PhotoLine with the ColorPerfect plugin. I know that some people really like this combination.
PhotoLine
https://www.pl32.com/
ColorPerfect
https://www.colorperfect.com/
PhotoLine is an excellent image and photo editor on its own, and the ColorPerfect plugin gives extra capability for working with film scans.
PhotoLine
https://www.pl32.com/
ColorPerfect
https://www.colorperfect.com/
PhotoLine is an excellent image and photo editor on its own, and the ColorPerfect plugin gives extra capability for working with film scans.
Ok then, see you in a couple of years. ;-)
You don't say what tools you will be using to scan these negatives: film scanner, flatbed scanner, or a digital camera?
I use NLP (Negative Lab Pro), mostly for B&W, but I've also scanned and inverted about a dozen rolls of color negative film. For me, my black and white negatives are less of a struggle in NLP, and a lot more fun.
If you can get either Silverfast or Vuescan to invert your color negatives in a way that is pleasing to you, then by all means do that. If not, NLP might be a big help, but it might not. My experience with NLP is rather limited, so perhaps I shouldn't say, but so far my results have been somewhat uneven. On some days, I am able to make positive inversions I really like, and other days, it's a struggle.
A recent upgrade to NLP has added something the developer calls Roll Analysis, and I think it helps, especially if a roll of color negatives has multiple shots made under similar lighting. Still, NLP is far from a one-button solution. I am happy when I can find a set of NLP settings that gets me to 80-90% of where I want to be -- after which I expect to convert the NLP results to a positive copy so I can finish the job using the normal Lightroom Classic tools. Sometimes, I find a group of NLP settings that works pretty good for multiple negatives. Other times, it seems like every negative requires its own custom NLP settings.
No matter what tools you use, I suspect it is going to take some minimum amount of time and effort to get acceptable results from color negatives, so my advice is to be selective, and be patient.
There are several other software applications which have been released in the past few years, but I have not tried them. If there is something quicker, easier and more predictable than NLP, I would like to hear about it.
I have a Nikon 5000 ED scanner, and I already own Silverfast, but I am very disenchanted with it. Thus I am entire open to buying Vuescan (but will be angry at myself for wasting the money on Silverfast).
So far I have been using Silverfast to scan slides, but I also have to scan all these negatives, as I noted in post #1. I was hoping that I would get a flood of messages that were all pointing in the same direction. So far, no flood.
I appreciate your comments about NLP, and about the Roll Analysis feature specifically.Because my workflow for my digital-native photos is centered around Lightroom (because it is non-destructive) I use Photoshop only for things that I can't do in Lightroom. Lightroom Classic, to be sure. I'm interested in NLP or alternative because I want to use the same Lightroom, tools and techniques that I use for my digital-native photos.
I assume there is some reason you are unable to use whatever Nikon software that came with that scanner? I think several users of the Nikon software say they get good results with the Nikon scanning software(?)
Before I got NLP, I was happy to do my b&w inversions in Photoshop, but in the past 5 years or so, I have switched to Lightroom Classic + NLP almost exclusively. I could never go back to Photoshop -- for one thing, I've mostly forgotten what little I ever knew about it. As you probably already know, NLP is a plug-in designed to work specifically with Lightroom, and as far as I know, will not work with Photoshop.So far I have been using Silverfast to scan slides, but I also have to scan all these negatives, as I noted in post #1. I was hoping that I would get a flood of messages that were all pointing in the same direction. So far, no flood.
Because my workflow for my digital-native photos is centered around Lightroom (because it is non-destructive) I use Photoshop only for things that I can't do in Lightroom. Lightroom Classic, to be sure. I'm interested in NLP or alternative because I want to use the same Lightroom, tools and techniques that I use for my digital-native photos.
I should have mentioned, I am starting by copying my negatives with a digital camera, so perhaps my experience does not translate well to those using film scanners(?) I did scan many slides with a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite F-2900 film scanner, using VueScan -- but slides are easy compared to color negative film. As best as I can remember, what little color negative film I scanned with the Minolta scanner + VueScan was more time consuming and less successful than the results I am getting now from my camera-scans using LR + NLP.
If you want to see what kind of results I've been getting, I have a gallery of the various rolls of film I have scanned posted on my SmugMug website, here: https://garywright.smugmug.com/Photography. There are a few digital albums on that page, but the film can easily be identified by the album titles. I mention how each roll was processed, including my scanning method.
