Slide film scan does not look as great as the original

rayonline_nz · Oct 17, 2017

I have scanned my film with an Epson V700 and in the past a Nikon Coolscan 4000. The CS is sharper than the flatbed but they are both acceptable for a print. Then again a dSLR is more detailed than a CS. But the main thing I have with a slide is that it doesn't have the same impact as looking at the original slide.

I can see how one might appreciate b/w film or C41 film but with the original slide for me at least I see this slick, colourful, vivid, vibrant slide and the scan just doesn't look like that.

Like to know your views on this. How you do view your slides?

Cheers.

philipus · Oct 17, 2017

What's your scanning workflow like?

br
Philip

rayonline_nz said:
I have scanned my film with an Epson V700 and in the past a Nikon Coolscan 4000. The CS is sharper than the flatbed but they are both acceptable for a print. Then again a dSLR is more detailed than a CS. But the main thing I have with a slide is that it doesn't have the same impact as looking at the original slide.

I can see how one might appreciate b/w film or C41 film but with the original slide for me at least I see this slick, colourful, vivid, vibrant slide and the scan just doesn't look like that.

Like to know your views on this. How you do view your slides?

Cheers.

rayonline_nz · Oct 17, 2017

I scan at 2400 dpi with 48bit color TIF format with the Epson. I take off unsharp mask, and I alter the histogram so the highlights and shadows are not clipped. Then in Lightroom I add some contrast, reduce the highlights, more shadows, less blacks, more whites, some vibrance, saturation, a bit of the curves and sharpening to 120 ish and noise reduction 15.

A picture is attached here. The grain shows up, the scan doesn't look as good as the original slide. The tones are a bit more squashed. Not as vibrant or slick as the original slide. I appreciate b/w film and maybe C41 a bit more.

Les Sarile · Oct 17, 2017

What is the slide? Perhaps the scene may have something to do with your results?
Clearly a paper print is the lowest common denominator as having the least vibrance possible even on ultraglossy. Now if you print on transparency that is backlit - like we did for signs in Las Vegas casinos, that can definitely emulate a transparency on a light table.

rayonline_nz · Oct 17, 2017

Kodak E100G. Do slide film record less shadow detail than a digital camera? I do most of my photography in low light, love the saturation.

markbarendt · Oct 17, 2017

rayonline_nz said:
Kodak E100G. Do slide film record less shadow detail than a digital camera?

Yes. Well to be fair, slide film has less range in general, exposure placement determines what tones get ‘clipped’ but most any modern digital camera can record a wider tonal range from the scene than slide film.

rayonline_nz said:
I do most of my photography in low light, love the saturation.

I believe what you are liking is the slide’s contrast range. Roughly 5 stops from the scene total from Velvia, 6 stops Provia, 7 stops Astia, is about it. E100 maybe 5-6 stops best guess.

Poisson Du Jour · Oct 17, 2017

rayonline_nz said:
I scan at 2400 dpi with 48bit color TIF format with the Epson. I take off unsharp mask, and I alter the histogram so the highlights and shadows are not clipped. Then in Lightroom I add some contrast, reduce the highlights, more shadows, less blacks, more whites, some vibrance, saturation, a bit of the curves and sharpening to 120 ish and noise reduction 15.

A picture is attached here. The grain shows up, the scan doesn't look as good as the original slide. The tones are a bit more squashed. Not as vibrant or slick as the original slide. I appreciate b/w film and maybe C41 a bit more.

And profiling, colourimetrics? Where is that? Not that it is likely to make a difference after all that wizardry.
Really, don't do any of that stuff. Get the exposure spot-on in-camera, don't rely on it being anywhere near good in post workflow.
In-camera exposure isn't difficult, but it is a skill and requires work. You need to pick up on this as you are relying too much on a computer to fill-in the blanks that you should be covering at the time of the exposure. Why vibrance and saturation?

Desktop scanners will always have difficulty matching the slide.

rayonline_nz said:
. Do slide film record less shadow detail than a digital camera?

Yes.

NortheastPhotographic · Oct 17, 2017

Nothing will be as good as looking at the original tranny on the light table. Set that experience aside. If it's a well exposed chrome you should be able to do a decent reproduction, but it will require a high DMAX scanner. Epsons are no idea for smaller formats, and definitely not for slide film. If you can use that Coolscan that's the minimum of what I would use frankly.

Digital cameras will always appear to record more detail because no grain is present. Though often a slide does actually resolve the same amount, if slightly obscured by grain. It takes a very good scanner to see the detail present in a 35mm slide, no flatbed will get there.

rayonline_nz · Oct 17, 2017

The scan looks flat straight out of the scanner. The slide looks better. Yes, maybe it is the desktop scanner, tonight will do a slide show with the free Kodak carousel given to me from the camera club .... And it's not like for a hobbyist one can get so much pro scans.

rayonline_nz · Oct 17, 2017

Sperdynamite said:
Nothing will be as good as looking at the original tranny on the light table. Set that experience aside. If it's a well exposed chrome you should be able to do a decent reproduction, but it will require a high DMAX scanner. Epsons are no idea for smaller formats, and definitely not for slide film. If you can use that Coolscan that's the minimum of what I would use frankly.

Digital cameras will always appear to record more detail because no grain is present. Though often a slide does actually resolve the same amount, if slightly obscured by grain. It takes a very good scanner to see the detail present in a 35mm slide, no flatbed will get there.

Cheers for that. Appreciated, just saw your post come up after I posted before. I bought the Coolscan from a pro but it is now no longer working, I have some medium format slides to scan and my Betterholder is arriving soon (for my Epson) but again I don't imagine it would be that it would be much better but the sharpness and the ease of use might be a bit.

markbarendt · Oct 18, 2017

This closer?

Edit done in LR, scrubby slider, middle tone, drug it straight down.

dmr · Oct 18, 2017

rayonline_nz said:
the main thing I have with a slide is that it doesn't have the same impact as looking at the original slide.

My guess is that you're disappointed with either the dynamic range or the color fidelity/saturation on your scans of slides. Play with the levels and curves, and don't be afraid to goose the saturation if it's weak.

It took me quite a while on the learning curve to scan and edit slides successfully. I started doing it 10 years ago and I'm still learning. As with exposing slides, it appears to me that there's less room for error than with negatives.

I've done a few stunning 13x19 prints from scanned slides, but I've also found slides that just don't seem to give satisfactory scanned images. You do have a bit of wiggle-room with Photoshop/Gimp/whatever to make a fair slide better, but if the highlights are blown out totally and/or the shadows are deep down in the mud, nothing is going to help.

Also remember that each generation of copying (and scanning is certainly one of them) will result in some loss of quality.

rayonline_nz · Oct 18, 2017

Thanks for all the help

Mark - cheers for the editing. Not quite as vivid as that, it was more shadow detail and I guess it was backlighted so had that metallic chrome look to it.

Interestingly I just did a quick show with the projector that looked a bit more tame, a bit different to the lightbox. In somewhat it made Velvia a bit less saturated to what the lightbox showed.

Will continue to play around ....

markbarendt · Oct 18, 2017

rayonline_nz said:
Thanks for all the help

Mark - cheers for the editing. Not quite as vivid as that, it was more shadow detail and I guess it was backlighted so had that metallic chrome look to it.

Interestingly I just did a quick show with the projector that looked a bit more tame, a bit different to the lightbox. In somewhat it made Velvia a bit less saturated to what the lightbox showed.

Will continue to play around ....

So Ray, what you found is normal. It is also normal for paper prints. Change the setting the final image is seen in and look of the photo changes. The only lighting that counts for final editing is the lighting where the photo is finally displayed.

For example to get a bit more vivid image when projecting (more like the light box) you could:
1- reduce the light output of the projector or,
2- underexpose a bit in the camera.

If projection is your target usage, the projection should be how you proof. If digital, in a room with normal lighting... If paper, in the living room under it’s normal lighting... Every change of venue changes the look.

It follows that given the scanner has yet a different light source, it requires it’s own edit.

ced · Oct 18, 2017

Couldn't but help not getting into an attempt at a small improvement only levels & gradation tweaks.

Alan Edward Klein · Oct 18, 2017

Can't tell much with that shot because it was taken long after sunset. You could be in reciprocity failure. Even if not you're bound to get dark exposure with weird colors. How do chromes look with normal lighting? Tryiong to figure out anything with this evening lighting isn't going to tell you much.

Poisson Du Jour · Oct 19, 2017

Alan Edward Klein said:
Can't tell much with that shot because it was taken long after sunset. You could be in reciprocity failure. Even if not you're bound to get dark exposure with weird colors. How do chromes look with normal lighting? Tryiong to figure out anything with this evening lighting isn't going to tell you much.

@Alan: "How do chromes look with normal lighting?" How do I describe to thee? Let me count one way: Bloody marvellous...
It's not too long after sunset (and not too long before dawn in the case of morning, and still very useable light) — about 15-20+ minutes at this time in Spring in eastern Australia, similar in NZ.

Can you show the original scan please, and start from there.

I think the baseline problem is camera exposure and reciprocity, additional to only moderate saturation for that film (meaning, is it the right film for the task?), but moderate saturation might just be all you really need. How are we to know? The grain/noise appears to be interfering with detail — E100G is not this grainy, so there is noise coming from somewhere. Uncommon as it is, sometimes re-rating the film to ease off on saturation is done (e.g. EI80). But in Ray's case, there is no reference starting point image to make an informed judgement, just a very heavily modified copy. For all intents and purposes, the original may have been colourimetrically correct (I have only seen E100GX slides, not the *G designation).

By the way, these lovely, after-sunset colours are muted pastels, definitely not theme colours for Moulin Rouge.

The image below is straight from an RVP50 6x7 transparency (multispot metered), profiled to AdobeRGB+, USM +5% (covers scan-step loss) and straight to print (RA-4) — this and another (landscape) scene sold for $1,480.
____________________________________________________________
Sample — Earth's Shadow (blue) and Belt of Venus (pink):
20 minutes after sunset (sun down below western horizon, this is view east);
RVP50 w/ additional 6s reciprocity correction at exposure.
____________________________________________________________

It is very possible to achieve this with any film (including E100G, even a pinhole camera) — but the more control you have over the camera and film.

Analogue Masters: Morning and Evening: Photographing the twilight colours
Workshop Facilitators: Gary Higgins (Lead) & Damian Cooke-Harding
Maximum participants: 6
• This workshop assumes participants have an advanced working knowledge of manual exposure using either incident or multispot metering and an understanding of the response of the film(s) they intend using in this workshop. This workshop is specifically designed for exposures using analogue equipment (manual 35mm, manual MF and LF).
Syllabus:
The local environment of Lake Bonney; location safety; choice of camera and lens; location! Location! Location!, selecting your film — colour and/or B&W?, multispot vs incident metering, timed exposure and reciprocity; multiple exposure; record keeping.
Location: Lake Bonney, Barmera, South Australia
Meals: Barmera RSL or Hotel. Discussion of the day's work.
Date: 31st October to 2nd November 2017
Accommodation: Discovery Park Barmera or camp on shores of Lake Bonney — close to the action (and snakes and spiders).
Note Lake Bonney is a 6km drive from Barmera township.
Cost: $1,400 (Workshop now fully booked). || silenthyphenstreetdotphotoatiinetdotnetdotau

rayonline_nz · Oct 19, 2017

Original scan.

Poisson Du Jour · Oct 19, 2017

rayonline_nz said:
Original scan.

The image is copyrighted © Raymond Cho (the author of this thread).

The profile on landing has defaulted to AdobeRGB1998 (no attendant profile found).

The palette looks natural on examination, although the lower bank of clouds has interfered with the line of blue that normally would be observed. This is a minor quibble which in no way really distracts from the image impact.

Three somewhat muggy tones are visible in the hills: the distant range, the middle and foreground hills, and all are a little low in contrast direct off scan (note that sea mist can also cause this low, muggy contrast). A very small localised fix in hill contrast is warranted. Also levelling of the horizon.

No alteration is warranted to any part of the sky.

The image looks well exposed from a basic standpoint, with reasonable detail visible where it is expected in this specific (rapidly falling) lighting.

At print step, a small amount of brightness of the image will likely be lost; if you are having the image commercially printed at a lab, discuss this with lab staff.
.::GRRH

Alan Edward Klein · Oct 19, 2017

This is 6x7 Velvia 50 but slightly before sunset so it's not so purple as after sunset.. Scanned on an Epson 600.

Snowset by Alan Klein, on Flickr

Les Sarile · Oct 19, 2017

markbarendt said:
Yes. Well to be fair, slide film has less range in general, exposure placement determines what tones get ‘clipped’ but most any modern digital camera can record a wider tonal range from the scene than slide film.

I believe what you are liking is the slide’s contrast range. Roughly 5 stops from the scene total from Velvia, 6 stops Provia, 7 stops Astia, is about it. E100 maybe 5-6 stops best guess.

I haven't yet conducted these types of testing and I would appreciate seeing your setup and results on this.

Poisson Du Jour · Oct 19, 2017

^^ A lovely winter's scene, Alan. I almost expect Alice in Wonderland to enter, stage left. I like the delicate hues of the sky and imagine it would be spectacular in the afterglow. Unfortunately I'm a bit hobbled by what I can see/how I see and what I can do using this tablet, so making do with judgement.

Alan Edward Klein · Oct 19, 2017

Lovely shot. I can see why its worth so much. What size?

Poisson Du Jour said:
@Alan: "How do chromes look with normal lighting?" How do I describe to thee? Let me count one way: Bloody marvellous...
It's not too long after sunset (and not too long before dawn in the case of morning, and still very useable light) — about 15-20+ minutes at this time in Spring in eastern Australia, similar in NZ.

Can you show the original scan please, and start from there.

I think the baseline problem is camera exposure and reciprocity, additional to only moderate saturation for that film (meaning, is it the right film for the task?), but moderate saturation might just be all you really need. How are we to know? The grain/noise appears to be interfering with detail — E100G is not this grainy, so there is noise coming from somewhere. Uncommon as it is, sometimes re-rating the film to ease off on saturation is done (e.g. EI80). But in Ray's case, there is no reference starting point image to make an informed judgement, just a very heavily modified copy. For all intents and purposes, the original may have been colourimetrically correct (I have only seen E100GX slides, not the *G designation).

By the way, these lovely, after-sunset colours are muted pastels, definitely not theme colours for Moulin Rouge.

The image below is straight from an RVP50 6x7 transparency (multispot metered), profiled to AdobeRGB+, USM +5% (covers scan-step loss) and straight to print (RA-4) — this and another (landscape) scene sold for $1,480.
____________________________________________________________
Sample — Earth's Shadow (blue) and Belt of Venus (pink):
20 minutes after sunset (sun down below western horizon, this is view east);
RVP50 w/ additional 6s reciprocity correction at exposure.
____________________________________________________________

View attachment 188581

It is very possible to achieve this with any film (including E100G, even a pinhole camera) — but the more control you have over the camera and film.

Alan Edward Klein · Oct 19, 2017

Poisson Du Jour said:
^^ A lovely winter's scene, Alan. I almost expect Alice in Wonderland to enter, stage left. I like the delicate hues of the sky and imagine it would be spectacular in the afterglow. Unfortunately I'm a bit hobbled by what I can see/how I see and what I can do using this tablet, so making do with judgement.

I was shooting on private property, half in error on my part. There were no trespassing signs although I thought I may have been trespassing. The scene was too pretty to pass up but couldn't wait to check it out after sunset. The owner chased me away just as I clicked the shutter then sent her husband to chew me out. I apologized and then emailed them an electronic copy after I scanned it to make amends. Frankly, I'm glad I didn't get shot

Poisson Du Jour · Oct 19, 2017

Alan Edward Klein said:
Lovely shot. I can see why its worth so much. What size?

Approx. 60x50cm, Kodak Supra Endura Metallic.

Slide film scan does not look as great as the original

rayonline_nz

philipus

rayonline_nz

Attachments

Les Sarile

rayonline_nz

markbarendt

Poisson Du Jour

NortheastPhotographic

rayonline_nz

Attachments

rayonline_nz

markbarendt

dmr

rayonline_nz

markbarendt

ced

Alan Edward Klein

Poisson Du Jour

rayonline_nz

Attachments

Poisson Du Jour

Alan Edward Klein

Les Sarile

Poisson Du Jour

Alan Edward Klein

Alan Edward Klein

Poisson Du Jour

Slide film scan does not look as great as the original

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency