Photoshopping, a good or bad thing to do?

[mtjade2007]

I believe post processing with Photoshop after films are processed and scanned is a common thing to do. It is common the initial scan of the film yields images requiring some editing, cropping, density and color adjustments. But there are people who insist in not photoshopping or only do it at a minimum degree. I personally usually only photoshop to adjust the overall density (like adjusting exposure), color balance. I almost never do sharpening nor color saturation boosting, etc.

However, I recently realized that the scanned images from films are already heavily tweaked by the scanner and you really don't know what were done by the scanner at all. If one want's to evaluate a film's color characteristics, or evaluate how the film process was done (to judge if a film is bad or the chemicals used in the process is bad for example) the best way to do it is to have the film (negatives) to print a RA-4 paper. This makes sense so this is not my question. My questions is if I scan my films should I phtoshop the images to yield reasonable image quality.

I often shot scenery with Kodak 160/400 NC films for the reason these films have a wide dynamic exposure range so that I could capture highlights and not losing shadows as well. The problem is these films tend to yield lower color saturation. I know they are designed that way. I found I could boost the color saturation by photoshop. The result usually is amazing. Even if I shot with 160/400 UC further boosting color saturation would yield magical results. But then here comes the question is it a good thing to do? I could shoot with my Canon 5D full frame and the images will come out with full blown colors. So if digital cameras do it why not I photoshop my films? Any comment is welcomed. Thank you.

 

[warden]

Even if I shot with 160/400 UC further boosting color saturation would yield magical results. But then here comes the question is it a good thing to do? I could shoot with my Canon 5D full frame and the images will come out with full blown colors. So if digital cameras do it why not I photoshop my films? Any comment is welcomed. Thank you.

I recommend using any tool that you need to use to get the results that satisfy you, whether you're starting with your Canon 5D or your film camera. They both benefit from appropriate adjustments in Photoshop.

 

[MattKing]

My only complaint with post-processing the results of scans is when people do so, and then turn around and use the result as basis to make judgments about the characteristics of the originating film.
Digital tools are what one uses to deal with digital files.
Just as darkroom tools are what one uses to deal with negatives or, with some materials, transparencies.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Where can we see samples of your scans of Portra?

 

[DonW]

Do whatever floats your boat and don't listen to nay sayers.

 

[Cholentpot]

I prefer to let the scanner make the decisions and then have it touched up by one of three presets that a tech at a screen is choosing. I can then post up the images and claim #nofilter thereby showing everyone what a purist I am.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Scans MUST be edited to get maximum image quality. A film scanner is designed to give a flat, low-contrast image to ensure that all of the tonal detail in the film is captured in the scan. You must then adjust it to get the tonality you want. No different than choosing the correct paper grade in the darkroom. If you scan color film, the scanner rarely gives perfect color balance, that has to be adjusted too. I see so much garbage posted online from scanned film because of people foolishly thinking that it is somehow 'wrong' to edit their scans; I wonder if any of these people have ever seen a good darkroom print? If so, they'd know their un-edited scans are crap and would learn to use Photoshop.

This article I wrote explains it with examples:

https://crawfordphotoschool.com/digital/film-scanning-intro.php

 

[RPC]

IMHO, this thread should have been posted in a hybrid workflow forum. That is where the question is best asked and answered.

 

[MattKing]

IMHO, this thread should have been posted in a hybrid workflow forum. That is where the question is best asked and answered.

I agree.

 

[koraks]

I have never met people who shoot CN film to exclusively wet print on RA4 paper. Not in person, not online.

There's a few around. In any case, nice to meet you

 

[awty]

There's a few around. In any case, nice to meet you

And a very fine RA4 printer at that.

I have the equipment to do so just haven't got around to doing so. I rarely post scans of negs and feel bad when I do so.

 

[markjwyatt]

Wow! Both are on Photrio. I guess it should not be too big a surprise.

 

[koraks]

LOL!
I'm making fun of it a bit, but in a way, @Old Gregg is right of course. Only very few people shoot CN exclusively for wet printing. Most scan to get the end result. IMO there's nothing wrong with that, and neither is there anything wrong with extensive digital post processing to get the desired result. They're all just tools to get where you want to be, and hopefully enjoy the process. And that, for me, is the main reason I virtually don't scan - I just don't get as much fun from it as from wet printing.

