How much do you edit scans of slide film?

<p><a name="00cbLe"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=17200">David Henderson</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 23, 2014; 04:38 a.m.</p>

<p>Dave: What film do you use for scanning with your V700 and what film when getting it scanned with the Imacon?</p>

<p>I started editing scanned film images 10 years before I "went over to the dark side" and shot digital. It is rare for me to find an image that can't be improved by tweaking the tone scale. The biggest advance in image quality ever delivered to amateur photographers was when photofinishers started scanning the film and applying digital algorithms to adjust tone scale, enhance sharpness, suppress grain, and fix red-eye. I edit most of my images one at a time in Photoshop (whether they are digital or scanned film images). I use Lightroom when I have many images that all require similar edits. I see no reason to maintain the biases that various image sensors (film or digital) produce. </p>

<p>Alan. Most of my slides are Velvia and mainly Velvia 50. Those that aren't Velvia are Provia 100. I tend to scan mainly for the web and Blurb books on the V700. The Imacon scans mainly were stock agency selects and for prints, and much less frequent these days as I don't shoot slides nowadays. </p>

<p>Yes - I do edit the scans to match the actual slide using whatever limited skills I have. Althou one could calibrate their scanner with a E6 iT8 target ....</p>

<p>But hey. Now I will think twice when I see a photograph. He had a paid for seminar that I attended. He has been on trips with the likes of John Shaw, Freeman Patterson, the CEO of Adobe. I am not saying they all do it. But this photographer showed us what they do in Adobe Lightroom with his "2 minutes" PP. He shows us the before and after images - original RAW and a fully prepped version. He then reset the file and spent a moment showing us in 2 or 3 steps what they do. </p>

<p>They would:<br>

Desaturate the image and alter the WB/tint or maybe a split tone. <br>

They do use tripods but only when they have to. Shoot a landscape image handheld at ISO 800 and then add NR.<br>

Darken and brighten certain areas, add vignetting. <br>

If an image was taken in a cloudy day with things are overcasted. They would make the clouds even moodier, then selectively they would brighten up the foreground / buildings and add saturation. </p>

<p>Maybe I am still stuck in the last century. I shoot a slide. I look at the actual slide. If I shoot color negative film or digital I make very slight global changes with a slight S curve, some sharpening, maybe straighten the horizon, 5% cropping. A bit like in the days - you drop off a roll of film and you get back a set of 6x4 prints. </p>

<p>He did mention, you either sit there for 2 weeks and wait for the sun or you can adjust the photograph. </p>

<p>One image he showed that he cut off the penguin's head ... so he threw it into Photoshop and extended the canvas and using the clone tool he said he painted back the top of the head. Likewise if the leg wing of the bird was cut off he could grab the other wing and adjust some how for left wing. </p>

<p>You might consider whether the slide itself is an accurate portrayal of what you saw? The likes of Fuji Velvia made fame and fortune by <strong>not </strong>being totally accurate. At their peak Fuji probably made approaching a dozen slide emulsions each of which would produce a different look from the same scene. They can't all have been accurate. Mostly by the time we get slides back, we can't even remember the precise colour/contrast nuances of what we saw. </p>

<p>On top of which surely its the photographer's task to produce an image he/she feels is satisfying. This can be an interpretation rather than the absolute "truth" ( if you can remember it). I have to say that for me, to produce something interesting yet plausible is more appealing than a search for truth that I'll probably get wrong and would have been different five minutes before or after. And whilst at the time I photographed slides I tended mainly to look at those slides as a final version, I now see them as raw material in the same way as a raw file.</p>

<p>I also don't edit to match the original slide. I adjust to what looks "correct" to my eyes. Here are two Velvia 50 pictures of the same scene taken at the same time with different lenses. The contrast and saturation are quite different. I scanned and edited them at different times. Which has "correct" colors and contrast - those that match the original slides? I don't know. Which color/contrast do you guys prefer?</p>

<p><a title="Portland Head Lighthouse on Cape Elizabeth, Portland, Maine, USA by Alan Klein, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5281/5270429762_bb58f11c37_z.jpg" alt="Portland Head Lighthouse on Cape Elizabeth, Portland, Maine, USA" width="640" height="521" /></a></p>

