For Working on BW Sources - Which Darkroom SW?

<p>I will be doing a lot of BW negatives that I scan. I am trying to evaluate the best software for working on this kind of image. I have CS2 P'Shop, but it is lacking in good noise reduction and other features I find here and there in other programs. For example, Bibble has Ninja which is way better than what is in Pshop. But Bibble sucks in so many other ways, I am giving up on it.</p>

<p>I am looking at Aperture, Light Room and ?? I have a Mac, and I have a PC running Linux, that I may convert to Windows if that provided the right answer.</p>

<p>I am using Picassa to organize and thumbnail because all the other programs insist on making special file structures that are near impossible to manage with normal OS folder routines. So, I don't care about organizational features, just the processing and twiddling features.</p>

<p>The marketing descriptions of these programs are so close to useless that I gave up reading them. If anyone is doing lots of BW film scans, let me know what programs you find the most useful.</p>

<p>Oh, one more thing. I have no care or interest about stuff like face recognition, GPS locators, Family album sorting, making calendars, creating greeting cards, fancy scrapbooks, web pages, flickering, tweeting, facebooking or any of these genre of "features" that seem to be touted on all these programs.</p>

<p>photoshop. with noise ninja, if somebody asks specifically for that digiplastic look :)</p>

<p>The only issue you mention is lack of better noise/grain reduction in PS. If that's all it is why not just get a plugin like Ninja or Noiseware?</p>

<p>Without knowing what problems you have with "other features" it's difficult to help out.</p>

<p>Lightroom 3.2, has much better noise reduction than PS. <br>

Why not just download the demo, try it and make your own decision.<br>

From what Ive heard, Adobe did not create the noise reduction in LR, but bought the code to do the job. I figure if they were going to do so, they would get the best available. CS2, is way out dated, why anyone would compare that with other current programs puzzles me. In my opinion, even LR V1 was better than CS2.... Now V3.2 is much better than that.<br>

You might check some of the Killer Tips or features in this link.<br>

http://lightroomkillertips.com/category/lightroom-videos/</p>

 

<p>Sorry, I didn't mean to focus on noise reduction. I merely meant it as an <strong>example</strong> where one program excels and another is less good in one area. My poor communication - sorry. (Also, I wasn't comparing CS2 to anything- merely saying that is what I have now. I don't find it to be the ideal tool for this work.)</p>

<p>I'd like to do all the things one thinks about with BW: contrast by area, dodging, burning, proper histograms, sharpening, zone analysis, level shifting, noise, grain reduction, exposure, scratch and dust, film stock simulation and so on.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As far as all around capabilities I think PS is your best bet, for what's 'lacking' there's almost always an existing plugin.</p>

<p>Robert--<br>

Yeah, of course - try it. Thanks. I downloaded LR, and have been coursing through a folder of scans I recently made. I like it. It has a very intuitive feel. The controls are what you would expect them to be called, and they are all on a single pane, vertically. You go down the line - slide, slide, slide and bingo, you have nice adjusted image. I was easily able to make some nice output without reading a single line of user manual. I did a dozen negatives in maybe 30 minutes. It really has nicely thought out controls. Yeah, this one is in the running, but man oh man, it ain't cheap.</p>

<p>Personally like to make BW from my D200 with Lightroom.<br>

First making any adjustments in the Develop Menu for exposure, recover, fill, black, brightness and contrast. Then continue down to the HSL menu, adjusting the eight colors Hue, Saturation and Luminance to what I feel will give me full zones in BW. Then, remove the saturation to see what Ive got and sometimes touch it up with the Curves a bit...Creating all 10 zones from black to white in ranges that look best.</p>

Lightroom.