 

[awty]

LOL!
I'm making fun of it a bit, but in a way, @Old Gregg is right of course. Only very few people shoot CN exclusively for wet printing. Most scan to get the end result. IMO there's nothing wrong with that, and neither is there anything wrong with extensive digital post processing to get the desired result. They're all just tools to get where you want to be, and hopefully enjoy the process. And that, for me, is the main reason I virtually don't scan - I just don't get as much fun from it as from wet printing.

Thats very charitable of you.

 

[BMbikerider]

I disagree. Color negative film is meant to be scanned in 2021. I have never met people who shoot CN film to exclusively wet print on RA4 paper. Not in person, not online. I estimate that only two people on earth do that and both of them haven't discovered photrio yet. The hybrid/analog/digital switch is adorable though. It's like having separate bathrooms for men, women, aliens and toasters.

You may not have met people, but I am one who does. There are many other people in UK who have and use seperate setups Scanning is fine but it also can promote and emphasize grain which will degrade a C41/RA4 print. Yes I also sometimes scan and make a small print which I use to judge the colour balance, especially if there is mixed lighting, but that print is never used for anything else. Getting the balance can be a real pain if the negative is over/under developed and the film orange mask differs. But when it all come together there is a degree of satisfaction of actually creating something other than by pressing a few keys or shuffling a mouse about.

You really should get out a bit more. I have both my darkroom set up and digital equipment side by side in the same room, but obviously entirely seperate by a 6 feet wide route between them It works very well. The only main difference since I changed to the present set-up is I have had to redesign the blackout so that I can open the window to work when I am at the computer

 

[mtjade2007]

Where can we see samples of your scans of Portra?

Here is one. It was shot on a 400VC film. This was long time ago. I don't remember how well the film was processed nor how it was scanned. I think this is a typical scan that I got from VC or NC films. It was scanned when I had an older Win XP system with a tube monitor that was never calibrated. The PC and the monitor have long gone. With some photoshopping this pic can turn around to be plenty saturated. My question is really if it is a right thing to do because it is absolutely not a film known to be too saturated despite it is a Kodak VC film.. Maybe it is a dumb idea to shoot scenery with portrait films. I intended to take the advantage of their wider dynamics but then the colors seem compromised. View attachment 277579

 

[mtjade2007]

I post this thread here not for discussing film scanning techniques. It's all about achieving the best image from film although this is via film scanning, not by wet printing. The scanned images will be for viewing on monitors and also for inkjet printing. I believe the majority of film shooters scan their films.

 

[RPC]

I am another who only optical prints for best quality, IMO, and other reasons.

There is no reason why threads like this have to take place here and not in the hybrid forum. Many scan their film, okay. So? Take those discussions to the hybrid forum. Those who exclusively view the hybrid forum would never see it if it is posted here. Those who scan will undoubtedly use that forum, and see it there, and those who don't won't have to see it here. As I understand it, that is why Photrio was created out of APUG. Let's respect that.

 

[luckypiglive]

i think any type of editing is ok if that gives you the desired effects and results.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It doesn't matter what people commonly do. If the question is about a hybrid topic involving both wet and digital processing, then it belongs in a hybrid forum. That doesn't carry any value judgment. It's just how things are categorized on photrio and how we keep the forums on topic and information dense. If people want to know more about darkroom color printing, they should be able to look at the color darkroom forum and find answers without having to sort through hybrid threads, and the same is true of the the hybrid forum.

 

[removed account4]

mtjade2007:
The thing is to decide what you want to do and enjoy your self. Life's too short to worry about what somebody else might think. You have to also realize the people who protest so vehemently probably do it themselves too, they just don't want anyone to know about it because it might ruin their online ( or offline ) persona.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

First, I never bosted anything with 5D. I used truly professional L lenses. They produce amazing colors SOOC and under neutral JPEG1 profile. I was doing SOOC JPEG1 with 5D/50L and now SOOC with RP/50 1.8 RF.

I have no information about scanners under saturating comparing to old labs analog prints.
But I'm astonished how huge the difference is between old color prints from cheap labs and scans.
I never got to the point to have same lovely colors and dinamic range with scans prints.

