Lab Scans Bad?

[jglass]

I am new to this forum and to scanning issues. I'm working on picking a color neg film for 35mm and 120 for some personal work and trying to figure out the best way to judge color palette, contrast etc. (choices are fuji 400H, portra nc, portra vc, etc).

I don't do my own developing or scanning for color, but we have some decent labs here. I'm getting developing with scanned files for proofing. Here's my question: is this a good way to judge the film response to my exposure methods, or is the scanning what I'm really judging?

The question arises because I'm getting some blown (mostly red) channels in the scans that I don't think should be there on the more neutral films (400H). A jpg is attached where the red shirt is just fried on the scan.

Is there a better way to judge the film response, when I really am too inexperienced to look at a color neg and see what it's doing? My labs will do contact sheets and proof prints that they say are RA-4. Would that be a better way of judging? Do I have to have actual optical prints in order to really judge these films? Finally, if the lab advertises proof prints as RA-4, does that mean there is no digital intervention at any point in the process?

My ignorance knows no bounds on these issues, so any help appreciated.


Thanks.

 

[MikeSeb]

I think it's tough, even with experience, to look at a color neg and see, through the orange mask, what's going on. That's the tradeoff you make---and which i've also made---in choosing color negative film's wider latitude and better accommodation of varying light situations over color reversal film's immediacy of feedback. Only by trying various films, while keeping other variables as constant as possible, can you get a feel for this.

C41 processing is brainlessly easy, and thus any decent lab should be able to do it well and consistently. Heck, I do it in a Jobo myself; far easier than B&W processing. Since you don't do your own scanning, it might be useful to chat with your lab people or even watch them as they do some of your scans--maybe you can get a look at the film curves they're seeing which will tell you if it's the film itself giving you "blown" channels, or something they're doing. This is one advantage in doing the scanning yourself; I do mine with a Nikon 9000 for 120 film. (I shoot no 35mm these days--spoiled by the Mamiya 7's huge negatives.)

When you say certain channels are "fried", do you mean they appear overexposed to you? or maybe out of gamut for the paper/monitor you're viewing them on? Re the attached JPG; it doesn't look overall over-exposed, but the red is pretty saturated, which leads me to think (assuming the jpg is a decent representation of the actual film image) that it is slightly overexposed. Are you shooting at an EI slower than box speed? (It looks like slightly overexposed 400H--?) Getting a look at the film curves during scanning would help you here.

What is your final output process/medium going to be? Screen viewing only? Inkjet printing? Optical printing? Whichever it is, look at the output using the same lab, (presumably) the same scanner, and images of scenes of similar color/contrast using different films. This will give you some insight into what's going on.

Of the films you mentioned, 400H is going to be the most "neutral" or "intermediate" in terms of saturation and contrast. It's my default 400-speed color negative film, and is a stellar performer. My other default film is Fujicolor 160S; even though it's fuji's less-saturated "skin-tone" film, supposedly equivalent to kodak's NC line, it's still pretty neutral, and not as wan and washed out as the Portra NC's. Other than those two, I keep Portra VC in both speeds on hand when I need a boost in saturation.

Check out my Dead Link Removed for some examples. IIRC all the images in book 4 are shot on either 160S, 400H, or one of the Portra VC's. The shopping cart closeups are 400H, and are a good example of what this film can do with a saturated red.

 

[jd callow]

I am new to this forum and to scanning issues. I'm working on picking a color neg film for 35mm and 120 for some personal work and trying to figure out the best way to judge color palette, contrast etc. (choices are fuji 400H, portra nc, portra vc, etc).

I don't do my own developing or scanning for color, but we have some decent labs here. I'm getting developing with scanned files for proofing. Here's my question: is this a good way to judge the film response to my exposure methods, or is the scanning what I'm really judging?

Not really. Scanning can resucue an underexposed neg and a cheap scan/scanner can create noise in highlights of a good neg.

The question arises because I'm getting some blown (mostly red) channels in the scans that I don't think should be there on the more neutral films (400H). A jpg is attached where the red shirt is just fried on the scan.