<p><a title="Portland Head Lighthouse on Cape Elizabeth, Portland, Maine, USA by Alan Klein, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5283/5270637805_5e15b955ab_z.jpg" alt="Portland Head Lighthouse on Cape Elizabeth, Portland, Maine, USA" width="640" height="531" /></a></p>

<p>I prefer the top one, Alan. It has less pinkish clouds and sky blue and more detail in the shadows near black in the rocks. Maybe a tad more saturation would give the top one slightly more pop over the bottom version which is too vibrant.</p>

<p>Really nice clarity and detail in both captures BTW, Alan. Certainly would brighten room ambiance hanging on my wall for sure.</p>

<p>Now if we could just get you to render skin tones by not putting too much pink in your Velvia edits.</p>

<p>Thanks Tim: I agree with you that somewhere in the middle is the best contrast and exposure. I'm glad you confirmed my view. Skin tones are a real pain with Velvia. It's very difficult to get the red out especially with my wife who's a red head and has reddish skin. Velvia's good for landscapes but Portra is better for people.</p>

<p>I also prefer the top. It looks less like RVP though!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's very difficult to get the red out especially with my wife who's a red head and has reddish skin. Velvia's good for landscapes but Portra is better for people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I still tweak now and then the jpeg portrait of your beautiful red headed, fair skin wife holding a branch out in the woods you posted a while back in a thread about Velvia skin tones.</p>

<p>There's something quite inky in the vivid magenta vs. green spectrum inherent in the overall color palette of Velvia, especially in your wife's portrait, that plays tricks on my eyes. Every time I go back with a fresh eye to that portrait her skin tone either looks too yellow orange or too pinkish.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe I just belong to that minority that wants nothing to be done after the shutter is pressed and if is to be scanned to get a file out of it it, it is to just match slide.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is the key idea you are presenting. There are a few people who dislike the idea of post processing for one reason or another. I think it has to do more with being OK with what you are given with the medium and not seeing the need for making any changes. If that is the case, accept it and just do whatever pleases you! </p>

<p>Just remember, by not post processing you are certainly not producing a more "real" image. As mentioned above, color film's characteristics are selected by the manufacturer for certain colors, contrast, etc. Even shooting jpgs in the camera and not post processing them just means you are allowing the camera to do all the "post processing" based on the manufacturer's chosen values. Many of us find the pre-set parameters of film or digital too rigid and confining, and not appearing the way we see things in our mind's eye. I personally find post processing rather easy and satisfying, especially with digital. When I made prints in the darkroom the work was very tedious and expensive too!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Tim. I trust my wife will be pleased with your fascination. If I recall correctly, as it's been quite a number of years, she also had somewhat of a sunburn which may account for those colors. I also remember that I just couldn't get them to be toned down during the edit. But that just exemplifies the problem with Velvia.</p>

<p><em>Maybe I am still stuck in the last century.</em></p>

<p>I don't see it as having anything to do with a particular century or time period. I think it has more to do with a mind set and on that score I say "to each his/her own."</p>

<p>I've never made a photo by just pushing the shutter. Whether I do it or someone else does it, my photos get processed in some way once the camera part is finished and then they are either printed or displayed on a monitor. For me, the push of the shutter is simply one (important) stage in a bigger course of events.</p>

<p>I can understand that in the past, if we shot B/W they printed it in the darkroom, contast filters, dodge and burning. All these little steps. I took up photography in 2004 I didn't do that myself but I can understand. If we shot C41 film, we might soften the image ie portraits and correct color cast or expect the lab to do it. But when many people shot slide film they projected the slides at home or at a camera club. But I can understand a professional or the few might oursource the digial post processing. At the camera club, back a few years, we had a sport photographer who was associated with the All Blacks rugby team and he projected the slides.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe my style is to do everything in camera and nothing after the film is developed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you like the idea of shooting and showing slides because no post processing is used. Do you want some kind of support or validation for this preference? It would seem that most of the responders in this thread do like to do some post processing. Nevertheless, keeping it simple is certainly a personal choice and you should enjoy your way of doing photography no matter what other people do. Don't worry about it!</p>

<p>Yes. A photo is done when I say it's done, and if that means editing a scan then it's a straight-forward process. Lots of photos I took way-back-when aren't wonderful and editing in digital is quite acceptable to me to get a better result.</p>