Original scanning software color settings vs audjusting colors of Tiffs at photoshop later?

[Pushkal Arora]

I read somewhere that scanning at correct color settings always gives better results that correcting at photoshop later.
To how much extent is that true?
The reason I am asking because I gave my old 35mm c-41 color negatives to a lab to get scanned at 16 bit TIFFs and some of them came with little green hue. It is not extreme in any way but definitely noticeable.
The lab is saying the aging might be the reason for this.
Now I am debating whether to ask them to rescan with audjusted color tweaks which I think they would/can not or sending them to other lab, and the third option to editing color curves myself at photoshop. But I read somewhere that correct color settings at scanner software level always gives better results than color correction at photoshop later and that's why I got worried about what to do.

 

[Alan9940]

It sounds to me like the lab messed up the scans. But, given that you have 16-bit TIFF files I wouldn't worry about image degradation from correcting in PS. Yes, I prefer to nail my scans from the beginning but, if I'm off a bit, I don't hesitate to correct later because there is plenty of data in a 16-bit file.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It seems you're asking the lab to edit and correct color shifts on old film. That sounds like a special charge for them to adjust each to varying degrees of shift. I would discuss the issue with them and see what they say about what they can do for you and if there's an additional cost. You may be stuck adjusting yourself afterward with your own editing program.

Have you tried to edit them to eliminate the color cast? How difficult? As long as the final edited colors look OK, doing it at the scanner level or afterward in post-processing does not seem to matter to me.

 

[grat]

It's entirely possible that the negatives have turned a little green (well, the positives) due to the magenta dye fading in the negatives. It's not an unusual color shift.

When scanning, for me personally, the important thing to get right is the histogram-- make sure that I'm capturing the most possible light, that I'm not clipping at the ends, or getting a too-compressed histogram with lots of empty space at one end or the other. That's the "tonal range" (I use the term loosely, and perhaps inaccurately) of data that can be extracted from the negative, and yes, that's best done at the scanner.

However, you're in the position of having to compensate for the color shift on the green channel-- compensating at the scanner level would require the lab to create a new color curve for your specific film. Unless they've got a color specialist on staff who loves this kind of challenge, it's going to be tedious. On the other hand, there are numerous techniques out there for correcting a color cast in Photoshop / Affinity / GIMP that are relatively straight-forward and easy to implement.

Search for "how to use divide for color cast", or "how to remove color cast in <software>" where <software> is your preferred package.

 

[George Collier]

You can also correct color shifts in Camera Raw (non-distructive), which will open a TIFF. It's how I do all my scanning, which is mostly B&W. I also apply sharpening in RAW, which I think is a more sophisticated method than PShop.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You can also correct color shifts in Camera Raw (non-distructive), which will open a TIFF. It's how I do all my scanning, which is mostly B&W. I also apply sharpening in RAW, which I think is a more sophisticated method than PShop.

You know, I just realized that I can open my scans and other pictures in Camera Raw from within Photoshop Elements. Then do some adjustments in RAW and switch to Elements for the rest of editing. I never tried it. I normally use Lightroom licensed V6 for all my editing.

Does anyone see advantages in using Camera Raw first?

 

[grat]

Depends entirely on your camera. My EOS 90D, when it first came out, was labeled "average" for image quality-- not because it produces bad images, but because all the reviewers tried to be "fair" and used Adobe Camera Raw-- which didn't have a license to decode CR3 files from Canon, and produced sub-standard results compared with Canon's Digital Photo Pro 4 software.

If I'm looking for "best quality", I start with DPP4, convert to TIFF (or DNG) and load into Affinity for editing.

Adobe has improved their algorithms, and libRaw now has CR3 support, so the normal tools are much better-- but I still prefer DPP4 for RAW conversion.

 

[nmp]

You know, I just realized that I can open my scans and other pictures in Camera Raw from within Photoshop Elements. Then do some adjustments in RAW and switch to Elements for the rest of editing. I never tried it. I normally use Lightroom licensed V6 for all my editing.

Does anyone see advantages in using Camera Raw first?

If you are opening Camera Raw Filter from PS, that is not going to do raw processing as your opening file is already in TIFF. It will simply process like as it would a TIFF file directly in CameraRaw. Once you convert to any other file format, the Raw characteristic in no longer exists.

:Niranjan.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you are opening Camera Raw Filter from PS, that is not going to do raw processing as your opening file is already in TIFF. It will simply process like as it would a TIFF file directly in CameraRaw. Once you convert to any other file format, the Raw characteristic in no longer exists.

:Niranjan.

But when the TIFF file opens into Camera Raw, all the editing sliders for it are available. should I use them first or jump immediately to Elements editing?