That seems pretty typical of red to me and the jpg looks good.

Is there a better way to judge the film response, when I really am too inexperienced to look at a color neg and see what it's doing? My labs will do contact sheets and proof prints that they say are RA-4. Would that be a better way of judging?

Yes! You can also ask them their opinion.

Do I have to have actual optical prints in order to really judge these films? Finally, if the lab advertises proof prints as RA-4, does that mean there is no digital intervention at any point in the process?

It helps to have optical prints, but a good printer can compensate for many ills. Ask them how they make their contacts. Contacts are a great way to see how your exposures worked out. Colour neg film isn't rocket science if you have concerns bracket away from your concerns -- worried about over exposure bracket 1/2 to a whole stop toward under exposure; if its under exposure that has you worried bracket a full stop or as much as 1.5 stops toward over exposure.

My ignorance knows no bounds on these issues, so any help appreciated.


Thanks.

Welcome to Hybrid!

 

[jglass]

lab scans

Thanks for replying Mike and JD.

Mike said:
When you say certain channels are "fried", do you mean they appear overexposed to you? or maybe out of gamut for the paper/monitor you're viewing them on?

In my viewing and my editing programs, the histograms show blown highlights (pushed off the right edge of the chart) and they are always in the red channel. I believe it's more from the scan than from the neg.

(It looks like slightly overexposed 400H--?)

It is.

What is your final output process/medium going to be? Screen viewing only? Inkjet printing? Optical printing? Whichever it is, look at the output using the same lab, (presumably) the same scanner, and images of scenes of similar color/contrast using different films. This will give you some insight into what's going on.

Prints are my main goal, with online jpgs as a secondary goal/necessity.
I will focus on one output for proofing that is the same output as my ultimate goal. That means contacts or 3x5 proofs.

160S is not as wan and washed out as the Portra NC's. O

I like 400H. do you put it between NC and VC for contrast and saturation?


JD said:

Contacts are a great way to see how your exposures worked out. Colour neg film isn't rocket science if you have concerns bracket away from your concerns -- worried about over exposure bracket 1/2 to a whole stop toward under exposure; if its under exposure that has you worried bracket a full stop or as much as 1.5 stops toward over exposure.


I'll get contacts or proofs. I'm not really worried about overall exposure because of the latitude and i reallly like just the look of 400H and Portra vc. My biggest concern is rich but real color and contrast and when I see a color channel blown on the scan, I need to know if that's the scan or the neg, or both.

These are smallish scans too and I'm wondering if a larger scan would also have wider gamut or dynamic range or latitude, whatever the term is, to match the film's.

Thanks very much for your replies.

Jeff

 

[lenny]

Prints are my main goal, with online jpgs as a secondary goal/necessity.
I will focus on one output for proofing that is the same output as my ultimate goal. That means contacts or 3x5 proofs.

It isn't that all labs are bad. However, if I were in your place I wouldn't ask a lab to do a scan for me. They are good at developing, rarely good at scanning. (There are some exceptions, I'm sure, tho' I haven't seen any.)

You are looking for a specific result. I would send your film, with a proof of some sort, to a scanner operator - someone who you can talk to. There are numerous folks on this list who do this, including myself, and pride ourselves on our ability to get the most out of people's film. They will often scan it multiple times, if necessary, at no extra cost, and do whatever else they can to assist you get what you want.

Lenny
EigerSudios
eiger@eigerstudios.com

 

[jglass]

lab scans

Thanks, Lenny.

To tell you the truth, I really am not looking for high end scans to print from. I am looking more at lab-produced optical prints as the end product. I was using the scans to proof, but that seems like a bad idea, given the gap betw. scans and the actual negs. So at this point, the scans will be just online look-sees for my website, with a warning that prints will show much better.

 

[jd callow]

They are good at developing, rarely good at scanning. (There are some exceptions, I'm sure, tho' I haven't seen any.)

This couldn't be further from the reality I know.

