Loading negative "strips" on an Ohnar Slide Duplicator

[glen_h]

Thank you, joe, that is more like it. I have an old laptop with a very early version of Photoshop (Elements 2 - twenty-odd years old!). It hasn't got curves or droppers, and anyway, I'm not a fan of art packages. It sounds daft but I want to digitalise my pictures without any manipulation. They are of memories I have lost, and I want the results to be close as possible to the original shot, and so my quest now is to find a lab that can measure up! (I know, loony, ha!) Cheers. Alice. x

 

Overall, my usual system, as you say, is minimal manipulation, but as Joe notes, in the case of color negatives, you have the orange mask.

 

You could get a filter set for color printing, and select the filters to balance out the mask.

Put them on the light table. Arrange the negative such that imperfections on the light

table and filter are out of focus.

 

And for negatives, you do want to invert for positive, so at least that manipulation.

[stuart_pratt]

hi, joe, I downloaded the gimp but I found it difficult to use. I don't understand a lot of the actions and the ones I do I can't get to work - for example the picker or the curves tool. I did manage to convert a film negative to positive but I couldn't get the clone tool to work, and then could not save the file to jpeg when I finished (what a loser, ha!). Anyway, thank you for your help. Alice. x

Try exporting the file, rather than saving it.

[maddalice]

Try exporting the file, rather than saving it.

Thank you, stuart, that worked jolly well, just need to get to grips with the other functions. In the image below, there are some green patches I want to shift - not too horrid - but the shrubbery on those fells is not as verdant as in the copy (not into the sickly chocolate box-look). This is only a short flirtation, as I'm searching for a decent lab to digitalise all my old colour films, and once that is achieved, I shall return to shooting black and white, then it's ta-ta image manipulation software, ha! Cheers. Alice. x

[rodeo_joe1]

In the image below, there are some green patches I want to shift - not too horrid - but the shrubbery on those fells is not as verdant as in the copy

Colour negative film 'scans' often favour one colour at the expense of others. A green-magenta shift is fairly common, as is foliage that's too blue.

 

I suggest you explore what the 'Hue/Saturation' tool can do. Especially shifting the hue of the yellow and/or red channels. (The green channel rarely has much effect, since foliage generally isn't really 'green' as analysed by a digital image.)

 

However, the issue with the hill-climbing picture above appears to be a simple one of having a slight cyan cast. This can be easily rectified by using the Curves tool again, and raising the centre of the red curve, or alternatively lowering both the green and blue curves.

 

I suspect the rock colour should be slightly red or brownish, rather than neutral grey.

 

I did this using the simple editor on my smartphone in about 30 seconds. So it ain't difficult.

Edited February 8, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[maddalice]

Colour negative film 'scans' often favour one colour at the expense of others. A green-magenta shift is fairly common, as is foliage that's too blue.

 

I suggest you explore what the 'Hue/Saturation' tool can do. Especially shifting the hue of the yellow and/or red channels. (The green channel rarely has much effect, since foliage generally isn't really 'green' as analysed by a digital image.)

 

However, the issue with the hill-climbing picture above appears to be a simple one of having a slight cyan cast. This can be easily rectified by using the Curves tool again, and raising the centre of the red curve, or alternatively lowering both the green and blue curves.

 

I suspect the rock colour should be slightly red or brownish, rather than neutral grey.

 

I did this using the simple editor on my smartphone in about 30 seconds. So it ain't difficult.

[ATTACH=full]1328951[/ATTACH]

Crikey - you did it on your phone(?!) I'm years behind, and playing catch up! BTW the rocks are a boring drab grey - limestone, in the Yorkshire Dales. Thank you for your patience. Alice. x

[rodeo_joe1]

BTW the rocks are a boring drab grey - limestone, in the Yorkshire Dales.

Nah! They're quite pretty up close. There's yellow lichen, green moss, micro-fossil inclusions and all sorts.

Thank you for your patience. Alice. x

No probs. Us retired old duffers have to keep our brains active somehow.

[JDMvW]

There is no graphics editing program that I know of that is both useful (powerful) and "user friendly". However, GIMP is more accurately described as "expert tolerant".

 

I keep a relatively recent copy of GIMP against the day when I have no alternative but to give in to Adobe's licensing subscription.

 

However, as with Photoshop itself, you really don't have to use everything. A little working through the parts of the program that you actually need and will use regularly has a much less steep learning curve.

 

Us retired old duffers have to keep our brains active somehow.

 

I have a feeling that ..., dang, why did I start this sentence?:rolleyes:

[maddalice]

There is no graphics editing program that I know of that is both useful (powerful) and "user friendly". However, GIMP is more accurately described as "expert tolerant".

 

I keep a relatively recent copy of GIMP against the day when I have no alternative but to give in to Adobe's licensing subscription.

 

However, as with Photoshop itself, you really don't have to use everything. A little working through the parts of the program that you actually need and will use regularly has a much less steep learning curve.

 

 

 

I have a feeling that ..., dang, why did I start this sentence?:rolleyes:

 

I'm fumbling my way through Gimp at the moment, solely for the purpose of converting negatives to digital using my DSLR. Can't quite get the hang of removing the colour cast (done automatically on my scanner), which, when corrected, hasn't the same tonal values as the scan. The upside is, the DSLR copy is slightly sharper, and the highlights are not as blown out. In the image below is a side by side comparison, with no manipulation (except for the inversion, obviously). Any advice would be jolly welcome! Thank you. Alice. P.S. Left, Epson scanner; right, DSLR with enlarger lens.

[rodeo_joe1]

Looks fine. Aren't chocolate rabbits supposed to be brown?

[maddalice]

Looks fine. Aren't chocolate rabbits supposed to be brown?

Haha.