120 slide film

<p>Notice that Jens also mentioned he specifically does slide film. Part of his point seems (to me) that, in reality or in psychology, slide film is a 'real' image with 'real' colour. Whereas negative film or RAW digital is whatever you want it to be - freedom which can be nice but also enslaving, because there's no point at which you can say 'this is the actual image'. There is a real, objective, outside-the-photographer colour and contrast in slide (whether it is 'good' or 'optimal' or 'real' isn't the point, the point is that it is independent of the photographer) that doesn't exist in negative or digital.</p>

<p>Oh, I like scanning too. Also because I've set a process which I don't have to tweak each time. It took me a lot before I had it sorted out, because I wanted to have a durable recipe. But I'm not a photographer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Whereas negative film or RAW digital is whatever you want it to be - freedom which can be nice but also enslaving, because there's no point at which you can say 'this is the actual image'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong. If you profile the negative film with a target, calibrate your scanner and your workflow, negative film is like slide film - it's the actual image. Anything else is tell tale and hot air based on old scanners that couldn't profile a film with a target, or simple software without these features. The profiling of course requires a lab that features a standardized development.<br>

<br>

You can even profile a digital cam with the X-Rite Color Checker Passport and a Lightroom plug-in if you want.</p>

What 'anything else'? What do you even mean by 'old scanners'? Did scanners at one point refuse to scan colour

targets?

 

Profiling negative film isn't the answer: film base colour will change with a variety of factors, emulsion 'model' is just one of

them. Much the same holds for digital, for different reasons. Unless you're willing to shoot a target for each kind of real

shot! You can certainly do it, if that's what makes you tick. Either way, you won't have something you can look at with

your bare eyes and judge.

<blockquote>

<p>Did scanners at one point refuse to scan colour targets?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, but scanning an image and profiling a negative film are two different pairs of shoes. I wrote 'tell tale' because many amateurs never went deeper into the scanning process, profiling or calibration.</p>

<p>Just ask several film users if they have profiled their film. Ask them, if they have used a standardized target. Chances are high that nothing had been done.</p>

<p>Once a negative film is profiled, you can scan a blank part to lock emulsion and orange mask, then use your profiled *.icc. You can do it for each roll, or you can do it for the same production lot.</p>

<p>I agree with you that slide film is a lot easier to evaluate and scan. For slide films there exists a standardized process (E6). For negative film the process is standardized or 'recommended' as well, but only few labs stick to the recommendations.</p>

<p>You really have to profile a target with your negative film to set a standard starting point. The process is similar to profiling and calibrating a digital camera with a Color Checker Passport.</p>

<p>If you need targets you should check <a href="http://www.targets.coloraid.de/">coloraid</a></p>

I shoot 120 MF film because I enjoy the equipment

process of shooting and the film results. However, I

really could pass on the scanning and post

processing. It's too much work. Except for cropping,

I wish I could just press a button afterwards and get

the final image and print.

<p>I just enjoy this film hobby of mine - maybe 10 rolls of E6, don't shoot C41 now unless I wanted a specific look and for b/w well that should be the darkroom printing as well. Don't use film that much so for me it's not too costly for me.</p>

<p>Re: calibration. There are things like iT8 and you can even calibrate a digital camera. But don't you have to calibrate that on each shooting location? To many people that is not practical. Also when you calibrate aren't you calibrating to the real colors so what happens if you shoot a sunrise, would those lovely colors be neutralised?</p>

<p>But nowadays the good scanners are not available other than the few ie - Plustek, Pacific Image. Nikon, Minolta, Canon have discontinued their good scanners. There are flatbeds but I am not sure if I would spend much on them to calibrate it and all. I have contacted Nikon Tokyo as I have visited and I got friends to contact them to no avail - they are able to CLA but there are no spare parts. I could get one used, at a high price but how long would it last for ... But certainly there are nice scanners from like the Imacons and up ... that I cannot afford. For my hobby work, I rather soure out my scans.</p>

<p>Edit - I did buy a used Coolscan 4000 only that it refused to scan now after 2yrs. A door stopper. Even from day 1 it was showing signs but I ignored it - assuming it was my Windows 7 incompatibility. From day 1 the Nikon software would throw up a hardware error but I ignored it and continued scanning or simply used Vuescan who doesn't do that check. Then yeah .. 2yrs now it refuses to scan anything. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also when you calibrate aren't you calibrating to the real colors so what happens if you shoot a sunrise, would those lovely colors be neutralised?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, profiling means that you assign each color patch to a specific value, not neutralizing the colors. Using a film profile means that you get exactly the colors you have seen on location.</p>

<p>Basically, you photograph an IT8 target, have your film developed and scan the target in a profiling mode.</p>

<p>In this mode, you place a grid above the scanned target, to identify each color patch on the target. With the target, you get a text file with the standardized color values. These values will be compared to the color patch values, and the deviation will be stored and a new profile will be generated, which you can apply to identical emulsions. It's kind of linearizing the colors.</p>

<p>Before you profile, you scan a blank part of the film (darkest area), lock the exposure, rescan the target and lock the color by defining the white point. This way you calculate the orange mask to filter it out.</p>

<p>These are two different steps. Step one is the orange mask, step two only the colors of the emulsion.</p>

<p>As long as the emulsion belongs to the identical manufacturing lot, you don't have to recalibrate the orange mask. If you use a film from a different lot, you just scan a blank part, lock the exposure, scan again and lock the color, then scan the images, use the *.icc profile you have generated during the profiling and the colors are perfect.</p>