I have a Nikon 5000 ED scanner, and I already own Silverfast, but I am very disenchanted with it. Thus I am entire open to buying Vuescan (but will be angry at myself for wasting the money on Silverfast).
So far I have been using Silverfast to scan slides, but I also have to scan all these negatives, as I noted in post #1. I was hoping that I would get a flood of messages that were all pointing in the same direction. So far, no flood.
Because my workflow for my digital-native photos is centered around Lightroom (because it is non-destructive) I use Photoshop only for things that I can't do in Lightroom. Lightroom Classic, to be sure. I'm interested in NLP or alternative because I want to use the same Lightroom, tools and techniques that I use for my digital-native photos.
Phil, I don't understand. If you are using Silverfast to control the 5000ED scanner, don't you set it as color negative and specify the film type (as long as they have that profile)? The software converts the scan to a color positive. Why invert with another software?
Option: use NikonScan 4.03. It runs the iSRD scratch tool, and the scans look great. I don't know how you would apply another inversion software.
1. It's no longer maintained. And there are known bugs, which will never be fixed.
2. It doesn't seem to interface well with Lightroom.
3. It is possible to run under Windows 10 64, but there is no guarantee of compatibility with Windows 11 (which I haven't tried yet). But the real issue is Windows 12, expected sometime between July and October, 2024.
I don't like to have to "struggle" with software if it is at all possible to avoid it.
I am aware that NLP is a Lightroo, plug-in. That makes it attractive to me, as opposed to being a Photoshop plug-ins. I do use Photoshop, but I don't like its complexity AND the fact that it is "destructive," unlike Lightroomm which never modifies the image source file. And I like the catalog in Lightroom.
I've settled on the Nikon 5000 scanner because it has a 50-slide batch feeder and with an easy modification, it can do an entire roll of 36 negatives in one go.
You have used an amazing variety of film stocks. I'm impressed that you processed some negative films to positive, but that's a different discussion.
Forgot to reply to this point
I have read mixed reviews about various features in Silverfast. Aside from the very common criticism of the user interface, with which I concur.
Knowing that in some ways I'm late to this game, I was hoping to learn from the experience of other users. I could of course conduct my own tests, but that would take considerable time. And honestly, at my point in life I need to get on with all the scanning work if I am gong to leave that to my kids and to others. At the same time, I would like to get the best possible results.
If you have a film scanner and are using SIlverfast or Vuescan (or Nikon Scan), scan the color negatives as color negatives and have the scanner turn them into positives for you. You will probably have to experiment a little to get results that you like depending on the different film stocks.
Many of the threads about using other software like Negative Lab Pro, Color Perfect, or various homebrew recipes to invert color negatives are from people who are camera scanning, and thus getting an image that is color negative with the C-41 mask. So they need an inverting solution, and the inversion isn't simple. You already have a solution in the scanning software.
Scanning lots of negatives is lots of work and time, and Vuescan isn't very expensive, plus it has a free demo mode. I would at least try the Vuescan demo mode to see if you like it before diving into a huge project.
Many of the threads about using other software like Negative Lab Pro, Color Perfect, or various homebrew recipes to invert color negatives are from people who are camera scanning, and thus getting an image that is color negative with the C-41 mask. So they need an inverting solution, and the inversion isn't simple. You already have a solution in the scanning software.
Scanning lots of negatives is lots of work and time, and Vuescan isn't very expensive, plus it has a free demo mode. I would at least try the Vuescan demo mode to see if you like it before diving into a huge project.
I think you mean the scanning software..
So if I already own Silverfast and use that successfully for slides, then it becomes an issue of whether Silverfast or Vuescan does a better job of inverting color or B&W negatives. I don't mean to sound like I don't care about money, but if I did need to buy Vuescan, given my negative counts, the cost per negative (or per roll) is minimal.
Wow. I never realized that. You have probably simplified my workflow. A lot.
Agree.
Because of consistency - or rather, inconsistency. The correction of the orange mask relies on an algorithm that's specific to the scanning software and that algorithm attempts to invert and then neutralize the colors based on image data. The result is that there will be color balancing problems (very major ones) from one shot to another. If you want to scan a batch of film (e.g. a single roll) and get consistent color rendition on those scans, it usually works best to scan (or photograph) the film as if they were slides, i.e. with the color as they appear to the naked eye, and then invert and adjust the colors in post processing. This enables better consistency.