 

[Pushkal Arora]

That's the "tonal range" (I use the term loosely, and perhaps inaccurately) of data that can be extracted from the negative, and yes, that's best done at the scanner.

That's what I want to ask. How much difference will that be?
Given I requested 16 bit tiff at highest resolution from lab, as of my limited knowledge I think the tiff file should contain all the data that that could be extracted from the negative. But still I am not certain in this matter.

I have tried removing color cast by sliding the bar of brighter green side to 85% from 100% in color level option and this method gave me the best results till now. It is working on almost all images except on or two. I have shared the screenshot in this G-drive Tiff link also containg two folders where one contains sample tiffs from the rolls giving correct color and other having sample tiifs from rolls giving incorrect color.

Could you please do me a favour? If possible, can you check whether these sample tiffs espescially from the folder named as "incorrect color" contain enough "tonal range" to be qualified as archiveable? I just want a digital copy with 100% of data from these negatives so that forget about getting them scanned ever again for the rest of my life.
I am not asking you to edit them, just an assurity whether the data or " tonal range" in these tiffs is fine enough or not.

It's been many days and constant worring about quality of data is messing up my mind.

 

[nmp]

But when the TIFF file opens into Camera Raw, all the editing sliders for it are available. should I use them first or jump immediately to Elements editing?

If you are not starting with a real raw file, I would say it does not matter in terms of quality of the image. I am not up with Elements in terms of what it can do and can't in comparison to the CC which is what I have. I like the Camera Raw filter from PS, because you can make it a smart layer and go back and forth to change if needed. You can also use precise masks that Camera Raw can't do.

:Niranjan.

 

[gone]

I just want a digital copy with 100% of data from these negatives so that forget about getting them scanned ever again for the rest of my life.

I honestly don't think that's possible. People were putting their files onto DVDs some time ago for archiving, but everything breaks down sooner or later over time. Or a file becomes unreadable. Back when I was scanning film, multiple backups seemed to be the best solution.

Your best bet would seem to be carefully storing the negs as well. My B&W negs will outlive me. C41 is dye based though, so I don't know about those.

 

[Pushkal Arora]

I honestly don't think that's possible. People were putting their files onto DVDs some time ago for archiving, but everything breaks down sooner or later over time. Or a file becomes unreadable. Back when I was scanning film, multiple backups seemed to be the best solution.

Your best bet would seem to be carefully storing the negs as well. My B&W negs will outlive me. C41 is dye based though, so I don't know about those.

All of my negatives are C41. And many of them are already damaged and I made this post mostly about their concern.
CDs aren't archiveable. The plan that I have is in my mind is to calculate hash value and keeping multiple copies including a master copy in M-disc. I once saw a video (Which I am not able to find now) comparing m-disc and normal disc through a series of tests like days of sunlight, humidity etc. The tests were so rough the normal disc didn't stand a chance in front of m-disc. And at the end the m-disc was running completely fine.

I also don't have much personal data and 2-3 100 GB blu ray m-disc will work for me. I already have a burner so I can archive my data for quite cheap. If I had more spare income in future I would back up my data in a reliable cloud service with calculated hash value.

So in conclusion, preserving a digital copy is a lot easier for me than trying to protect my negatives from humidity and temperature changes for the rest of my life.

 

[250swb]

Old colour film can degrade significantly over time and I think it's harsh blaming the lab. It's asking them to add a massive colour correction and then also judge what the final image should look like, that is an editing job involving personal preferences, not a job a lab does. Put the negative scans into Photoshop and press 'Auto Colour'.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

It sounds to me like the lab messed up the scans. But, given that you have 16-bit TIFF files I wouldn't worry about image degradation from correcting in PS. Yes, I prefer to nail my scans from the beginning but, if I'm off a bit, I don't hesitate to correct later because there is plenty of data in a 16-bit file.

+1

Unless the lab goes and corrects each frame of some old film that has unknown processing, and storage (or has a scanner that tries to "auto" it), they're just going to scan it according to the C-41 control strip from Kodak and any variance from that from other factors will need to be corrected out. Going and correcting each frame is time, and unless you're paying them to do it, they probably won't, which is why many labs have a policy of old film is scanned "as is".

That aside, if you have 16 bit tiffs, just correct it in post. Rescanning it will make no real visible difference unless they did something dumb like clipped out one of the color channels. At a technical level, yes, rescanning it can make a difference that software can measure, but your eyes won't see the difference. At best you have a 10 bit per color channel display (most likely 8 bit display), and those 16 bit values are getting mapped down to that so you can look at it. Software reading the samples can see the difference, but your eyes never will because your display won't display it.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

You know, I just realized that I can open my scans and other pictures in Camera Raw from within Photoshop Elements. Then do some adjustments in RAW and switch to Elements for the rest of editing. I never tried it. I normally use Lightroom licensed V6 for all my editing.

