Scanning with EPSON scan software (or similar) numbers to judge good exposure

[StoneNYC]

Isn't that true for negative film but not chrome? With chromes, you try to prevent over-exposing highlights even if the shadows go black because shots are lost if you burn the highlights.

Thanks Alan,

When it comes to chromes, I know what that looks like properly exposed. I shot 2800 slides in the month of December 2010 all on Kodachrome. You're right blowing out the highlights does no good, but scanners struggle with underexposed chromes more than if you can print them I'm told. So with those the exposure has to be perfect every time basically.

I did fairly well for never having shot a slide before the trip, only shooting 3 test rolls, then heading off and not seeing a single slide till the month was over... Talk about stress! But they seemed to come out just fine.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[L Gebhardt]

Yes! The last paragraph has it down to a T as far as what I was trying to accomplish. Basically what was going on was I wanted to know what the "flat" or "baseline" was on the scanner, (which I discovered was 100 / 1.00 / 200 in the display, don't ask me what they mean but that it) now when I scan, I can start with that, scan, and see what I get, then if its exactly how I envisioned it, I can then analyze the negative and learn what a "perfect" negative looks like, then keep doing that to stuff and user stand when I've done it right then adjust my shooting technique to match that.

To me the experimentation is much better and using my eyes helps me, rather than staring at a graph curve thing.

Thanks L Gebhardt.

Your name sounds familiar. You're not the guy who left APUG when he had to switch to digital printing after having issues with darkroom plumbing etc. are you?

If you are I think I saw a book you wrote at Barns & Noble?

Or am I totally off base?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Glad that helps. You're using your scanner as a sort of densitometer, but the numbers you reference are meaningless outside of your scanner and software. So if you get a new one you will need to reconfigure. That's why it's better to use a densitometer. Those are calibrated to known standards, and many people can compare results such as curves. You also dont have a good standard to compare one film to another. For example Acros has much less base density than FP4+. So your numbers will not work between the two. What you are doing is probably good enough to make sure similar films are exposed and developed similarly, but you should at least know the limitations.

I am on APUG, but I'm not the guy you are thinking of - still printing in the darkroom, and no books to my name.

 

[StoneNYC]

Glad that helps. You're using your scanner as a sort of densitometer, but the numbers you reference are meaningless outside of your scanner and software. So if you get a new one you will need to reconfigure. That's why it's better to use a densitometer. Those are calibrated to known standards, and many people can compare results such as curves. You also dont have a good standard to compare one film to another. For example Acros has much less base density than FP4+. So your numbers will not work between the two. What you are doing is probably good enough to make sure similar films are exposed and developed similarly, but you should at least know the limitations.

I am on APUG, but I'm not the guy you are thinking of - still printing in the darkroom, and no books to my name.

Thanks, good to know.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lenny]

Scanning slides with a consumer scanner is only useful if you are going to put them on the web, or make a catalog. Shadow detail is not that important on the web. If you want more detail in the shadows, with the least amount of noise, or you want to make exquisite prints, use a drum scanner. You're a Pro, deliver Pro results...
As to the numbers, ignore them. Look at the histogram and make sure you have a good spread. Don't ever choose a white or black point. Move the sliders so that the tones will separate and you can do something with it in Photoshop.

 

[Alan Klein]

Lenny How and where do you move the sliders?

 

[StoneNYC]

Scanning slides with a consumer scanner is only useful if you are going to put them on the web, or make a catalog. Shadow detail is not that important on the web. If you want more detail in the shadows, with the least amount of noise, or you want to make exquisite prints, use a drum scanner. You're a Pro, deliver Pro results...
As to the numbers, ignore them. Look at the histogram and make sure you have a good spread. Don't ever choose a white or black point. Move the sliders so that the tones will separate and you can do something with it in Photoshop.

I will probably never be able to afford a drum scan, a $100 per image that's asking too much...

Plus I don't need that much detail I don't make anything bigger than in the 20x30 range and I've had no issue going that size in 120 format from my home scanner.

Secondly, I don't really understand histograms, I've never understood how to read graphs and charts for photography, I understand the image I see...