The caveat with the above is that with most 'automatic' color reconstruction software, you run into the same problem as with the scanning software, as it generally does pretty much the same thing. The real solution in my view is to manually balance the images, which actually isn't as difficult as many people believe, and it comes with the advantage that it's relatively simple to get perfect frame-to-frame consistency with a limited amount of work. I've written a brief report with some examples on how I personally do this: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/flipped-doing-color-negative-inversions-manually/
I wouldn’t want to manually invert and correct 15 thousand photos.
I would let the software handle 99% of that and only work on the most important and difficult files myself.
I would also choose whatever software allows me to scan the greatest number of images with the least amount of involvement from me. Whether that’s silverfast or vuescan or hacking together a setup to run nikonscan I can’t tell you.
But if I found myself staring down a pile of 15k photos I would not be worried about the cost of the equipment or licenses for the software that’s going to make the next year or two of my life that I’ll never get back as comfortable and pleasant as possible
I would let the software handle 99% of that and only work on the most important and difficult files myself.
I would also choose whatever software allows me to scan the greatest number of images with the least amount of involvement from me. Whether that’s silverfast or vuescan or hacking together a setup to run nikonscan I can’t tell you.
But if I found myself staring down a pile of 15k photos I would not be worried about the cost of the equipment or licenses for the software that’s going to make the next year or two of my life that I’ll never get back as comfortable and pleasant as possible
I agree with everything you've said.
The question that remains to be answered is, What (if any) combination of hardware and software can "handle 99%" of color negative scans without requiring a fair amount of additional hands-on postprocessing time for each frame?
Based on my (limited) experience and what I have read about the experiences of others, I suspect it may be difficult to find a setup that will automatically produce acceptable results anywhere near 99% of the time. Sure, my NLP or VueScan software settings will occasionally give me a 99% result from a color negative -- but for every one of those there will be 5 or 10 images that will require me to experiment with different software settings, and add another several minutes of postprocessing work as well.
If someone has found a magic bullet for copying and converting color negatives that does not require much, if any, manual postprocessing, then I would love to hear about it!
The odd thing is, I think the equipment and software that commercial labs are using usually does a pretty good job of getting believable color from their automated scans -- so it seems like someone should have come up with a better solution for us diy home users.
I have scanned >30K frames of films using the Coolscans+Nikonscan and I am sure that if the scene was captured well that I would not have had to use a "fair amount" of additional hands-on processing unless I wanted to enhance it further.
For instance, I would say that this fully automatic Noritsu scan of a well made frame from Kodak Gold 100 will require a "fair amount" of post work to attempt to make it look as good as the fully automatic result from the Coolscan.
Kodak Gold 100-7_30-36 Coolscan-Noritsu by Les DMess, on FlickrI found that using automatic default settings with Nikonscan to provide better results then any of the default presets with the earliest version of Vuescan.
Coolscan 5000 Nikonscan and Vuescan Kodak 160VC by Les DMess, on FlickrCoolscan+Nikonscan ICE on a very scratched up and/or dusty frame of film will save even more post work then using AI and most certainly will give better results today . . .
Kodak 160VC-036 Adobe AI vs Coolscan ICE by Les DMess, on FlickrIn early 2000, a bunch of us scanner owners scanned the same frame of Kodak Ektachrome Q-60E3 Target and these were their results . . .
Kodak Ektachrome Q-60E3 Target scans from various scanners by Les DMess, on FlickrI don't know how much work the others put in but this is a fully automatic scan from my Coolscan+Nikonscan with no color calibration tools.
Kodak Ektachrome Q-60E3 Target ICE Normal by Les DMess, on FlickrCoolscan+Nikonscan results are so consistent that I have made many stitched results from fully automatic scans. This one using 4 frames of Kodak Ektar 100.
Kodak Ektar 100_20-18-21_stitch by Les DMess, on FlickrA very high contrast scene taken at none using a contrasty Kodak Ektar 100 resulted in a very contrasty scan. Using the Shadow tool would not be a fair amount of post work would it?
Kodak Ektar 100 high contrast scene by Les DMess, on FlickrQuality of the scans from the Coolscan+Nikonscan are very good. Here is one taken with a Sony A900 24MP @ ISO400 compared to one taken on Fuji Sensia 400 - long before the A900 was even thought of, fully automatic scan . . .