Does anyone see advantages in using Camera Raw first?

Lightroom is Adobe Camera Raw, but with a catalog manager. The develop module in LR is exactly the same as ACR. If all you want is the LR develop module functionality and don't care for the catalog management functionality, you could just use ACR.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Lightroom is Adobe Camera Raw, but with a catalog manager. The develop module in LR is exactly the same as ACR. If all you want is the LR develop module functionality and don't care for the catalog management functionality, you could just use ACR.

That's very interesting. So I see that when I open a picture in Elements 2020, the Camera Raw screen opens first. The old versions of ELements never did that. In any case, the Camera Raw window has the histogram panel, Basic panel, sharpening panel, noise reduction panel, and Calibration 1-5 which are all similar to Lightroom V6 purchased version? All the other panels in Lightroom are not in the Camera Raw in ELements. Of course, Elements has its own adjusting sections once you're done with Camera Raw adjustments if you choose to use them.

Now, if I'm in Lightroom, there's a function that allows me to open up the picture in LR for further editing in Elements.

In any case, purchasing Elements (around$100) with its Camera Raw seems a modest but effective approach for those who don't want to use Lightroom CC with it's monthly charge although Elements doesn't go above 8 bits; no 16 buts.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

That's very interesting. So I see that when I open a picture in Elements 2020, the Camera Raw screen opens first. The old versions of ELements never did that. In any case, the Camera Raw window has the histogram panel, Basic panel, sharpening panel, noise reduction panel, and Calibration 1-5 which are all similar to Lightroom V6 purchased version? All the other panels in Lightroom are not in the Camera Raw in ELements. Of course, Elements has its own adjusting sections once you're done with Camera Raw adjustments if you choose to use them.

The develop module in LR is the same code as ACR just with the LR UI. It has all the same controls. If you have an older version of LR you may see a slightly different set of controls than a modern version of ACR, but that's because Adobe has versionized those controls. If you're running the subscription version of LR and the most recent version of ACR they are the same controls. If you care to use exiftool to inspect the tags embedded into the TIFF/DNG file, ACR and LR look at the Version and ProcessVersion tags and present the UI appropriate for the controls defined for those versions.

In terms of 8 vs 16 bits, ACR/LR is internally IEEE floating point regardless of the input format (8 bit, 16 bit, raw file, etc), so if you care to keep as much precision in your edits as possible do as much as you can there before going to other software that uses less precision. If you use the most recent version of ACR possible, you should get the full suite of controls as opposed to using an older version of LR which will have an older process version, which will give you an older set of controls.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Is ACR part of my Elements 2020 Or is it a separate app that Elements opens?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

It's a plug-in. https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-in-installer.html

 

[Pushkal Arora]

+1

Unless the lab goes and corrects each frame of some old film that has unknown processing, and storage (or has a scanner that tries to "auto" it), they're just going to scan it according to the C-41 control strip from Kodak and any variance from that from other factors will need to be corrected out. Going and correcting each frame is time, and unless you're paying them to do it, they probably won't, which is why many labs have a policy of old film is scanned "as is".

That aside, if you have 16 bit tiffs, just correct it in post. Rescanning it will make no real visible difference unless they did something dumb like clipped out one of the color channels. At a technical level, yes, rescanning it can make a difference that software can measure, but your eyes won't see the difference. At best you have a 10 bit per color channel display (most likely 8 bit display), and those 16 bit values are getting mapped down to that so you can look at it. Software reading the samples can see the difference, but your eyes never will because your display won't display it.

Thank you for the information!
One thing that I want to ask is that I have observed the histograms and noticed the images with green tint, the histogram of their blue channel is generally very narrow (lacking pixel number in darkest and brightest sides) compared to red and green channel.
Can you confirm that's only because of negatives being old?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's a plug-in. https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-in-installer.html

I see Plug-Ins in ELements 2020 (Verison 18) showing Camera Raw Version 12. The Updates box is grayed out in Help so should I assume I have the latest Camera Raw already installed that's allowed?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Thank you for the information!
One thing that I want to ask is that I have observed the histograms and noticed the images with green tint, the histogram of their blue channel is generally very narrow (lacking pixel number in darkest and brightest sides) compared to red and green channel.
Can you confirm that's only because of negatives being old?

Most likely due to negative age, or a processing error.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I see Plug-Ins in ELements 2020 (Verison 18) showing Camera Raw Version 12. The Updates box is grayed out in Help so should I assume I have the latest Camera Raw already installed that's allowed?

dunno. I'm not an elements user. Adobe updates ACR whenever new cameras come out because they have to support those cameras, so if you run Adobe's software updater you should see updates to ACR happen over time.