Inverting Negatives? which software is best for B&W and Kodak color

[PhilBurton]

What's wrong with just using Photoshop?

I have Photoshop as part of my Adobe Photographer's plan, which is mainly to get Lightroom. What is wrong with Photoshop:
1. Very complex
2. Big learning curve
3. more than one way to achieve a desired outcome.
4. Need to work on a COPY of the original image, since Photoshop alters the image it works on, unlike Lightroom. And backups of the image being worked on. Lightroom maintains an edit history of the changes to the original image.
5. Most people don't have access to Photoshop.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, every scan I make I keep in it's unedited form.
And I create folders for all my edited work, where the characteristics of all the contents of each folder are identified in the folder name.
For that reason, I usually have a folder that includes "spotted" in the name - for my black and white work in particular.
And unlike with something like Lightroom, I don't have to worry about the original and my editing trail becoming separated.
I am in the midst of a digitization project for my father's slides. Splitting the results into folders permits me to do the work in manageable segments.
And I'm realistic about my expectations of the scanning software - everything will need to be at least reviewed in the post-processing software - almost nothing will come out from the scanner in final form. The corrections necessary will often be minor.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Maybe you can get your son to help you with the scanning and editing?

 

[reddesert]

Photrio can really overcomplicate things.

Phil has a big task if he is going to scan even a fraction of those pictures. Fortunately he has a film scanner and software. The simplest way to do this is, IMO, to scan the negatives with the inversion done by the scanning software. There might be a few interventions such as testing and choosing the best color film profile for a particular film type or roll, or setting the contrast on B&W scans, but mostly he has to get close enough. He can then pick some smaller subset of high value photos to devote more time to fixing up the color or adjusting the B&W curve.

 

[Les Sarile]

The OP lists 10K B&W and about 5K C-41. I am not sure if this means frames or rolls?

If this is frames, I calculate 97.2 hours to scan 10K B&W frames at 35 seconds per frame at 4000dpi auto focus and auto exposure no cropping. If this 10K of frames is in precut strips of 6 frames that would be about 1666.7 strips. Inserting each strip can take about 30 seconds for the Coolscan 5000 to bring in the strip, provide thumbnails of each frame and be ready to begin scanning. This process for the strips will add about 13.9 hours to the 97.2 hours for a total of about 111.1 hours.

Now if these were 10K rolls of 36 frames each, then the scanning itself can take 3500 hours (145 days) + 500 hours inserting each 6 frame strip for a total of 4000 hours or 166.7 days to scan the b&w film. Keep in mind there is no ICE for true b&w film scanning and therefore that will have to be done in post.

For the C-41, ICE is available and each full res frame scan can take about 55 seconds per frame. So if it is 5K frames the scanning can take 76.4 hours and inserting each strip can take 6.9 hours for a total of 83.3 hours. If this is 5K rolls of 36 frames then the scanning can take 2750 hours + 250 hours inserting strips for a total of 3000 hours or 125 days. Because of ICE, there will be no need to remove dust and scratches in post.

C'mon, that's less then a year's worth of scanning . . .

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The OP lists 10K B&W and about 5K C-41. I am not sure if this means frames or rolls?

If this is frames, I calculate 97.2 hours to scan 10K B&W frames at 35 seconds per frame at 4000dpi auto focus and auto exposure no cropping. If this 10K of frames is in precut strips of 6 frames that would be about 1666.7 strips. Inserting each strip can take about 30 seconds for the Coolscan 5000 to bring in the strip, provide thumbnails of each frame and be ready to begin scanning. This process for the strips will add about 13.9 hours to the 97.2 hours for a total of about 111.1 hours.

Now if these were 10K rolls of 36 frames each, then the scanning itself can take 3500 hours (145 days) + 500 hours inserting each 6 frame strip for a total of 4000 hours or 166.7 days to scan the b&w film. Keep in mind there is no ICE for true b&w film scanning and therefore that will have to be done in post.

For the C-41, ICE is available and each full res frame scan can take about 55 seconds per frame. So if it is 5K frames the scanning can take 76.4 hours and inserting each strip can take 6.9 hours for a total of 83.3 hours. If this is 5K rolls of 36 frames then the scanning can take 2750 hours + 250 hours inserting strips for a total of 3000 hours or 125 days. Because of ICE, there will be no need to remove dust and scratches in post.

C'mon, that's less then a year's worth of scanning . . .

3000 hours is only 125 days if you work 24 hours a day! In any case, I think you're too aggressive in your estimates. He also needs to name each picture and file it in a logical file system. There's downtime for eating, resting, and just plain boredom. He has to maintain his sanity. He could do a couple of hundred pictures and see how long that takes allowing for learning. Then he'll have a real idea of the time for the whole project.

 

[PhilBurton]

Maybe you can get your son to help you with the scanning and editing?

Ha. He has two small children, a busy job, and he lives 900 miles away from me.

 

[PhilBurton]

The OP lists 10K B&W and about 5K C-41. I am not sure if this means frames or rolls?

If this is frames, I calculate 97.2 hours to scan 10K B&W frames at 35 seconds per frame at 4000dpi auto focus and auto exposure no cropping. If this 10K of frames is in precut strips of 6 frames that would be about 1666.7 strips. Inserting each strip can take about 30 seconds for the Coolscan 5000 to bring in the strip, provide thumbnails of each frame and be ready to begin scanning. This process for the strips will add about 13.9 hours to the 97.2 hours for a total of about 111.1 hours.