Fuji Sensia 400_01-33 vs Sony A900 @ISO400 B by Les DMess, on FlickrAgain, I am not sure about percentages, but I have scanned >30K frames of various films on my Coolscan+Nikonscan and the one thing I can say about it still is uneventful . . .
I have asked this exact same question in the past -- as several others have as well -- and while several suggestions were given (same as above), there apparently isn't anything on the scale that you ask. Makes no sense to me either!!! I'm sure we will all hear about it it this product ever appears.
I have scanned >30K frames of films using the Coolscans+Nikonscan and I am sure that if the scene was captured well that I would not have had to use a "fair amount" of additional hands-on processing unless I wanted to enhance it further.
For instance, I would say that this fully automatic Noritsu scan of a well made frame from Kodak Gold 100 will require a "fair amount" of post work to attempt to make it look as good as the fully automatic result from the Coolscan.
I found that using automatic default settings with Nikonscan to provide better results then any of the default presets with the earliest version of Vuescan.
Coolscan+Nikonscan ICE on a very scratched up and/or dusty frame of film will save even more post work then using AI and most certainly will give better results today . . .
In early 2000, a bunch of us scanner owners scanned the same frame of Kodak Ektachrome Q-60E3 Target and these were their results . . .
I don't know how much work the others put in but this is a fully automatic scan from my Coolscan+Nikonscan with no color calibration tools.
Coolscan+Nikonscan results are so consistent that I have made many stitched results from fully automatic scans. This one using 4 frames of Kodak Ektar 100.
A very high contrast scene taken at none using a contrasty Kodak Ektar 100 resulted in a very contrasty scan. Using the Shadow tool would not be a fair amount of post work would it?
Quality of the scans from the Coolscan+Nikonscan are very good. Here is one taken with a Sony A900 24MP @ ISO400 compared to one taken on Fuji Sensia 400 - long before the A900 was even thought of, fully automatic scan . . .
Again, I am not sure about percentages, but I have scanned >30K frames of various films on my Coolscan+Nikonscan and the one thing I can say about it still is uneventful . . .
I agree with Les. Just use NikonScan and move on with your project.
You create the curve once for a given type of film, then apply that as an action automatically with any batch-capable tool (e.g. Photoshop).
It's hit & miss, really. Actually, people complaining about the colors of their lab scans is pretty common.
Absolutely, if any of the AI-based features in Lightroom are any indication. The issue is the cost of "training," especially with the variety of color neg films. For B&W, it would be nice is the AI could automatically select the "paper grade" for the inversion. But such features are progably years off, if ever. IF/WHEN/EVER you cam do you your own AI training, then if you are a very high-volume scanner, you would benefit from AI training.
There is no way that I would have the time for manual inversion of so many photos. Which is why I started this thread in the first place.
And given the need to cull post-scanning, and the overall importtance of getting optimal color balance, I would hope that relatively few negatives would need manual corrections, especially for color. B&W is a different issue, but that is where I would lean very heavily on the Lightroom contrast slide
Exactly.
I wish someone could
Agree completely. Manual correction of even a few hundred photos would be very tedious, aside from setting the contrast slider in Lightroom.
Are your kids ever going to look at 15,000 of your pictures? I can't get my daughter to print any of her own pictures taken on her digital camera and cellphone.
Frontier ,Noritsu and Pakon software are normally very good at auto colour correction (all systems will have colour failure on certain negatives) but the operator can set the parameters and level of automation and correction.
Colour preference can be very subjective, just look at the colour on people's TVs. Most labs will have process controls in place to achieve (in their opinion) the best scans from a particular negative.
There will always be people who will not like their scans.....too dark, too light, too high contrast, too low contrast, too blue, too cyan........... you get the idea.
A few years ago, (I owned a minilab) I had a customer who always complained about the colour of his prints (yes, he kept coming back!!!) So I did a set of ring around prints (see thumbnail example)
Customer selected a corrected colour not the neutral densitometer one. When we rescanned and printed his order with this colour correction he was happy (everyone in the lab thought it was the wrong colour). So it just goes to show.
Nothing. I was just making a point about commercial lab software.
Photoshop is a very powerful tool.
Of course not. But they both want copies of all the family photos, particularly my son. All my scans will be keyworded and dated as best as possible since I often don't know the exact date, only an approximate date.
Many of those negatives are railroad subjects. Railroads are a hobby interest of mine. Those scans may go to a railroad museum or society for their historical value.
And of course, many of the scans will be culled out as not worth preserving.
| 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:  |