I have gotten very good to excellent scans from labs and even the one hour places do a good down and dirty job at an untouchable price. A 'go by' print is helpful for colour balance, but an RA4 print is going to have a very limited tonal range when compared to a a good scan. A professional lab will generally give you excellent colour balance (generally better than all but the most capable photog), an uncliped histogram, and follow any instructions you give or more importantly give you guidance as to what you should be doing.

If the labs can't get scans right than they wouldn't be doing work for the Ad agencies, full time pro photogs, graphic shops, museums, galleries and all the other commercial customers who are the foundation of their business.

 

[lenny]

This couldn't be further from the reality I know.

Glad you have gotten good results that you like...

I have gotten very good to excellent scans from labs and even the one hour places do a good down and dirty job at an untouchable price.

If this is the case, then you and I have different ideas about what excellent is.

If the labs can't get scans right than they wouldn't be doing work for the Ad agencies, full time pro photogs, graphic shops, museums, galleries and all the other commercial customers who are the foundation of their business.

Ad agencies - they know next to nothing - it ain't the old days. Full time Pro's - some of them are pretty capable, some aren't. Some are good at shooting but not at printing, or printing with inkjets. Graphic Shops buy everything from stock these days - they don't scan. Museums - have you seen the reproductions of paintings they sell? Pure garbage. I've seen a Gustave Le Gray great image right next to a Polaroid where someone had stepped on it with stuff on their shoes - they did know the difference. Galleries - they came up with this post modernism crap - I don't think I want to listen to them. Other commercial customers are likely not knowledgeable... If these unsophisticated users are their customers its no wonder that they get away with scanning at such a low level.

Much of the above is meant in tongue and cheek - just a little fun... However, when you talk about a one-hour place they are likely using some little $200 scanner. That's not a good scan. If you talk about a pro lab, it depends. Many of them use the standard model of hiring young folk to run various machines. The place in SF was famous for having some kid at $10 or $15 an hour running the Tango. It's not the same as someone who has taken a few years to learn their craft.

I'm not out to diss everyone that doesn't want to use a drum scanner. Every tool has a purpose and range for which it suffices just fine. However, there's good and there's excellent. Excellent doesn't come from a one-hour photo place. That moniker ought to be reserved for those things that actually deserve a higher standing.

Just my 2cents...

Lenny
EigerStudios

 

[jd callow]

I have dealt with J Walter Thompson, Campbell Ewald, BBD&O, NW Ayer, and other agencies and they expect good work and know what good work is. The same is true for the galleries, and graphic shops I've encountered. Many of the photographers I know hand off a good portion of their work the better/busier they are the more they hand off. They tend to be a pretty demanding group.

I never said one hour labs were excellent, but that they were surprisingly good for what they are. I did say that most of the pro photo labs I have dealt with give very good to excellent scans: they have to to stay in business.

my 2 cents and I don't have a dog in this race.

 

[lenny]

I have dealt with J Walter Thompson, Campbell Ewald, BBD&O, NW Ayer, and other agencies and they expect good work and know what good work is. The same is true for the galleries, and graphic shops I've encountered. Many of the photographers I know hand off a good portion of their work the better/busier they are the more they hand off. They tend to be a pretty demanding group.

I never said one hour labs were excellent, but that they were surprisingly good for what they are. I did say that most of the pro photo labs I have dealt with give very good to excellent scans: they have to to stay in business.

my 2 cents and I don't have a dog in this race.

I've been in the photo biz for a long time. My Dad was a commercial photographer. I have been at big agencies, I've known those folks, designers, photographers, the whole gang throughout my entire life. My family was friends with Halsmann, Eugene Smith and a whole host of others. I met Scavullo, worked with Avedon, Cosimo, Carl Fisher as well as a lot of artists.

Starting in 1989, I wrote software that managed graphics firms, and one of my custom software apps runs a large, 300 person graphics firm here in the Bay Area. Clients include Nike, HP, Sony, etc., etc. My father's ex-partner and good friend does work for Arch Digest regularly and I have had many discussions about what they expect, how they operate, etc. I'll hold my tongue.