Now if these were 10K rolls of 36 frames each, then the scanning itself can take 3500 hours (145 days) + 500 hours inserting each 6 frame strip for a total of 4000 hours or 166.7 days to scan the b&w film. Keep in mind there is no ICE for true b&w film scanning and therefore that will have to be done in post.

For the C-41, ICE is available and each full res frame scan can take about 55 seconds per frame. So if it is 5K frames the scanning can take 76.4 hours and inserting each strip can take 6.9 hours for a total of 83.3 hours. If this is 5K rolls of 36 frames then the scanning can take 2750 hours + 250 hours inserting strips for a total of 3000 hours or 125 days. Because of ICE, there will be no need to remove dust and scratches in post.

C'mon, that's less then a year's worth of scanning . . .

@Les Sarile

Thanks for this detailed workup. I recently bought a Kaiser light table, so I can cull the obvious duds right away. I think that for slides, at least half are duds/duplicates. Viewing the slides on a light table will take a few minutes, but it will ensure that slides are in the right sequence.

 

[PhilBurton]

The OP lists 10K B&W and about 5K C-41. I am not sure if this means frames or rolls?

If this is frames, I calculate 97.2 hours to scan 10K B&W frames at 35 seconds per frame at 4000dpi auto focus and auto

Frames. Estimates only right now.

 

[PhilBurton]

Photrio can really overcomplicate things.

Uh, no kidding. Of course, someone like me can overcomplicate things without any outside help.

Phil has a big task if he is going to scan even a fraction of those pictures. Fortunately he has a film scanner and software.

Yup. With a 50-slide batch feeder and a 6-frame film feeder.

setting the contrast on B&W scans,

Easy to do in Lightroom. Where I do all my digital photo post work.

but mostly he has to get close enough.

Which is probably fine for family photos. Remember that slides can't be "post processed." Same for lab-processed color. The bar is low here.

He can then pick some smaller subset of high value photos to devote more time to fixing up the color or adjusting the B&W curve.

Yes.

 

[TheoLeakas2005]

Because nobody has said it already, Grain2Pixel is a free and mighty useful photoshop plugin that supports batch processing, just select and input and output folder

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have Photoshop as part of my Adobe Photographer's plan, which is mainly to get Lightroom. What is wrong with Photoshop:
1. Very complex
2. Big learning curve
3. more than one way to achieve a desired outcome.
4. Need to work on a COPY of the original image, since Photoshop alters the image it works on, unlike Lightroom. And backups of the image being worked on. Lightroom maintains an edit history of the changes to the original image.
5. Most people don't have access to Photoshop.

all easily manageable with a proper workflow, and surely easy enough to just invert a negative.

 

[250swb]

I have Photoshop as part of my Adobe Photographer's plan, which is mainly to get Lightroom. What is wrong with Photoshop:
1. Very complex
2. Big learning curve
3. more than one way to achieve a desired outcome.
4. Need to work on a COPY of the original image, since Photoshop alters the image it works on, unlike Lightroom. And backups of the image being worked on. Lightroom maintains an edit history of the changes to the original image.
5. Most people don't have access to Photoshop.

Given the thread has been resurrected

1. Very complex yes, but you only need to use the bits you want
2. Big learning curve no, you only need to learn the bits you need, hardly anybody knows all of Photoshop
3. If there is more than one way to achieve an outcome use the simplest.
4. Photoshop alters the image. No Photoshop doesn't alter the image, the photographer does that by working on an image without saving the original file. So after working on an image just 'Save as' and use modified file name of the original, like '*****version 2', it's simple housekeeping that goes way back before Lightroom was invented.
5. Most people do have access to Photoshop if they subscribe for less than the price of a coffee and bun once a month.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Given the thread has been resurrected

1. Very complex yes, but you only need to use the bits you want
2. Big learning curve no, you only need to learn the bits you need, hardly anybody knows all of Photoshop
3. If there is more than one way to achieve an outcome use the simplest.
4. Photoshop alters the image. No Photoshop doesn't alter the image, the photographer does that by working on an image without saving the original file. So after working on an image just 'Save as' and use modified file name of the original, like '*****version 2', it's simple housekeeping that goes way back before Lightroom was invented.
5. Most people do have access to Photoshop if they subscribe for less than the price of a coffee and bun once a month.

I agree, plus thousands of tutorials online, because Photoshop has established itself as the industry standard.

 

[xtol121]

I would hesitate to recommend any destructive image editing (including storage bloating schemes like multiple copies/versions of the file). Instead I would focus on camera scanning and using a referenced catalog system to organize and process from. Consider reading the camera scanning book that Peter Krogh of DAM Book fame released a few years ago. By camera scanning you save a ton of space. ~300mb for a TIF with destructive edits built in vs ~20mb for a RAW file that you can always go back to. That’s not even getting into the speed of camera scanning which is exponentially faster than something like an epson.

As far as the editing is concerned I have scanned around 250,000 negatives in the past 5 years that are all referenced in a catalog and inverted in Capture One. The inversion is all done by a single preset for C-41 and a single preset for black and white. Just like in the darkroom you can color balance via the white balance tool, and unlike in the color darkroom you can adjust contrast. The trick is Capture One is a steep learning curve for most people, it’s not automatic, but it takes less time than an automatic workflow.

Another option would be to use Lightroom and NLP, but I don’t find automatic adjustments to be helpful or fast, and not at all accurate to what one might achieve in the darkroom.