At some point I realized it is just waste of time and money. I don't mind to use color films just because film cameras I have are cool.
But for best digital results I'm using digital cameras and they are superior to color film scans. Photoshopping it just optional.
I do not over process. Except super cheese landscapes I take with phone and process a lot before dumping it on FB.
Over processed looks good on tiny phones .

 

[albireo]

My only complaint with post-processing the results of scans is when people do so, and then turn around and use the result as basis to make judgments about the characteristics of the originating film.

Don't see a problem with that, personally. It's similar to what people used to do back in the day, when making prints of a negative with an enlarger was popular: they often used to make judgments about the characteristics of the originating film via a print. Imagine that. An often heavily manipulated re-projection of a negative over other light-sensitive photographic material, with dozens of new variables thrown in.

Digital tools are what one uses to deal with digital files.
Just as darkroom tools are what one uses to deal with negatives or, with some materials, transparencies.

That's incorrect. Negatives are often digitalised and digital tools are what one uses to process digital files, doesn't matter where they originate from.

A print, just like a scan, is just one of many ways of conveying the message in a negative.

Just do whatever floats your boat with that negative and let others be creative in their own way with it is what I think.

 

[Foto Ludens]

However, I recently realized that the scanned images from films are already heavily tweaked by the scanner and you really don't know what were done by the scanner at all. If one want's to evaluate a film's color characteristics, or evaluate how the film process was done (to judge if a film is bad or the chemicals used in the process is bad for example) the best way to do it is to have the film (negatives) to print a RA-4 paper. This makes sense so this is not my question. My questions is if I scan my films should I phtoshop the images to yield reasonable image quality.

My understanding is that the first claim in this quote is not true. If you disable all auto exposure and color correction on the scanner, you should end up with a "neutral" file. If anything, it'll have a gamma curve embedded, but that can be removed without altering the image itself (the maker of Color Perfect offers a free software that strips the gamma information from tiff files, but the name escapes me now). EDIT: The software is called MakeTiff, and you can download it from the sidebar at https://www.colorperfect.com/

But as for your question: yes, using Photoshop to tweak the scan is perfectly acceptable. I limit myself to adjustments I could make in a traditional darkroom (exposure, contrast, dodging, burning, color correction) in addition to dust removal, but that's mostly because of how I started with photography and because I value the documentary nature of photography.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I believe post processing with Photoshop after films are processed and scanned is a common thing to do. It is common the initial scan of the film yields images requiring some editing, cropping, density and color adjustments. But there are people who insist in not photoshopping or only do it at a minimum degree. I personally usually only photoshop to adjust the overall density (like adjusting exposure), color balance. I almost never do sharpening nor color saturation boosting, etc.

However, I recently realized that the scanned images from films are already heavily tweaked by the scanner and you really don't know what were done by the scanner at all. If one want's to evaluate a film's color characteristics, or evaluate how the film process was done (to judge if a film is bad or the chemicals used in the process is bad for example) the best way to do it is to have the film (negatives) to print a RA-4 paper. This makes sense so this is not my question. My questions is if I scan my films should I phtoshop the images to yield reasonable image quality.

I often shot scenery with Kodak 160/400 NC films for the reason these films have a wide dynamic exposure range so that I could capture highlights and not losing shadows as well. The problem is these films tend to yield lower color saturation. I know they are designed that way. I found I could boost the color saturation by photoshop. The result usually is amazing. Even if I shot with 160/400 UC further boosting color saturation would yield magical results. But then here comes the question is it a good thing to do? I could shoot with my Canon 5D full frame and the images will come out with full blown colors. So if digital cameras do it why not I photoshop my films? Any comment is welcomed. Thank you.

Scans have to be edited during the scan or afterwards or both. The scan process with all edits shut off provides a rather flat image in tones and colors. I use a combination of both. Usually just setting the black and white points during the scan. And everything else afterwards in Lightroom.

The problem with editing during the scan is if you got it wrong, or wish to make changes in the future, you're stuck with having to scan again. If you do your editing afterwards in your favorite editing program, then you can scan once and not have to scan again. The other benefit is why learn two editing programs? It seems like a waste of time learning how to edit during the scan and also learn how to edit with Lightroom or whatever your editing program is. Just use the scanning program to scan simply and save yourself headaches learning two programs to tweak pictures.