Scanning Color Negatives

[rgacpa]

I've been reading up and doing a little testing on c-f system's ColorNeg and ColorPos plugins for Adobe PS (PC only). Does anyone have any experience using these plugins? I'm not sure I want to spend the $ but would like anyone else's opinion to consider. Info can be found at:
http://www.c-f-systems.com/Phototips.html
I have no association with this product; just trying to achieve the perfect scan!
Bob

[dmr]

May I ask what is deficient in your current scans that you think this product will correct?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just question the necessity of all kinds of plug-ins and extra software when it seems the normal methods should work.

[rgacpa]

May I ask what is deficient in your current scans that you think this product will correct?

I'm specifically asking about color negatives.

Both pieces of software that I currently use (Nikon Scan and Vue Scan) have algorithms for interpreting the data scanned from the emulsion. With Nikon I choose 35mm Negative - Color. With ViewScan I choose Transparancy, Generic. When I open up these scans (in CS2) these negatives require color correction and level adjustments (beyond those done pre-scan) This c-f software seems to have built algorithms specific to film type.

So perhaps I'm over complicating this but I believe every negative emulsion or combination of emulsions is different. Compound that with the fact that I don't have a standard to calibrate the interpretation from, and I'm relying on either the software or my memory of the scene to interpret what my image looks like. I cannot look at the negative and say, no the sky isn't the same color blue as I see on my screen so I need to adjust my blue curve...

With transparancies I don't have this problem because a transparency is WYSIWYG. The blue on my screen should match the blue I see on my light table.

So that's why I'm searching for a more accurate way to interpret the data my scanner (Nikon 8000) reports from the scan of the 3 or 4 emulsion layers (depending on the film being used).

Please let me know if I'm way off base, in your opinion. and what you would suggest.
Thanks,
Bob

[Ray Heath]

g'day rg

though i'm not consersant with neg scanning i would suggest that you do have to interpret every image individually

whether the image comes from tranny, neg, file, print, stubby finger dipped in cow shit or whatever you have to decide how to present the final version, not some software/algorithm/computer thingy

it's your work, work at it

[jd callow]

Ray,
There are redundant, mechanical operations which need to be done for all scanned images that have little to do with "working at it."

Bob,
I went to the web site and it appears to be some interesting software. I hope that you receive some responses. I'd be interested in how well it works. The software doesn't look as if it is going to colour correct for you, but convert from neg to pos and apply an initial optimization in a more accurate manner than most other software (or at least this is what I'm lead to believe by reading their site). Colour correction as well as density and to a far lesser degree contrast is or should not be memory based nor should it require a 'go by' (as in the trany). A competent or experienced person should be able to achieve good density and colour balance by simply looking at the screen/test print. Over time you’ll learn to recognize the need for more or less m, or y not only in your own work but in any print or reproduction. This includes machine prints which I suspect is the kind of automation you are after.

[Ray Heath]

Ray,
There are redundant, mechanical operations which need to be done for all scanned images that have little to do with "working at it."

Bob,
I went to the web site and it appears to be some interesting software. I hope that you receive some responses. I'd be interested in how well it works. The software doesn't look as if it is going to colour correct for you, but convert from neg to pos and apply an initial optimization in a more accurate manner than most other software (or at least this is what I'm lead to believe by reading their site). Colour correction as well as density and to a far lesser degree contrast is or should not be memory based nor should it require a 'go by' (as in the trany). A competent or experienced person should be able to achieve good density and colour balance by simply looking at the screen/test print. Over time you’ll learn to recognize the need for more or less m, or y not only in your own work but in any print or reproduction. This includes machine prints which I suspect is the kind of automation you are after.

i disagree with most of this

optimum image adjustment, preperation, output and presentation must be done on experience based guidelines, not by preset software controlled manipulation

in this way the artist/photographer/image maker builds his knowledge and experience and 'works at' creating his own imagery

[rgacpa]

Well I tried the sofware and was not impressed.
As I stated in my opening question, I'm simply looking for something to accurately translate my color negative, when it's scanned, to the proper positive colors. This sofware is not it.
The workflow that seems to be best right now is the Nikon Scan software with adjustment of levels and curves. It seems to produce the most accurate (to my eye) interpretation of the color negative to the image I remember.
At some point I'll photograph a color card or gray card in the first frame before beginning a series, and use that as a reference. My guess is that will provide even greater accuracy.
My thanks to all those who took the time to respond to my initial question.
Best of light,
Bob

[Lee L]

Bob,

This is yet more software and another bit of hardware, but it might help with some of your goals, not in scanning per se, but in color matching after scanning.

Picture Window Pro (www.dl-c.com) for Windows has the capacity to correct the scanned image of a Gretag Macbeth Color Checker (a long time industry standard). It displays a grid that you stretch and skew to overlay the image of the chart, then makes corrections knowing the color standards of the chart and how each of the 24 color patches should look. The software allows a download for a 30 day trial. The Color Checker is designed to simulate common colors and the inks are designed for lowest possible metamerism (appearing to shift color with changes in lighting) so it's well suited to the task.

I've also seen some collapsible frame panels (same makers as studio light control panels) that have white, medium gray, and black sections that might accomplish the same thing in a simpler fashion, and might work well enough with your current scanning setup without extra software. Some are small enough to carry around for a quick reference shot in difficult lighting.

Some carefully chosen paint chips, laminate samples, matt board or similar might be pressed into service to allow your software some standard white, medium gray, and black points for color balancing. Watch out for specular reflections if you go this route. Matte is better. Fotowand also makes some nice standard targets sized for carrying along in a camera bag.

Lee

[Lee L]

Forgot to mention: I'm a little confused about your use of Vuescan. Are you using color transparency settings for scanning negatives? Vuescan has a number of presets for color negative films.

Lee

[rgacpa]

Lee,
Thanks for you input.
I have a Gretag card; came with my EyeOne Photo. Just didn't have it with me on my trip (shot 8 rolls of Fuji Pro160H).
For the software I referenced in my first post, you have to scan to a RAW file in VueScan. If I want to use VueScan without that software, the best film selection seems to be color negative generic. Works OK, but takes forever to scan at 16X (2.5hrs per frame for 35mm....).
With Nikon Scan, it takes about 15min per scan and the results are fine; as good as VueScan for me.
I'll look into the software you recommend, but I'm thinking my EyeOne Photo came with the same capability. Your just supposed to use it with your digital camera. Same technique; shot a frame with the color tile and use that to white balance the remaining images shot in that light. Should work with scanned film I would imagine.
Again, many thanks for taking the time to chime in,
Bob