Color chart for color negative films ?

[antoine_deloy]

<p>hello,</p>

<p>I have some problems when I want to scan my negative films, problems with colors...<br>

If I take a photo of a color chart and after I do my job (with the same light conditions) and if I scan this photo of the chart and use the appropriate profile, can I get good colors ?</p>

<p>thanks for advice</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>You get good color if the frame of the color chart and the other frame are on the same roll of film. You would get pretty close if they are from different rolls but the same film type (i.e. Fujicolor 100 etc..). The scanner must be in manual mode. If it's in automode then it would try to compensate and it doesn't work out well.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>I've been happy with the ColorNeg Photoshop plug-in (the latest version has been renamed ColorPerfect). Additional info here:</p>

<p>http://www.colorneg.com/oldneg.html?lang=en</p>

<p>http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/groups/977912@N23/</p>

[tim gray]

<p>A chart can help you correct colors, yes. It should be shot in the same light.</p>

<p>I don't think it will automate anything, but you can correct the chart shot, keeping an eye on what you are doing to the chart colors, and then transfer those corrections over to your other shots. Or something. </p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>getting the colors right can be very difficult and time consuming using even high end home scanners (Nikon Coolscans, Minolta Dimage Scans, etc.). If you shoot a lot of negative film, you should try to find a used pro minilab scanner, such as a Kodak Pakon f235 Plus. Not only do they scan negs with perfect colors, they scan quickly. we are talking like 8 minutes to scan an entire 36 exposure roll WITH digital ICE infrared dust removal prescan turned on, at 2000x3000 resolution - plenty rez for anything printed at 16x20 or smaller, and massive overkill for screen viewing.<br>

Remember, these machines were optimized for negative films, and were $15,000-$25,000 scanners. The f235 for example, was $14,000 new back in 2004. Now they can be found for around $1,000.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"If you shoot a lot of negative film, you should try to find a used pro minilab scanner, such as a Kodak Pakon f235 Plus. Not only do they scan negs with perfect colors, they scan quickly."</p>

<p>You will not get perfect colors from an automated minilab scanner. You're far more likely to get something that looks like it came from your neighborhood drug store. The best color correcting is done by humans. </p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>Robert, if you have a Coolscan, I didnt mean to offend you. But the fact is, that these machines were designed to get the colors RIGHT, and looking GOOD, automatically, and with a minimum of hassle. My results look great now, that is why I got one of these machines. And I have a top of the line Minolta 5400 scanner. Similar to a Coolscan 5000. But I got tired of having to tweak the colors all the time when scanning negatives. Also, the long scan times with ICE dust removal turned on (an essential feature on any scanner).<br>

Now, problems (with negative films) solved - scanning is quick and easy, with good colors and no post processing hassles. Sure, if I want to tweak the colors in PS, I can. But the beauty is that I dont need to now.</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>BTW, the Kodak scan software is awesome. You can select contrast, sharpness, brightness, and sauturation default settings, as well as specify jpeg, tiff, or RAW format. So, if I want the weeding photography look, I can turn down the contrast and set neutral saturation. If I want drugstore results, I can jack up the saturation and contrast. Or, simply set everything to neutral (which is what I usually do), and let the beauty of the film shine through.<br>

And once the roll is scanned, it opens up a quick editing screen, should you want to adjust the results for each frame. Much quicker and easier to use tha Photoshop too.<br>

Downside is that you must add a dedicated hard drive specifically for the scanner. It uses that as its buffer, which, combined witha powerful light source, is where it gets its speed from. Incidentally, the light source (a user replaceable SOLUX bulb) supplies a very wide band of light, similar to a slide projectors bulb. This minimizes grain, especially with balck and white film. No "grain shadowing" that occurs with point light sources.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Randall, can you post a scan or two (portrait and a shot with a significant tonal range) processed with the Kodak as neutral, and the default? I'd like to see if it really is giving results on par with the Coolscans.</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/pukalo/sets/72157623617704226/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/pukalo/sets/72157623617704226/</a></p>

<p>All scans from a Kodak f235+ film scanner</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>Bear in mind, I am not saying these are the "ultimate" in color, but simply that I got what I consider good colors, with no fuss or postprocessing. The "easy button" for film scanning (and fast too).<br>

Most shots are from negs, but I threw a few slide and true BW film scans in too.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"Robert, if you have a Coolscan, I didnt mean to offend you. But the fact is, that these machines were designed to get the colors RIGHT, and looking GOOD, automatically, and with a minimum of hassle."</p>

<p>No offense taken. It's just a matter of what I expect. I've done my own color correction in a color darkroom, so I am picky. It's been my experience that a well-trained eye is much better than machine-based color correction.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Thanks Randall. It looks decent for no work on your part. <br>

Watch the highlights in the snow pictures- there is no reason color negative film should clip. The scans are a bit contrasty for my tastes.</p>