I also don't use photoshop. I don't really need to, my images to me are fine, I use Lightroom for basic adjustments but that's it. I think if you're "a pro" as you say, you shouldn't need PS because you've made the image correctly in the first place.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lenny]

I will probably never be able to afford a drum scan, a $100 per image that's asking too much...

Plus I don't need that much detail I don't make anything bigger than in the 20x30 range and I've had no issue going that size in 120 format from my home scanner.

If you are getting the quality you want, then its all fine. You don't need anything else. However, if you are shooting 2300 slides in a month, then presumably you are doing business and the cost is immaterial, it just gets passed along. There is a huge difference at 30 inches. However, if you can't see the difference a great scan makes, then you shouldn't pay for it.

I was confused. Turns out there is another Daniel Stone, who lives in LA, who has a drum scanner, that I have assisted on occasion with some scanning tips...

Secondly, I don't really understand histograms, I've never understood how to read graphs and charts for photography, I understand the image I see...

I also don't use photoshop. I don't really need to, my images to me are fine, I use Lightroom for basic adjustments but that's it. I think if you're "a pro" as you say, you shouldn't need PS because you've made the image correctly in the first place.

That's a ridiculous statement. First of all, you should be able to look at a histogram and see the distribution of pixels. There is a difference if you have a skinny line of them in the middle or you have a nice wide spread from end to end. Anyone can explain it to you and it provides some some amount of information that is useful, depending on what you are doing. Secondly, the changes that pros make in PhotoShop are not because they didn't get it right in the first place. It's because they want to do something with the image that may not be possible with the sliders in Lightroom. To suggest otherwise is offensive.

I've been exposing, developing and printing for more than 50 years and my exposures are excellent. I use PhotoShop because I am after a certain quality, and control. I actually understand what all those sliders do in Lightroom and some of them are great while others degrade the image considerably. This is true in PhotoShop as well.

Lenny

 

[lenny]

Lenny How and where do you move the sliders?

Alan,
First of all, let me make one clarification. i use the sliders in my scanning app. I do not use sliders in PhotoShop (that would be the Levels dialog, which I don't use and don't recommend). I use Digital PhotoLab to scan, it allows me to set the image specs before the scan, and then these specs are loaded into scanner's firmware and it scans with those specs. This is very different from other scanning software which does a raw scan and applies the parameters you set afterwards. For this reason, it doesn't matter that I use a levels-type dialog to do the setup beforehand - it won't degrade the image.

Now to your question, yes, one does move the sliders. However, what I am suggesting is not to do this based upon clicking something which asks you which is the lightest (or darkest) parts of the image, but by looking at the image and moving the sliders manually.

Lenny

 

[Alan Klein]

This is very different from other scanning software which does a raw scan and applies the parameters you set afterwards.

I'm scanning with an Epson V600 flat bed using the Epson scan software. If the scanners parameters are applied after the scan, does it matter to slide the sliders before the scan or just scan "flat"? If it is better to set the sliders, where would you recommend to place them? Thanks Alan.

 

[lenny]

I'm scanning with an Epson V600 flat bed using the Epson scan software. If the scanners parameters are applied after the scan, does it matter to slide the sliders before the scan or just scan "flat"? If it is better to set the sliders, where would you recommend to place them? Thanks Alan.

I know that my scanner software helps me get to where I want better than scanning raw and trying to get there in PhotoShop. DPL is set up to handle certain things well and it creates a profile of the settings to send to the scanner. It means that when changes are applied they are done before the scan and the histogram isn't combed from what you want... I imagine there are a few things that the Epson software does as well that makes scanning a pixel's worth of data better than interpolating, for example. They might also have a utility that helps with the red mask on color neg, for example. However, the scan is done in Raw and the changes are applied afterwards. If your skills are up to the task it would likely be equal to scan in raw and change in PhotoShop vs doing the changes in the scanner.

That said I set my sliders to where I think the image has plenty of room. I move the black side off to where the blacks are just a little weak - that gets me full shadow detail if its there. I do the same in the highlights (making them a little deep) and bring the midtone slider to where the tones separate nicely. Then I got into the curves dialog and fine-tune.