I am not interested in trashing anyone. However, I will say that the level of knowledge on the agency and publications arena was not ever, and is not impressive. Ask any pro how these folks are - as a general rule - and it won't be very nice. It's rare that there is a sense of respect. I've done scans for some and they will demand certain things, but often have no idea what the words mean. I have also worked as a lab technician and few commercial photographers are interested in the nuts and bolts of how to make a perfect negative, or in these days a perfect scan. Of course, some are truly impressive - and are notable exceptions.

I won't even start with galleries. One out of 30 of them has any sense at all. They may have an understanding of how to sell, but that has nothing to do with quality.

As to having a dog in this race, I think the comment is out of hand. I have spent a lot of time helping people make a good decision regardless of any benefit to me. I spent half an hour today with someone helping him figure out whether it was a development issue or a light leak in his camera. I didn't get paid for it. What goes around comes around...

I happen to like a great scan. I know the difference. Just because I happen to offer it as a service doesn't mean I will tell someone they need it if they don't. Lots of folks don't, especially when their photograph is used as a 4 or 6 inch wide picture in a magazine. I do very few scans for commercial photographers, altho some architectural photogs, most of my work is from artists.

I wouldn't compare any lab to the scanning pros that have been here and at large format. If the labs hit it, they are lucky. On occasion they might have someone that's been very interested in the technology and will do a good job. On the whole, however, its very different from working with a scanning professional.

Lenny
EigerStudios

 

[jglass]

lab scans

Well, I guess I need to be more specific: Can a scanner/operator blow highlights/channels just by doing the scan, when the film itself actually has full detail in all colors and throughout the entire dynamic range?

Lenny, I take it from your response that the answer is yes. If so, can the same lab (I am using a pro lab) go back and re-scan so that the entire gamut or brightness range is captured in the scan? WILL they do it is of course another question. I'm going to ask them today.

JD, I agree that the scans I got are good enough to "go by," i.e., to see what I've got on the film and if I want to do more. But, as Lenny indicates, they're really not good enough to print from for my purposes. This would require a re-scan, which I really don't want to have to do on all my film, which I am shooting more and more of. I want my lab to do it right the first time so that I can have an efficient process down that includes the lab until I am able to develop color film myself.
I'm going to talk to the lab today about this.

Thanks guys for your help.

And no more pi&&ing contests!
Jeff Glass

 

[jd callow]

Jeff,
If your end goal is to get optical prints than you should start with contacts. If you have questions regarding negs or contacts in hand You should talk to the guys at your lab. The web is a wonderful place, but it will never beat reality.

Scanners have a flatter curve and limited dmax. It is not uncommon for a some scanners to be unable to penetrate or properly capture the denser areas of film. It does not appear to be the case on the image you posted.

 

[lenny]

If so, can the same lab (I am using a pro lab) go back and re-scan so that the entire gamut or brightness range is captured in the scan? WILL they do it is of course another question. I'm going to ask them today.
Jeff Glass

I think the above is really the issue.

There are 2 questions. 1) Do they have the equipment and the knowledge to do it right? 2) Will they work with you to get it right for your purposes?

I think that's the long and short of it...

Lenny

 

[jglass]

thanks

Thanks Lenny. As you can tell from the image I posted, these are really just snap shot tests to learn this film (although adding some nice colorto the family album).

When I work on something more serious, I want to have the process as much under my control as possible, given lab involvment. This exchange has really helped esp.that last stuff about scanner curve and dmax.

Do you know of a decent, short primer on scanning film?

Jeff

 

[lenny]

Thanks Lenny. As you can tell from the image I posted, these are really just snap shot tests to learn this film (although adding some nice colorto the family album).
Do you know of a decent, short primer on scanning film?
Jeff

I don't. I don't think there is a good book on this subject. The top scanners (and software) seem very different in their approach. I think it would be hard to generalize. Certainly for a drum. I've learned by doing just what you are doing, talking to a lot of people, and by scanning a lot....

Best of luck,

Lenny