Color management with scanned film

[adam_kern]

Hello all,

 

I have spent the past two days doing a hardcore crash course in PS

CS and I can now adjust contrast/colors with curves, do some basic

masking, dual step sharpening, etc...

 

The files I am working on are generated by a Nikon 5000 slide

scanner, a very expensive piece of equipment owned by my school--and

used by me between the hours of midnight and 6 AM.

 

My question is this: If, when I scan slides, the saturation, levels

and other pertinent values all need to be tweaked, how much does it

matter what slide film I shoot on? For example, why not shoot on

cheap Sensia and crank up saturation, rather than using Velvia

50/100? (Assuming these slides will not be displayed the old-

fashioned way on a projector.) Or, is the issue that if I am trying

to maximally emulate the "look" of a certain film I will be most

successful if I use that film? e.g. if I want the high saturation

look of Velvia then it's better to start with the data coming off of

a piece of Velvia.

 

The answer to this question feeds into my decision on whether or not

to purchase a 20D to replace my Elan7E. I believe that I get higher

ultimate resolution on the slide scanner (5782 x 3946) than I would

with a 20D (3504 x 2336 according to www.dpreview.com). From that

perspective, and given the budget, it would make sense to stay with

the hassle of film scanning. That being said, photoshop is very

impressive...

 

Adam

[emre]

If your basic quandary is whether or not to buy a 20D over an Elan 7E, then buy it and don't think twice. You have no idea how much time scanning is going to take from your sleep (literally, in your case.) Time is money too.

 

To answer your other question about emulating different stock...Photoshop makes it possible to do a lot of things of course. However, you will find that merely increasing the saturation of a Sensia shot will not give you the same look as Velvia; their spectral sensitivity curves are different. Nevertheless, this should not hold you back because you probably do not really want to exactly emulate Velvia unless you have to combine shots from the two.

 

The most important thing is to get a good exposure, which means having as little clipping as possible. If this is the case, then it is easy to modify the color or brightness while preserving the quality. To give an example, if you use Velvia on an already saturated subject, you will find that the color blocks up. Reducing the saturation after the fact will not rescue it; once it's gone it's gone. Hopefully you get the idea.

[adam_kern]

Thanks for the reply,

 

Ok I guess it does make sense to still use Velvia to get a Velvia "look". What I was thinking was whether or not I could use a higher ISO film, or even a fast print film and then post-process to make the image satisfactorily "Velvia-like". I know I'd be changing the equation alot by going to print film in terms of dynamic range and color management, but was thinking about how possible it would be to allow PS to let me get a slide look without actually shooting ISO 50 slides.

 

The low-noise high ISO capability of the 20D is what is getting me to think about switching; however, what I shoot is wide-angle, low-light documentary style, which leaves me in somewhat of a quandary. I utilize the full frame capability of 35mm film, but would appreciate low light ability with slide-like (i.e. high saturation) output to print/digital.

 

Let me ask another way; using PS either on scans or digital RAW files, what's the best way to go about getting a Velvia "look"?

 

I am currently importing my images as .TIF files from Nikon View, cropping and then converting to 16-bit Adobe RGB. I then adjust levels individually for each channel based on color markers I place within the frame. Then I adjust individual colors with curves, and then adjust contrast with curves. Then I turn up the saturation a bit to get a Velvia look. After that I use an edge sharpening mask overlaid on the master in a lab channel color space, and finally do any small touch-ups and a global unsharp mask. Any recommendations on getting my files to best emulate Velvia?

 

Adam

[berton_chang4]

by the time you figured it out you'll be killing yourself why you even tried. then in 6 months, after you've gone home and stopped using that scanner, you'll forget how to get that velvia look.

 

listen, I usually shoot with a mamiya 7 with NPH rated at 200. I recently I bought a 20D (had it for about a month) and ever since I've been trying to emulate NPH on it. Its impossible (unless someone who kindly tell me) to get exactly the same colors.

 

pros: film gets better enlargements because the grain forms better mosaics throughout enlarging vs pixals. tonal range and color gamut in photo neg/trans/paper is better and more familiar than the computer.

cons: it'll take you 2 days without sleep to scan 100 frames (about 1GB of raw) that are color corrected (close enough) and ready to be contact sheeted.

[carl photography]

I always use low-contrast neg film (e.g. Fuji NPS). To make it look something like Velvia but better, IMO: I darken the midtones a lot, and then tweak the colors. This yields a saturated, slide-film look -- but without the crushed blacks and blown whites of Velvia!

 

"Brandon's Dad"

[jeff_plomley1]

Do you plan on projecting your images? Then the film palette counts. If you have ever

seen a slide projected on a Leica Pradovit with a Leica SuperColor Plan lens, you would not

even consider digital capture. Stick with a hybrid approach-that way you get the best of

all worlds and will have a hard copy forevermore.

[scott_eaton]

<I>For example, why not shoot on cheap Sensia and crank up saturation, rather than using Velvia 50/100?</i><P>Because you can't make a low contrast slide film look like a high contrast slide film by fiddling with photoshop. You can of course enhance a low contrast slide/print film by tweaking the levels, dropping the shadows and boosting saturation- hey, we all do it, and it works well. However, you *can't* make Astia emulate Velvia for the same reason you can't make Fuji Reala look like Velvia because you are locked into the density range of the film. Film scanners have been around a long time dude, and with the advent of film scanners commercial photographers didn't just stop using Velvia and switch to Astia/Reala because they could enhance any film to look like Velvia.<P>I learned this the hard way with my macro work when I tried to standardize on Astia because it was so easy to scan. Fist thing I learned was if I had a shot made under low contrast, over-cast skies with Astia, I was basically stuck with a flat slide with no dimension, and that was that. I could boost the saturation, but since there was little tonal range to begin with I couldn't enhance what wasn't there. Actually I learned to like Provia, because it's a good compromise between the two. So, my advice is to use the slide film that works best with the lighting, and concentrate on perfect exposures. Use Astia/Sensia for average to high contrast lighting (don't forget Kodak E100G), and Provia or Velvia for low contrast. Trust me, it will give you the best results matching your slide film to the situation and fudging to the side of Sensia in case of a tie. As much as I lampoon it on occasion, Velvia is unmatched in it's ability to provide 'snap' and detail under low contrast lighting.<P><I>I believe that I get higher ultimate resolution on the slide scanner (5782 x 3946)</i><P>You get more absolute film resolution if you plan on making a carreer out of identifying license plates or shooting test targets, but the quality of your image is actually MUCH worse at 1:1. You're scanning at 4000dpi, which tends to produce more grain and noise than actual clean image. The 20D image at ASA 100/200 is going to be pristine. Nothing wrong with using slow speed slide films and a good scanner, but the resolution arguement is getting a bit old because the reason many of use larger format films is so we can scan at lower resolutions, which look more like smooth dSLR capture in the first place.<P><I>Its impossible (unless someone who kindly tell me) to get exactly the same colors. <P></i>First thing I learned with my 10D was that it sucked in default mode, and I hate RAW because I spend nearly as much time post processing muddy images as messing with film scans. NPH is also my reference portrait film, and to best match it, I kick up the saturation and contrast parameters one notch and push the sharpness to high. When I get direct Frontier prints, the 8x10s look very much like my favorite NPH work. Try the same thing with your 20D and see if it get's you closer.<P><I>

pros: film gets better enlargements because the grain forms better mosaics throughout enlarging vs pixals</i><P>Virtually all commercial enlargement from film today is made via scanning the film and converting it to pixels anyways.

[scott_eaton]

<I>If you have ever seen a slide projected on a Leica Pradovit with a Leica SuperColor Plan lens, you would not even consider digital capture</i><P>I don't project slides in my basement while sitting in my underwear worshipping my German lenses, and my 6x7 slides are superior to your 35mm ones. Also note a film scanner is a digital camera, and Velvia does not have a superior palette than digital capture. Again, I've noticed people making these claims never have any uploads to back up their claims, and seem to not have any dSLR experience. More 'small man' syndrome I guess.

[david carver]

Scott, I think you need a vacation.