Lenny

 

[Alan Klein]

Someone once indicated that you get more bits of colors of you move the two sliders into close to the right and left ends of the histogram before you scan rather than leaving the sliders at 0 and 255. Is that true?

 

[lenny]

Someone once indicated that you get more bits of colors of you move the two sliders into close to the right and left ends of the histogram before you scan rather than leaving the sliders at 0 and 255. Is that true?

No, not at all. All that would do is increase contrast by darkening the darks and lightening the lights.

Lenny

 

[selmslie]

Sorry, the v750 which comes with both EPSONscan and Silverfast 6(free upgrade to 8 if you have a new Mac OS).


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

The Epson software works fine and it will extract all of the information from your negative. Silverfast is just more complicated and does not do anything for you that you cannot do later in post processing.

Autoexposure works fairly well but the Histogram Adjustment dialog will let you get everything available from your negative. I have found that the following steps work for me:

1. Set the Output range to 0 and 255.
2. On the Input range, move the black slider to the left edge of the histogram and the white slider to the right edge of the histogram.
3. Move the gray slider left or right until the thumbnail looks good.

You will find that the resulting values in the input boxes will be different for each image. They will be close for two that were identically exposed. Don't worry about the numbers, you can adjust the brightness and contrast with your editing software later.

This applies to B&W negatives.

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks I know how to adjust the sliders in the Epson software, my original query is solved. Just discussing now.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

...I was confused. Turns out there is another Daniel Stone, who lives in LA, who has a drum scanner, that I have assisted on occasion with some scanning tips...

It's ok, Stone is a common name, if I had a drum scanner I would use it for sure...

That's a ridiculous statement. First of all, you should be able to look at a histogram and see the distribution of pixels. There is a difference if you have a skinny line of them in the middle or you have a nice wide spread from end to end. Anyone can explain it to you and it provides some some amount of information that is useful, depending on what you are doing.

Calling it ridiculous that someone doesn't understand something is also insulting. Everyone has their strengths, and weaknesses, I can't read graphs and charts (except navigation maps) in terms of photography, I know that if the dark part goes up the side of either end a LOT then it's under or over exposed, the rest is a mystery, but I can look at a picture scanned and adjust the sliders to get what I want.

Secondly, the changes that pros make in PhotoShop are not because they didn't get it right in the first place. It's because they want to do something with the image that may not be possible with the sliders in Lightroom. To suggest otherwise is offensive.

Anything that's photography / darkroom related can be done in Lightroom, anything that can't be done and needs photoshop is graphic art, not photography. To suggest otherwise is insulting to photography as an art which is different than graphic art. People often confuse the two. If you disagree, you might not be aware of lightrooms capabilities which are extensive.

I've been exposing, developing and printing for more than 50 years and my exposures are excellent. I use PhotoShop because I am after a certain quality, and control. I actually understand what all those sliders do in Lightroom and some of them are great while others degrade the image considerably. This is true in PhotoShop as well.

Lenny

I don't doubt your skills and knowledge by my above statements, but you've probably been in the game long enough to have changed with it and not noticed the difference. Remember touchup artists you would send MF/LF slides and negs to them to fix error in emulsions and adjust things, that's the art part that isn't photography. It's now a button in PS but its still different than photography. IN MY OPINION.



~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lenny]

Calling it ridiculous that someone doesn't understand something is also insulting. Everyone has their strengths, and weaknesses, I can't read graphs and charts (except navigation maps) in terms of photography, I know that if the dark part goes up the side of either end a LOT then it's under or over exposed, the rest is a mystery, but I can look at a picture scanned and adjust the sliders to get what I want.

I have no need to insult you. I don't suggest that it was ridiculous that you didn't understand, but the idea that you couldn't understand it is ridiculous. It just isn't that hard. I believe everyone can learn anything they set their mind to.And I probably just misread what you were saying.

Anything that's photography / darkroom related can be done in Lightroom, anything that can't be done and needs photoshop is graphic art, not photography. To suggest otherwise is insulting to photography as an art which is different than graphic art. People often confuse the two. If you disagree, you might not be aware of lightrooms capabilities which are extensive.

