Negative Lab Pro version 3

[runswithsizzers]

Negative Lab Pro version 3 looks like a significant upgrade over v.2. (the upgrade price is $50 for users of v.2)

So far, I have processed only 2 rolls using version 3. The first was a roll of Ilford XP2 Super (b&w C-41). I was really pleased with NLPs improved user interface features (finally Undo/Redo), and some of the new features like Roll Analysis. results posted <here>

The second roll - Cinestill 400D - is turning out to be much more of a struggle. Some frames look pretty good, but many frames show unexpectedl colors which must be tediously adjusted frame-by-frame. And not always successfully. I suspect the unusual colors are more the fault of Cinestill than NLP. If I understand correctly, Cinestill 400D is a variation of Kodak movie film meant to be processed in ECN2, so processing in C-41 would be expected to cause some unusual color rendering? (long discussion here) So probably, Cinestill was not the best color negative film for evaluating the new version of NLP.

I'm less sure about what is causing the frame-to-frame-variation. Part of the variation may be my fault, because I did not strictly follow NLPs "best practices" which recommend using the same manual exposure settings for the whole roll. I usually fix the aperture, but let my camera (a Fuji XT-1) set the shutter speed. Next time, I will choose a more "normal" color negative film and use strict manual exposure.

Do any other NLP users have enough experience with v.3 to have formed an opinion about the improvements?

 

[koraks]

If I understand correctly, Cinestill 400D is a variation of Kodak movie film meant to be processed in ECN2, so processing in C-41 would be expected to cause some unusual color rendering?

Indeed, processing Vision3 250D (=Cinestill 400D) in C41 developer will affect its color rendition and in my experience induce crossover. However, if exposed and processed consistently, the scanned output should also be just as consistent as C41 film. The main caveat is that it might be consistently wrong, but it should still be consistent. If you get good colors on one frame and bad colors on another, on the same roll, this suggests that the scanner magic doesn't work very well, still. Indeed, I'm afraid this is a bit of a fundamental issue since color correction of scanned images in virtually all cases suffers from the problem of a missing benchmark or objective standard. Only a color-managed workflow would provide this, but this would be rather unpractical in a typical home setup.