<p>Not knowing the particular problems you have with CS2, I'd point out that you're three generations of PS behind and should perhaps consider upgrading to the current version, CS5. You may find that all or many of the shortcomings you face have been addressed by a release of the software that is not three or four years old.</p>

 

<p>Are you really trying to reduce "noise" or are you trying to reduce grain (film grain)?<br>

If you're encountering grain/noise-looking effects in your scans you probably should re-scan using a middle-strength grain-reduction setting (it won't affect detail resolution) and if you're using Nikonscan you should scan positive (B&W neg as a slide) and reverse back in PS. Nikonscan's the most convenient for Nikon scanners because it works with the motorized film carrier. Vuescan's no better IMO. I use both, prefer Vuescan's front end when I'm only scanning a frame or two, Nikonscan when I'm scanning a strip.<br>

PS2 is great, there's little reason to change unless you're an expert at it and want more, such as panoramas</p>

<p><em>"Are you really trying to reduce "noise" or are you trying to reduce grain (film grain)?"</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

John,<br>

Right...I mean <em>film grain</em>. Reduce or slightly smooth film grain. I scanned my 35mm color negs on the Plustex 7300/Vue Scan. It's a tad grainy. It would be nice to smooth that out a bit for making enlargements. (I use a 4990 Epson for the 120 film.) No Nikon here- can't afford it.</p>

<p>I saw a means in LR of ADDING grain, but not removing. LR does have "noise reduction" which when applied, looks a bit similar to grain reduction of applied discretely. LR doesn't seem to have scratch removal. It has a nice healing and clone tool, but that's pretty tedious to remove a 20mm long scratch. I tried scratch removal on VueScan but by the time the scratch was gone, so was all the detail.</p>

<p>P.S. Once I got the zones from a digital color to bw, then I created a preset.<br>

Then, use that to convert color. Then do very little touch up to create BW.</p><div></div>

<p>Here I have been scanning 35mm since 1989. About all that is new is one can reduce noise on an image. ; the bulk of what you are doing is in software from 20 years ago. One can open an image in 1990's Photostyler or CS5 and they are the same image you scanned. You can wait until 2010 and buy CS9 and it is the same image off the scanner.</p>

<p>You need to more clearly define what your actual goals are. It looks like Photoshop 3.0 would work; along with a noise reduction program.:)</p>

<p>Usually when folks declare one needs Photoshop XYZ version; it often existed in Photoshop 5 to 10 years prior.</p>

<p>Here I own about all versions of PS and LR and find this thread interesting.</p>

<p>After scanning film for 21 years I find each new version adds a marginally less benefit; it still is work; ie labor. For 99 percent of B&W scans; using CS5 adds zero drop in labor versus PS 5.0. New a newcomer to digital; many believe that CS5 will cut the labor 50 percent versus PS4.</p>

<p>Newcomers to digital often will preach you need the latest versions; this dogma helps sell software to amateurs; since most *ALL* Photoshop buyers are amateurs; where there really is no business sense; ie a pure hobby.</p>

<p>Photography is mostly done by amateurs; thus there really needs to be no rationality; ie NO basis for return on investment like real business. Amateurs just have to justify to their wive; girlfriend; yourself why your hobby needs constant injects of raw cash "to keep up" with other amateurs. One has constant threads on photo.net buy folks chasing the latest gear and software; and other ones where folks cannot figure how to make any money.</p>

<p>Here in an actual business; I use the latest versions of PS and LR on a limited basis; and use the older paid for versions most of the time. If I like version XYZ I might buy extra versions for 20 cents on a dollar a few years later; than when just out.</p>

<p>Thus a customers scan of a B&W roll might have two groups of shots; I do a custom mod manually on each group. First I move them into groups by what is needed to correct; then often write a custom batch in PS 5.5 or PS7.0 or CS2; then apply that batch to that group. I supply the raw unmodified files to the customer; and the ones with mods too. The sad thing is many folks with CS5 l cannot figure or get to what my modified ones are like. Thus they will buy CS6 and CS7 chasing newness. It is just like lenses; an amateur thinks a 2010 50mm lens is 10 to 100 times better than one from 1980 or 1950; this helps drive the market</p>

<p>The latest software is a weak function of reducing labor; it only helps if that latest version has some feature the older version does not have. You can adjust contrast, hue saturation and due curves in Photostyler 20 years ago; and it loads on two floppies</p>

<p>***ONE THING about NEVER mentioned on photo.net is buying the same Software version as an associate; friend; client; good buddy. This is a lessor concern today because one has the internet.</p>

<p>With the same version; you have somebody to bounce off ideas and it saves much time. Here I run many versions of PS on the same machine; some have 8+ versions on the same box; because sometimes I help out clients.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>New releases of Photoshop always have a new capability or improved functionality that make it more than worthwhile to upgrade. CS5, for example, has a vastly improved noise reduction tool in its ACR component that I thought would be particularly helpful to the original poster. I don't chase newness in software, but I welcome new software that enables me to do things that I couldn't do before or lets me do the same old things 10 times faster.</p>

<p>Nice Sunday sermon Kelly. Actually, I would suggest going to CS3 if you don't want to spend for CS5. On a mac, CS5 works in 64 bit and it does make a speed difference, other wise go at to CS3 for the following reasons. Ability to work in 16 bit files, important if you are doing several adjustments. 2. Much better selection tools from CS3 on than CS2. In fact Kelly, I'm surprised you missed this point as you are a professional where time is money. Do you photo re-touch for your clients? Why would you ever use CS2 to do that if you already own a copy of CS5? Doesn't make sense. In any event if the OP is scanning B/W, he can probably do ninety fivepercent of his work in Aperture or LR. I like Aperture, but it seems more people like LR.</p>

<p>I have in the past used Bridge + ACR + CS2. That combo runs like a dog on my 4 year old iMac. That's one problem. I've been very surprised how lightening fast the LR demo runs.</p>

<p>OTOH, an upgrade from CS2-->CS5 is $199 vs. the $299 of LR. I downloaded the CS5 to give it a look. Meh. I find that 20 year old million-strange-icons-with-floating-palettes-all-over idea to be tedious beyond my patience. I just don't like it. Moving between Bridge, ACR and PS is too much for this machine, and it feels clumsy. LR must have been a very different team. It simply doesn't look in anyway like Adobe, which is to me a good thing. Adobe has had many wonderful ideas, but user interface isn't one of them. CS5 Bridge looks a bit better, but runs dog slow on my machine just like the older version.</p>

<p>And fortunately, I am retired. So I don't have to justify my choices by hauling to some bottom line return on investment or satisfying customers. I'm just in it for the fun. I will try Aperture.</p>

>>> LR must have been a very different team. It simply doesn't look in anyway like Adobe, which is to me

a good thing.

 

Yeah... You discover a lot of little things that are subtle, that make you smile. For example, double

clicking any slider in the develop module returns the slider to its default position. So unlike CS...

 

Another one... Adjustment brush diameter is coupled to your mouse's scroll wheel - or with the Magic Mouse I use, the scroll surface. Nice... I never have to go to the right panel to adjust brush size. Not so in CS...

<p>Robert Johnson, the OP is not working with digital captures but scanned film, a totally different type of image data. LR3 NR works well on RAW files but not so good with film scans.<br>

Kelly Flanigan please spare us the old timers bit. The software tools made now are better than ever, even though the problems maybe the same, though today's new emulsions are extremely advanced and much less grainy.</p>

<p>Brad use your key board short cuts for brush size adjusments, Left/Right bracket '[', ']'.</p>

 

<p>PhotoResampling<br>

PhotoDenoising (for noise)</p>

>>> Brad use your key board short cuts for brush size adjusments, Left/Right bracket '[', ']'.

 

Why? When the surface of my mouse (the mouse I'm brushing with) let's vary brush size much faster and

with better control. Much better than any keyboard shortcut...

Should be: Why? When my mouse (the mouse I'm brushing with) lets me vary brush size much faster

and with better control by swiping my finger across its surface. Much better than any keyboard shortcut...

<p>Yeah, why use the keyboard? when with the magic mouse in both LR and AP, you alter the brush size right on the mouse.</p>

<p>If you don't get why you should use keyboard short cuts I won't bother belaboring the point.</p>