Post scan PS optimizations for Fuji Crystal Archive--E6 vs C41?

[alex___4]

I've noticed that the major drum scanning labs have mostly settled on

Fuji's CA or Fujiflex as their primary output. Most of their

customer's submit slides to be scanned, yet these papers were

specifically developed for direct optical enlargement from C41 films

(Fuji's in particular of course). The latter seems to imply that a hi-

res scan of a C41 negative should need very little post-scan

Photoshop processing (beyond merely cleaning/cropping). The C41's

digital scanned dynamic range (much less than E6) and existing orange

mask (not removed by Photoshop) fed to a Lightjet printer would

almost exactly mimic an optical enlargement of the same negative,

right? Hence, it would seem to me that the dynamic range of an E-6

slide scan would have to be reduced/compressed substantially, the

image reversed to a negative and an orange mask added prior to being

fed to a Lightjet printer (or similar device) outputting to the same

Fuji Crystal Archive or Fujiflex paper. Isn't this true?

 

 

Having poured over the various and numerous threads of E6 versus C41,

I do grasp that C41 negatives capture a much greater dynamic range

than E6 slides--albeit compressed. So, reversing the question above--

what optimizations would a C41 digital image require if the output

was intended for a film recorder to E6 slide film? Guessing again,

the E6 digital image would need relatively little changing, while the

C41 would have to have it's orange mask removed and it's dynamic

range stretched with some information (perhaps considerable) being

loped off--correct?

 

Let me say I'm not a Photoshop expert. Just trying to get a more

complete grasp of exactly what the C41/E6 differences are in a

digital sense.

 

Thanks.

 

Alex

[jonathan_ratzlaff]

You should not lose any information. You would set the shadow detail so that details would just be visible in the image and set the highlights so that details would be visible there as well. You would probably have to compress the midtones so that the detail would be visible in the image. Don't forget that paper has a fairly limited contrast range as well, so there should not be that much difference.

 

Negative film has amuch lower dynamic range than transparency film, however because of its exposure latitude, the ranges of density are much compressed. This can often lead to a very muddy looking scan on a high dynamic range scanner because only part of the dynamic range of the scanner is being used. This has to be expanded to the full tonal range of the image.

[scott_eaton]

A quick correction here:

 

Print film has a much longer dynamic range than slide film. Slide film has greater density range. Slide film stores less dynamic information than print film in a larger density range, which has both advantages and disadvantages.

 

If you scan print film with the same parameters as slide film you'll get a murky image with little contrast.

 

Once an image is scanned the type of medium it came from makes little difference in regards to paper/film matching. You've now changed the nature of the dye saturation in the film to one inherent to the scanner, which is much more linear. The density range of the film also gets expanded or compressed to fit the digital space being used, which is why scanning slides and printing to C-type results in better images than straight R-type prints which have no control.

 

I've transferred a lot of color negs to slide via film recorders, and vice versa. As long as the profile running the recorder is good, all that matters is the quality of your scanning.

 

Provided your scanner is capable of grabbing most of the density range in a more difficult slide film like Provia, you'll find that transparency film has the advantage when it comes to scanning under more situations than print film. The more density range you can fit within the dynamics of the scanner the better. This means of course your slides have to have perfect exposure and important tonal ranges can't sit in the upper mid tone regions of the film. One advantage that color negs have in this respect is they record skin tones in a 'beefier' region of film density than slides, which tends to null the density advantage of slide films. Big reason print film continues to be such a powerfull tool for portraiture and general shooting, but lags for producing areas of subtle color detail.

 

No reason you can't produce a print film with strong density range, no mask, and generally offering the advantages of print and slide for scanning purposes, but you'll have to take this up with Kodak and Fuji. Print film has historically been handicapped because of compatibility reasons with optical printing and color papers. Slide film doesn't have those limits.

[mark_davidson]

Neither color neg film nor slide film were ever designed to be scanned.

Rather, film scanners were developed to scan transparency film in the early

days of digital.

This was because that was what professional photographers used.

Both the dynamic range of the early scanners, and the software to drive them

were optimized to get the best results from transparency film.

When Kodak introduced the Photo CD, they developed a scanner that was

optimized for color negative film. It was only fair at transparency film because

of its limited dynamic range. Because of the intended market this was not

seen as a real brawback.

Today, we find film manufacturers tweaking film emulsions to improve their

scanning characteristics. Scanner manufacturers are also improving their

software for negative film scanning and the differences are now very small.

The fact that scans from transparencies are still preferred rests more on the

shortcomings of drum scanners and many other high end scanners to process

negative data very well. Thus, if the highest quality scanners only scan

transparencies well, people who want good scans shoot tranparencies.

 

 

In theory, a film without an orange mask and increased contrast could be

produced, but it would be completely incompatible with todays papers and

processors.

The reason photo labs print on color negative paper is that it is extremely

inexpensive, easy to process and yields exceptional image quality.

The reason for printing digitally in the first place is because of the significant

improvement in image quality over optical. A good scan from a neg or a trans

will outperform virtually any other method reproduction no matter how much

hype you hear.

 

Scott is correct in saying that with a good profile you can get good results with

any output device. That is because we are no longer speaking in the

language of film and paper emulsions, but rather in numerical color values

that will be translated appropriately( we hope ) to the output device of our

choice.

 

A significant issue here is the rapidly declining use of transparency film by

pros. This is because they are replacing their equipment with digital cameras.

The resulting decline in film processed is pushing a number of photo labs out

of that business. Though still readily available, E-6 is definitely on its way out

but will be preceded by K-14.

 

So sometime in the future, if you wish to scan film you may have no choice but

to use color neg.