<p>Believe me, I have checked all steps as well as the final output with a colorimeter, and even checked the color values with the <a href="http://www.colorneg.com/colorperfect.html?lang=en">colorperfect</a> plug-in - they are 100% on target after profiling.</p>

<p>The advantage of profiling a negative film is that you do it once and then just use the *.icc. In comparison you need to run the colorperfect plug-in with every single image, which can be a tedious process.</p>

<p>BTW, if you don't run Vuescan to profile your film(s), you can use the <a href="http://www.jpereira.net/roughprofiler">rough profiler</a> from José Pereira. In any case you need an IT8 target, even if you want to profile your digital camera. The X-rite system simplifies the process, but is more expensive than the standard profiling solution described here.</p>

<p>Just as a comparison of a profiled digital camera vs. a standard digital camera (Nikon D600):</p>

<p>Unprofiled, NEF (RAW) out of camera:<br>

<img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/108865744/forum/nikon_D600_raw.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Profiled with rough profiler:<br>

<img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/108865744/forum/nikon_D600_profiled.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>You can see the difference in the dark areas as well as in the light colors - with a profile you get much better colors which are more differentiated.<br>

With negative film the difference is substantially larger, particularly in the dark areas.</p>

 

I scan my Velvia chromes but don't compare my

final edits to the original. I adjust in post until the

colors look good to me. I never thought I should

match the.why bother?

<p>One question - if I enjoy how Velvia gives me the more saturated colors than it was in reality. Does profiling give me the actual colors instead of the more saturated version I enjoy? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does profiling give me the actual colors instead of the more saturated version I enjoy?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think so. Based on the logic behind profiling it should linearize the colors and remove the punch. However, I've never profiled Velvia because I rarely use it.</p>

<p>If profiling removes the punch, why shoot Velvia? In fact, why profile? Let the colors scan as the scanner "sees" it and make whatever changes you want in post. If you want to change the punch, just desaturate a little in post. If you want colors that match the 'normal" colors of the subject, then shoot Portra. It has a more neutral and natural color scheme.</p>

<p>Actually, it seems strange that profiling would change the colors of the film. How does it know what any specific color is suppose to be changed to make it "normal". What is "normal" anyway? </p>

<blockquote>

<p> In fact, why profile?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Because in a professional workflow you can't rely on guesswork. Example architecture photography: If a wall paint is slightly off-white, the client expects a slightly off-white in the images for his print and web presentations, and not a blank or greenish or blueish or reddish white.<br>

<br>

A client in the fashion industry expects his apparel colors exactly as they are in the shirt, etc.<br>

<br>

In addition, profiling standardizes and speeds up your workflow.<br>

<br>

Last but not least all of them expect and request printable colors and not colors out of gamut.<br>

<br>

If you are a photographer for let's say National Geographic, then the image editors care for your Velvia images, but I guess most of us are far away from that unique position.</p>

<p>Im selling my Bronica and getting the sony A7 , i saw some beautiful prints form a lab from digital files and there amazing. I will save a fortune on film and processing, now i know what i want. My bronica system is for sale anybody want it me know.</p>

<p>jens: I agree with you if you wanted "normal" and accurate colors. I was talking about using Velvia that has exaggerated colors. Why would you shoot Velvia and then profile to get the colors back to normal? In fact, if you're not shooting for commercial purposes where you have to match a product color for example, why not just adjust the final colors by eye to get what looks best to you?</p>

<p>Alan, I know what you mean. But as far as I see it, you will use Velvia to enjoy the saturated colors.</p>

<p>I didn't say that you have to profile film. I've shot Fuji Provia 100F (LF and MF) and Kodak Elitechrome (35mm) and they were wonderful - to my eyes. But digitizing modifies the impression and colors (more or less, depending on the scanner).</p>

<p>I had exposed several rolls of Velvia 50 (the old one), but being used to Provia which is relatively neutral, I started filtering after scanning the slides. As someone said: If the film is too strong you are too weak ;-)</p>

<p>For private use I would never have used the profiled process. But for business I had to, depending on the client.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>why not just adjust the final colors by eye to get what looks best to you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For private purposes yes. However, I've never adjusted colors for private images. Back from the lab, into the scanner, crop, retouch, print.<br>

<br>

Can you trust your eyes in regards of your color vision and memory of how the scene looked like a week ago?<br>

<br>

Perform the test just for the fun of it:<br>

<br>

<a href="/medium-format-photography-forum/">http://xritephoto.com/ph_toolframe.aspx?action=coloriq</a></p>

<p>Im thinking Sony A7 or A7R, not sure, or the Nikon 600 or 610, what are your guys opinion on these choices, i know there all fairly close in price, and get good reviews.</p>

<p>If you can live with an electronic viewfinder, Sony might be an option. If you prefer a standard viewfinder, Nikon is your choice.</p>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2002499">Brian S.</a> , Jul 02, 2014; 10:16 a.m.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Aside the nostolgia of slide film, there is no good reason to use it anymore. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? So the reason it was invented, projection, is not good anymore?</p>

 

<p>Well done, Eugen - you took the words right out of my mouth!</p>

<p>MF projected with a good projector is better in many ways than digital projected at 2 or 4k.<br>

Pdfs making this point from over the last year (in German), http://www.aphog.de/?cat=28<br>

I use digital, but slide film when I want to see the images at 8 feet and larger.<br>

John </p>

<p>Projectors are nice. The problem with them is the moment you pull them out along with the screen, guests feign headaches so they can go home early before you an start the slide show. They really don't want to be bored with our slide shows. With HDTV's on the other hand, you just flip the switch and start the DVD "slide" show. Your guests don't have time to <em>develop</em> a headache.</p>