Please. I am in imaging professional. I know what Lightroom can and can't do. The truth is that Lightroom's masking abilities are quite limited. PhotoShop offers the ability to select something (in a variety of ways including things like channel masking and luminosity, and painting in the mask when those fail) and control it. Lightroom can't do that. Lightroom just wants you to trust that they will do the right thing when you move the slider. And its too bad if the other side of your image goes awry. It isn't a sensitive enough tool. There might be another thread you could start where the question "What can Photoshop do that Lightroom doesn't" is answered. At the moment its a long list.

That said, many people create exquisite prints using PhotoShop and to suggest they aren't doing photography is insulting. You are on a public forum, where people read the comments, often beginners looking for a little guidance in this very large subject. You are making blanket statements, which by your own admission, are beyond the range of your understanding. There is no reason not to ask the questions you pose, they are valid, but to state it as a rule is not useful to you, or others.

There are a number of people on this forum who make museum quality prints on a regular basis. If you want to ask them what's what, that's fine. However, until you can match their abilities, to diss PhotoShop, or their efforts in photography, doesn't make too much sense.

 

[pschwart]

Anything that's photography / darkroom related can be done in Lightroom, anything that can't be done and needs photoshop is graphic art, not photography. To suggest otherwise is insulting to photography as an art which is different than graphic art. People often confuse the two. If you disagree, you might not be aware of lightrooms capabilities which are extensive.

This is not meant to initiate a flame war or dis anybody, but I think comments are warranted.
I wouldn't expect a statement like this from anyone who could demonstrate a real breadth and depth of experience in analog and digital photographic processes. Maybe you are just being controversial to stimulate a dialog ...


Photography is generally considered a graphic art, so you have drawn an artificial distinction.
Anyway, no one is going to judge your prints based on your choice of tools; strong opinions are fine, but you will be judged on those and that is only fair. I do think it's a bizarre notion that one can completely isolate craft from art. We have all seen plenty of images ruined in Photoshop and Lightroom, too, for that matter. But the idea that just using these tools somehow pollutes one's artistic endeavors is weird -- lack of vision, skill and judgment are the culprits, just as they are in the darkroom. The traditional darkroom requires a huge amount of technique, too -- consider making unsharp or contrast masks on film, or even just dodging and burning -- without which artistic vision could not be realized. In the end, the semantics don't really matter. Artistic expression will be hobbled without some mastery of processes and materials. Even those of us who have been doing this for a *very* long time with a considerable set of credentials are constantly looking for ways to improve our craft. My (unsolicited) advice: keep an open mind.

 

[StoneNYC]

To both that responded. I wasn't trying to start a controversy or "stir things up" I was just expressing my view of what is considered photography vs "graphic arts" as they have evolved today.

Most images in magazines these days are SO photoshopped, the models all look like mannequins, they get rid of whole patches of skin to make the model skinnier, etc etc get rid of stop signs and other objects in the background etc. This is what I mean by "graphic art" it's more like digital painting, it's a post process after the photography part happens that completely changes the image so much that it doesn't at all resemble the original image.

This was done years ago by touchup artists who would manually make changes to the negative or transparency itself, but they weren't called photographers they were called touchup artist or some other name in a different department.

That's what I mean. Now many photographers are also doing that second job themselves (some used to before but the alterations were not so extreme for most). So that's sort of what I mean.

I just want it to be called what it is, which is a part of the production of a type of image, but it's not photography in itself.

If I open photoshop and draw and create an image completely from a blank page, but make it look like .. St a beautiful sunset... That's not photography, that's graphic arts. The photography part happens in the camera, the darkroom printing art work happens in the darkroom, and the photoshopping happens in photoshop, it's part of the process in some photographic work flows, but it's not photography IMO.

I work hard to create a scene and light and stage an image when I take a photo and spend time to perfect the image before its even taken, and it insults me when someone takes a snapshot without all that effort, and then alters the image after and makes it beautiful and ingesting, but they aren't a good photographer, they are a good graphic artist.

Just as no one should call me a graphic artist for my images even if some could be very elaborate and appear to be altered simply because of their creativeness.

Get it?

I'm not saying I'm that good, I'm just using that as an example.

I'm not the best in the world, but look at the few images in my gallery and know that there was almost no post process work done, and if it was, it was probably something I could have done in development of the film itself, not even the printing end. (I think, I haven't looked at my gallery in a while and I know I only have a few up there...).

Again not trying to be an ass just see that there is a separation between the two skill sets and they are linked but also separate skills and should be called such. Again IMO.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[L Gebhardt]

There are plenty of uses for Photoshop in creating real photographs. There is no reason you have to use it to alter the content of the image. It's just a much more powerful tool than Lightroom. And I say that based on using Lightroom only for most of my images.

You need to separate the tool from the sometimes bad output it also makes possible. Not all users of create heavy handed manipulated crap, but if you want to do so it's a great tool.

 

[selmslie]

To both that responded. I wasn't trying to start a controversy or "stir things up" I was just expressing my view of what is considered photography vs "graphic arts" as they have evolved today. …

I don’t think you would classify most of the classic photographers like Adams and Weston as graphic artists, but if you apply your strict distinction that would be what you are implying.

Both of them (and many others) significantly altered what they actually saw to achieve what they wanted to display in a print. This included retouching negatives to remove defects and alter densities, manipulating the exposure and development process, dodging and burning during printing and retouching the final print.

Based on his description of the process, Adams in particular would have welcomed the labor savings available with today’s hybrid process.

Nevertheless, they might not have taken to HDR or other graphic processes available today because it would probably not have agreed with their vision. Man Ray, on the other hand, would have loved it all.

 

[StoneNYC]

I don’t think you would classify most of the classic photographers like Adams and Weston as graphic artists, but if you apply your strict distinction that would be what you are implying.

Both of them (and many others) significantly altered what they actually saw to achieve what they wanted to display in a print. This included retouching negatives to remove defects and alter densities, manipulating the exposure and development process, dodging and burning during printing and retouching the final print.

Based on his description of the process, Adams in particular would have welcomed the labor savings available with today’s hybrid process.

Nevertheless, they might not have taken to HDR or other graphic processes available today because it would probably not have agreed with their vision. Man Ray, on the other hand, would have loved it all.

Yes and Adams was both a photographer and a printing master. But I would say that anything Adams did in the darkroom could be done in Lightroom


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[selmslie]

Yes and Adams was both a photographer and a printing master. But I would say that anything Adams did in the darkroom could be done in Lightroom


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think Lightroom is the litmus test you are looking for. The real question is what you do to the image before you print it.

Maybe all you do is remove dust and scratches, level, crop, change brightness and contrast and, for color adjust for color temperature or neutral gray. That's pretty much all I ever do. Many programs allow you to do that.

If you go further and apply graduated filters or use dodging and burning methods, even masks, are you crossing the line? If you clone out candy wrappers or power lines, is that too much? If you combine two or more images because you don't have a lens that is wide enough or a film/sensor with enough latitude, maybe that's too far.

I'm sure you have heard the joke about the man who offered a woman a million dollars cash to sleep with him and she accepted, but declined when he then offered $5... "We have established what you are, we are just quibbling over the price."

 

[StoneNYC]

I don't think Lightroom is the litmus test you are looking for. The real question is what you do to the image before you print it.

Maybe all you do is remove dust and scratches, level, crop, change brightness and contrast and, for color adjust for color temperature or neutral gray. That's pretty much all I ever do. Many programs allow you to do that.

If you go further and apply graduated filters or use dodging and burning methods, even masks, are you crossing the line? If you clone out candy wrappers or power lines, is that too much? If you combine two or more images because you don't have a lens that is wide enough or a film/sensor with enough latitude, maybe that's too far.

I'm sure you have heard the joke about the man who offered a woman a million dollars cash to sleep with him and she accepted, but declined when he then offered $5... "We have established what you are, we are just quibbling over the price."

Lol, I have heard that one before

Yes cloning out signs is MOSTLY too much.

I put my graduated filters on my lens...

We pretty much do the same things on the computer.

Meh... It's all perspective. I GUESS you could stitch stuff, I've seen amazing stitching, but you couldn't do that with film and have it be as precise that you couldn't tell like you can in PS because it literally analyzes every pixel to layer it.

Maybe I'm becoming like those painters, "it's not a real portrait if its not made with paint" haha


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk