What software do you use after scanning negatives with a camera to turn them into positives?

[cayenne]

Hello all,

I've been scanning to date using my Epson V600 flatbed scanner in conjunction with Silverfast for doing the scans, and working at capture to remove dust, set up with film profiles, and adjustments at time of scan to turn negatives it scans into positive images that I then ingest into my RAW processors and later Affinity Photo if I need heavy lifting.

I"m looking to possibly set up and start scanning my negatives with my GFX100....and it dawned on me, that I have no idea what software I'd use to convert the negatives.

I suppose I could bring them into Capture one or the like or Affinity Photo...and just invert them...but wondering if there is software similar to what Silverfast does at capture...is there software that you run after taking pics of the negatives that is better suited for "developing" the negatives into positives?

OH and an important bit...I'm not using Adobe products., So, can't be anything PS or LR specific in my workflow.

Thank you in advance,

cayenne

 

[4season]

I just started to experiment with Negative Lab Pro last night:
https://www.negativelabpro.com/
Although sold as a PS/LR plugin, it ought to work with non-Adobe software compatible with those plugins.

Initial impression is pretty favorable, and it seems like an easy choice if you are using your camera as scanner. But I still haven't figured out whether I'd prefer that workflow versus just sticking with my scanner plus Silverfast AI Studio software, as I'm very familiar with the latter.

 

[grat]

Open source app Darktable has a module called negadoctor. Does pretty well at inversion.

 

[GLS]

ColorPerfect is the best solution I have found, and is what I have used for all my colour negs for some time now. It does a brilliant job. However it is PS only.

If you are confident using RGB curves editing and have a software that can do this (as well as a high tolerance for tweaking) it can be done this way too. However I never found the results to be as good as with ColorPerfect, especially with Ektar.

 

[Nelari]

I am pretty happy with RawTherapee. The user interface is weird, however. A lot is done with tabs, which are sort of dialog boxes that appear on-screen after you click the corresponding icon. Trouble is, the icons are not representative of the functionality that is sort of hiding under them. So you find (well, I found) them by hovering over the icons and waiting for an explanation to appear. Weird.

Anyway, the tabs I use are RAW and Color. In RAW, I select Film Negative and click the tiny power-on icon. Next, I open Color and click White Balance. There are a few alternatives. I have got by with Auto or Pick (pick a white spot, that is.)

 

[guangong]

Vuescan

 

[runswithsizzers]

The OP does not really say if color negatives or B&W. If b&w, there is no need to pay for specialized inversion software - almost any photo editing software should do the job.

For color, I have been using Negative Lab Pro. After spending some time with it, I have been able to get pretty good results with it, but I don't care for the UI and I hate the way it complicates further editing in Lightroom. However, it is probably of no use to the OP, because as far as I know, it works with Lightroom, only.

I have also been able to get pretty good color results with Vuescan, but again, no use to the OP, because as far as I know there is no way to use Vuescan with CAMERA-scans.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I've tried RAW scans, inverting, pretty much everything over the years. It's not worth it.

There is really nothing to be gained by scanning it as a negative and converting it to a positive. Just scan around 2400ppi, in 16 bit (or 48 for color) and then make your adjustments in Photoshop. No need to complicate it.

I use VueScan to make 16 bit B&W scans, and Mac's Image Capture does a very good job with color (rare for me).

 

[Alan9940]

...is there software that you run after taking pics of the negatives that is better suited for "developing" the negatives into positives?

OH and an important bit...I'm not using Adobe products., So, can't be anything PS or LR specific in my workflow.

Have you looked at Negadoctor in darktable?

 

[urnem57]

FilmLab is another option.

 

[Huss]

It's like saying "if you already have a wheelchair, there's nothing to be gained by attempting to walk"

Perfect!

 

[Huss]

For color, I have been using Negative Lab Pro. After spending some time with it, I have been able to get pretty good results with it, but I don't care for the UI and I hate the way it complicates further editing in Lightroom. .

How does it complicate further editing in Lightroom? All you do is export a copy as TIFF or jpeg, then edit in LR.

 

[titrisol]

on a Linux box....
open raw file with Darktable and use the negadoctor plugin
Save as 16bit-TIF
Then edit in GIMP

 

[nickandre]

My workflow has been to use Epson Scan in color negative mode:

1. Preview scan
2. Open detailed adjustments and adjust the histogram
3. Open the output scale up to the full range (0-255)
4. For each channel (R,G,B) go ahead and drag them to the highest and lowest value on the matching RGB curve
5. Adjust overall contrast on the main slider
6. Apply desired curves in photoshop afterwards.

All that "negative lab pro" is doing is generating a particular aesthetic curve. It would be 100% possible to replicate that in Photoshop by inverting the positive and then setting your desired curve, although it will require practice. What you're doing is replicating the response of RA4 paper, essentially. And applying additional desired look by tweaking the curves.

 

[removedacct1]

It's like saying "if you already have a wheelchair, there's nothing to be gained by attempting to walk"

No. I'm saying that the OP is complicating their workflow with no meaningful benefit. Are you suggesting that DSLR "scanning" clearly superior to what a dedicated flatbed scanner can do?? You're going to have a hard time proving to me there's any truth to that idea. (unless we're talking about 35mm negatives, in which case DSLR "scans" might be sharper)

 

[etn]

I am using my own workflow based on a self-written Matlab script.

My workflow is as follows:
1) Scan with exposure bracketing, I usually take up to 9 exposures at 2/3 EV apart.
2) Import the raw files into the usual processor (formerly Capture 1, moved to Phocus since I have the CFV 50c ii back - I think Capture supports your GFX. Any raw converter will do here)
3) Out of all "identical" scans, select the shot with the most dynamic range i.e. the histogram as far to the right as possible, without clipping; erase the rest.
4) export all to 16-bit TIFF.
5) Here come my Matlab script: it crops the black edges (my scans are always a bit smaller than the full frame of the digital camera, and often have a different aspect ratio); subtracts the dye color of the neg (if needed); inverts the negative (if needed); normalizes the histogram; exports into an output file.
6) Then I reimport into an image processing software for further processing if desired.

The thing works quite well with BW negs and slides. There is room for improvement with color negatives, but as I hardly shoot any I did not invest much time in doing this yet.
The beauty of Matlab resides in its libraries (here the image processing toolbox), therefore all the above can done with maybe 100 lines of code by people like me who have no clue about software engineering.
On the flip side of the coin, it is slow and unoptimized, but as it batch processes all my images at once I don't care whether it runs for 5 minutes or one hour.
My current project is bringing some automation into step #3, which is still very time intensive.
Feel free to pm me if you want more details.

 

[runswithsizzers]

How does it complicate further editing in Lightroom? All you do is export a copy as TIFF or jpeg, then edit in LR.

That is exactly how Negative Lab Pro complicates my workflow in Lightroom.

I digitize film with my digital camera, and import the camera's RAW files into Lightroom. If I don't duplicate the NLP-converted file as a TIFF/JPEG, then normal Lightroom tools work backwards, so further editing with Lightroom tools is difficult or impossible. I use Lightroom's local adjustment tools a lot - adjustments which are impossible using the NLP module. So, using NLP really forces me to duplicate the RAW files as a TIFF/JPEG.

But copying the RAW file as a TIFF/JPEG means having two different versions of the same photo in my Lightroom catalog to keep track of. And if I want to use 16-bit TIFFs for maximum editability, then my storage requirements are doubled.

 

[grat]

Speaking as someone with an Epson v800 and a DSLR (Canon EOS 90D), my experience is that while the DSLR produces a higher resolution image (especially if I stitch), the color rendition is more "natural" with the Epson, and I can produce sufficiently high resolution scans for most purposes with the Epson.

My "standard" sharpening technique (frequency separation) allows me to sharpen detail without exaggerating the grain, so that compensates for the slightly soft images produced by the Epson.

 

[urnem57]

I think part of the point is to not spend the $$ on a scanner and use what one already has. For 90% of most people’s needs camera scanning is fine. When one needs the occasional highest-quality scan, neither process can touch a drum scan. It all depends upon what one’s end use is. A digital negative? Instagram? An inkjet print? A billboard? A 30x40 print? For me, the end use determines the type/quality/size of scan needed.

 

[grat]

My V800 cost $900 US. My 90D was ~ $1150, and I'm using a $600 lens. Now, I admit, I already had the camera and the lens-- but DSLR scanning is certainly not cheaper than an Epson flatbed.

 

[urnem57]

No. Your argument is flawed. You already had the camera and lens. All you would need is a way to hold the film. Cost - from 0 (tape) to $300-$500 (Negative Supply) or anything in between. Software - from 0 - $100 (Negative Lab Pro) Light source - from 0 (rigging your own w/strobes, etc. to $700 (Negative Supply) Total cost - from 0 to $1300 (or anywhere in between)
I don’t think someone would buy a digital camera and a macro lens just to digitize film.
If they are, then yes buying a scanner is cheaper (assuming they have a capable computer)
I seriously doubt anyone on this forum is in that position.
This route does come with the added bonus of them then becoming a digital photographer.
Used manual focus macro lenses can be had for $50.00 (don’t need autofocus for stationary copy work)
Again, it depends what one’s end use is.
Flatbed scanners are relics any more.
They are slow, too. When compared to a well-thought out camera scanning system with the right tools.
But again, what’s the end use?
Scanning entire rolls of film? The occasional single frame? Digitizing an entire family film archive?
There are many ways to go about this. Copy work is nothing new. It’s just new to people who didn’t grow up shooting film.

 

[MattKing]

I don’t think someone would buy a digital camera and a macro lens just to digitize film.
If they are, then yes buying a scanner is cheaper (assuming they have a capable computer)
I seriously doubt anyone on this forum is in that position.

A significant proportion of the people here (Photrio) are mainly film users, who don't own and use higher end digital cameras. I'm in that group.
My wife's mid-range micro 4/3 DSLR is the most capable digital camera I have access to. After some experimentation I've determined that I would need to invest a fair amount for it to give results similar to the film-based slide copying that my existing equipment permits.
I did have a more expensive and very old film scanner. Mostly now I use an older Canon flatbed scanner, which gives usable results, particularly with medium format. The film handling with that scanner is decent, even if the production speed is painfully slow.
When it comes to camera based digitization, I've seen nothing so far that comes close to the simplicity and relative ease of use of a flatbed. And that simplicity and ease of use is more important to me than highest resolution - my darkroom provides me with that.

 

[urnem57]

cool. thanks for the info. I guess like pretty much everything photo-related, there’s no one “right” way to go about things.

 

[Nelari]

I have also been able to get pretty good color results with Vuescan, but again, no use to the OP, because as far as I know there is no way to use Vuescan with CAMERA-scans.

Yes, there is. I have used it (Vuescan) just for this - scans from a DSLR. But my results with RawTherapee have generally been better.

 

[titrisol]

I guess most of us were looking for ways to easily and quickly digitize large libraries. And (almost) everyone has a Digicam
Digicam scanning is cheap, fast and anyone can do it.
Flatbed scanners were amazing, I had access to a Polaroid first, then a Minolta but never owned one. And having to ask for favours or take turns can be a drag.

In my case I began digitizing my fathers archive from the 60s and 70s with a point-and-shoot just to see what was in them and make "contact sheets" - perfection was not on my list - but then it became an easy way to share old pictures with family and friends or to show in flickr and later it progressed to make digital negatives for cyanotypes
Since most of the archive is 35mm and 6x6 it was easy to use old enlarger negative holders,using the enlarger column, and a light source (Gepe) with a bellows/macro lens and some black paper to prevent stray light. (Sort of the Honeywell reprocopy stands form the 70s)
But when scanning color negs and slides colors loooked funky and people began sharing their routines/workflows and life became a lot easier

-snip snip-
I seriously doubt anyone on this forum is in that position.
This route does come with the added bonus of them then becoming a digital photographer.
Used manual focus macro lenses can be had for $50.00 (don’t need autofocus for stationary copy work)
Again, it depends what one’s end use is.
Flatbed scanners are relics any more.
They are slow, too. When compared to a well-thought out camera scanning system with the right tools.
But again, what’s the end use?
Scanning entire rolls of film? The occasional single frame? Digitizing an entire family film archive?
There are many ways to go about this. Copy work is nothing new. It’s just new to people who didn’t grow up shooting film.