marcos_rodriguez

I've had the same experience, and my color space (in CS2) is ProPhoto; also, I always work on 16bit images.

Marcos Rodriguez

Like Ellis, I've tried a number of RAW converters, and find Adobe Camera RAW to be the best option as far as workflow is concerned --used in combination with Bridge.

As for color rendition, I find them all quite similar, and the only significant variations are on the "default" settings and the colors these produce; once calibrated and compensated, though, I think they all yield somewhat similar results.

There are, however, other important aspects which I think can make the difference; for instance, when trying RawShooter Premium 2006, I noticed that the resulting files exhibited a number of unpleasant artifacts similar to those produced by heavy JPG compression --I understand Apple's Aperture suffers from a similar condition-- something which I have not encountered with Adobe Camera RAW.

Best,

Marcos Rodriguez

Also, Barry, Adobe Camera RAW does non-destructive editing as well --as I think all RAW converters do, in fact. The way it works on Bridge/Camera RAW is, you do all the editing you want, and the instructions are stored in a minuscule, 5k sidecar .XMP file, ready to be applied the moment you export your TIFF or PSD image. I don't think it comes any easier on storage space than that.

Best,

Marcos / http://www.aukeramen.com

Barry, Bridge *has* the light table. You can drag images, alter their order (sequence), and Bridge will remember everything the next time it opens.

As for the Bridge-vs.-Aperture debate, to me it's a no-brainer: Bridge wins easily. It does everything Aperture claims to do, only faster and better. Adobe Camera Raw is truly an impressive piece of software, with a long and proven history of excellent RAW processing behind it; Bridge's ability to work in conjunction with it (without the need to open Photoshop) only adds to an already sweet deal.

Moreover, let us not forget: Bridge (along with Adobe Camera RAW) is bundled with Photoshop, so those 500 bucks Apple demands for Aperture can be better spent on something truly useful, like a killer lens or tons of RAM.

Marcos Rodriguez / http://www.aukeramen.com

Hi Paul,

Most articles and books I've read on the subject recommend doing all the sharpening in Photoshop, with a very small radius --say around 0.3-- and some 250% upwards; based on my own experience, I concur.

I recently got my first digital camera (Canon 350D), and have been playing around with several RAW converters (CaptureOne Pro, Adobe Camera Raw, Bibble 4 and RawShooter Premium 2006.); all of them introduce, to varying degrees, nasty artifacts when sharpening. Photoshop, on the other hand, does a very "clean" sharpening --which, by the way, can be undone anytime, something which is imposible to achieve in the RAW conversion process. Anyway, my two cents for what they're worth.

Good luck,

Marcos Rodriguez / http://www.aukeramen.com

De nada, German, and many thanks for your kind comments regarding my website and photos, they are much appreciated.

Now, I have a little surprise for you here: "Camino a San Miguel" was shot on 35mm color film (if I recall well, the cheapo, drugstore variety,) and then converted to B&W in good-old Photoshop, by mixing channels ;) Moreover, I can assure you that, had I taken that shot on my Canon 350D, the final results would have been equally good if not better, with the added advantage that I would have spent only a small amount of time working on the image.

As for the "dirty" look you're after (as opposed to the more "perfect" rendition of digital --although I cannot imagine myself ever longing for that big, fat grain I got when scanning at 5400 dpi....,) Photoshop has the tools for that as well, so in my view shooting digital is the ultimate win-win situation --and believe me, two years ago I was the strongest supporter of film you could find, but technology (thank God!) quickly filled in the missing gaps.

Again, many thanks for your kind comments, and good luck with your upcoming ventures, these are fun and exhilarating times we're living.

Best,

Marcos / http://www.aukeramen.com

Hi Mendel,

If you are using DVDs for data and not movies, I'd recommend "DVD+" instead of "DVD-". I recently purchased a DVD burner, and did some research on the different formats. "DVD-" is recommended as the best choice for DVD movies, as it will be compatible with most home DVD players. But for data backup, "DVD+" is definitely the way to go, given its superior error correction and recovery capabilities.

As for brands, I remember not reading very good things about Maxell. I've been using Verbatim brand (burning at 8x) with no apparent problem.

Hope all is good with you, how's that Canon 20D going? I got my 350D a couple of weeks ago and am absolutely delighted; the nightmarish days of scanning film are finally over --well, mostly, as I still have the old archive to take care of.

Best,

Marcos

German,

As someone who has recently made the transition from film to digital, I'd say that, if you can afford it, go for digital.

Maybe it's those painful memories of countless hours scanning, processing and color-correcting in Photoshop talking, but considering the amazing advances that digital sensors and cameras have seen during the last couple of years, I truly see no sense in willingly choosing the film-and-slide path nowadays.

Best,

Marcos Rodriguez / http://www.aukeramen.com

Robert,

If you want to get the most out of that fine camera, you'll want to shoot RAW, not JPG. And in order to get the most out of your RAW files, you'll need a fast machine with plenty of RAM.

Also, if you are a film Pro and want to become a Digital one as well, you must be prepared to move into the digital darkroom: namely, Photoshop. At first it can look quite intimidating, but you'll get the hang of it pretty quickly --at least for the basic functions-- and once you do, you'll never want to go back to the stinky mess of chemicals.

As for computers, get the fastest you can afford with plenty of RAM; I run a Pentium IV at 3.0Gh with 1.5GB RAM, Intel Motherboard, WinXP Pro, with Photoshop's latest version (CS2) and find it enough for most situations. And Macs, they have a very loyal following, but are not the indispensable graphics workhorses they once were, so no need to worry there --a PC-based system will deliver anything you need at a much lower price and with tons of programs and Photoshop plugins that are not available for Macs.

Another thing you'll need is plenty of storage room ( = large hard drive). Remember that the digital files are your negatives, and they must be kept with the same care that is dispensed to the film strips. I have a DVD burner and always burn two identical discs, which are then stored at separate physical locations. Now, the jury is still out on DVDs' archival qualities, so you should verify the DVDs' integrity every year or so, to minimize the risk of loosing your data. Eventually, of course, larger and more stable storage media will be developed, and we'll all move our precious files accordingly.

Lastly, get a 19" monitor or larger, and make sure it's properly calibrated --you can get a good color-calibration system for less than $200; it's a great investment since, ideally, monitors (especially CRTs) should be calibrated once every few weeks.

From what I've read, the EOS 5D is a remarkable piece of equipment, so congratulations on your decision and enjoy the wonderful ride of digital imaging.

Best,

Marcos Rodriguez / http://www.aukeramen.com

Hi Andrew, many thanks for your comments, it's nice to know someone else might have benefited from this long and interesting thread.

The entirety of my archive consists of color negatives, so I'm afraid I cannot be of much help as far as your question is concerned. Nevertheless, based on what I've read on the Internet, VueScan seems to do a great job on B&W film, so that would be the venue I'd take.

As for the benefits of using VueScan (or SilverFast), as I've said above, it would be the proper gamma correction, as merely inverting the image in Photoshop and adjusting Curves and Levels is not enough, given the complexity of the algorithms involved.

Best,

Marcos / www.aukeramen.com

Mendel, Thomas,

I happened to check this thread and saw it was still alive, which is probably a record :o)

I feel obliged to tell you that, after much experimenting and tweaking, I have given up on trying to achieve good results with Photoshop alone. I'm afraid that the curves, color balancing and gamma corrections involved in successfully inverting a negative image are too complex to be achieved in PS. Therefore, my recommendation (for negatives) is to scan 16bitLinear (without tweaking the exposure tab, and with ICE on) and then post-process the raw images in either VueScan or SilverFast HDR, depending on one's budget.

VueScan does not support ICE technology, hence the need to use Minolta's software for the raw image. With SilverFast, considering it is such a hefty investment, I think the best option is to buy the generic HDR version which, albeit more expensive than the ones tailored for a specific scanner, has the added value of working with any number of files (independently of the scanner that was used to obtain them) therefore offering more flexibility for the future.

Anyway, those are my two, probably last cents on this fantastic thread,

Marcos

Jon,

I have a KM and am not entirely happy with it; however, having not been able to personally compare it with the Nikon, I cannot tell with absolute certainty which one is better. I can tell you, though, what I don't like/hate about the KM:

? LOUSY scanning software --will clip your highlights and shadows even on perfectly exposed film or slides. The Minolta Scanning Utility is so bad, in fact, that the only solution I found (especially for negatives) was to scan "raw" (16bit linear) and then process the files in either SilverFastHDR or VueScan.

? Painfully slow if you dare to tweak the exposure settings: a full res, ICE-on scan can take up to 20 minutes per frame. It doesn't matter if you have a top-of-the-line, super-fast computer, if you tweak the exposure settings you'll triple your scanning time, period.

? The film and slide carriers. Although reasonably well built, they're plastic and bound to break eventually, something which you won't have with the Nikon.

Good luck,

Marcos Rodriguez / http://www.aukeramen.com

If you recently upgraded your camera's firmware, or your camera was purchased a short time ago, chances are you are affected by a change in the camera's EXIF tags that makes it impossible for Photoshop Camera Raw to recognize the file.

The issue is documented here ( http://photoshopnews.com/2005/08/20/canon-350d-and-camera-raw-31-issue ) and it affects the 350D, but probably applies to the 20D as well.

Marcos Rodriguez

Have you tried running the images through Photoshop's autocolor?:

Curves > Options > Enhance Per Channel Contrast, check "Snap Neutral Midtones"

I did it with your second image and it helped a lot. I suspect that using the original, uncompressed files should give far better results.

Best,

Marcos

Jens, first of all, I feel your pain. Like the saying goes, been there, done that.... I have a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and, like your case with Nikon's software, I've been disappointed with its results on negatives --mainly, excessive clipping of shadows and highlights.

After much pain and experimentation (see this thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CWmS) I've concluded that the best method is:

1. Scan "raw" with the scanner's software (in the Minolta, the option is called "16Bit Linear)

2. Convert to positive using SilverFast HDRStudio.

3. Use Photoshop's Curves's "Autocolor" function to remove remaining color cast and improve contrast.

Using the above method, I've achieved colorcast free images with good color balance and saturation. Of course, considering all the pain involved in the process, I'm leaving film for good and going digital (Canon 350D)!

Sadly, I still have an extensive negative archive that needs to be scanned, so....

Best of luck,

Marcos Rodriguez / www.aukeramen.com

David, I found your equations most interesting.

I have a Minolta ScanElite 5400, and its scanning software simply stinks --it clips highlights and shadows like crazy. So, I've experimented extensively with a number of alternate methods (for color negs), like scanning as positive (16bit linear), which seemed to nearly do the trick.

However I find it nearly impossible to get an acceptable gamma curve, and color balancing is always near but never quite there --cyan and blue casts are the ever-present curse.

Now I have the mathematical explanation of why this is so. Very enlightening and interesting read, thanks!

Marcos Rodriguez / www.aukeramen.com

Hi Mendel. Yes, the color-shifted scans I was referring to were from negatives. In fact I decided to make the test following your comments:

<i>Per the negs., I'm outputting 16 bit linear thru MSU, but just with autoexposure.</i>

<p>

About Silverfast, the version I tried (DCProStudio) does not do any actual scanning, but rather it works directly with the files from the hard drive --which, in my case, were produced by the MSU scanning as 16bit linear, with ICE on.<p>

SilverFast does have a scanning version for the ScanElite 5400, which I tried shortly I first got the scanner. I remember it produced good results (much better than MSU's, with cero clipping,) and with outstanding implementation of ICE --a clear contrast with VueScan. However, given its high price I quickly took it off my mind. Oh, and it does allow de-coupling of Grain Dissolver, but the scans took nearly the same time and grain visibility was greatly increased, so I would not advise this path.

Hi once again, Mendel,

Well, looks like my quest for the perfect scan is far from over, but more about that in a minute.

First some comments about scanning linear with autoexposure on, as you've been doing. I made some tests and found it can actually worsen things --and this without taking into account that, when autoexposure is on, scanning times can almost triple, going from two and a half minutes per frame (at 1350 dpi,) to nearly seven!

More importantly, however, scans made with autoexposure on showed some bad shifts in color. For instance, I scanned some landscape images, and rocks had a nasty magenta cast, while green vegetation showed an unreal blue/cyan cast. When scanned without autoexposure, rocks had a nice neutral, perhaps a bit warm tone, and vegetation showed in a bright, yellowish green hue. Scans of other subjects showed similar results.

About scanning negatives, I share your feelings. Unfortunately for me, all the photos I've taken in my life are in negative film, so I'll just have to endure and keep on scanning.

I saw the thread you mention, and even downloaded the NegPos Photoshop Plug-In. I gave it a try and it looks promising, however I found it a bit awkward to use. Moreover, settings had to be tweaked individually for each image in order to get good results, something which, given the large amount of files I need to process, for me it's a "no go."

Now to the bad news: unhappily (I say "unhappily" because, just when I thought I was finally getting acceptable results with the Photoshop action, this makes me re-think the whole thing) three days ago I tried SilverFast DCProStudio --and loved it.

A friend of mine who recently got it had been recommending it to me, and I finally listened to him and downloaded a demo. To wit: The results were fantastic, especially in the gamma correction department, where SilverFast's sophisticated curves provided the best results I've seen.

Now, Silverfast alone didn't do the trick, but it provided excellent "basic" files for final correction in Photoshop where, among other things, I applied the Minolta regular profile, which gave the perfect touch to an already fine scan (the profile lightens the shadows a bit, makes the skies bluer and gives greens and yellows a fantastically warm, pleasant hue.

So, as I said, having tried SilverFast made me rethink the whole workflow, and now I'm doubtful that the action I've been using (and recommending) is the best method --actually, I think it is not, at least for most exposures.

So, lacking SilverFast (I don't plan on spending that kind of money), I think the best "generic" method is:

1. Scan 16bit linear, with autoexposure off

2. Apply the linear profile while opening in Photoshop, and immediately convert to ProPhoto (much wider gamut than Adobe 1998)

3. Invert

4. Crop to eliminate the white edge, so that "autocolor" can work its magic

5. Use Curves' autocolor ("Enhance Per Channel Contrast", with "Snap Neutral Midtones" checked)

6. Correct gamma with curves again

Talk about going "back to basics"!

Best,

Marcos

Hi Mendel, sorry for taking this long to reply. I got back from Puerto Vallarta a few days ago, but between the accumulated work load and an ear infection I caught for swimming in the sea, I haven't had much time for Photoshoping.

I completely agree that scanning times are a killer, which is the reason I try to avoid any tweaking with the MSU and, instead, do all the work in Photoshop. So far, scanning as 16bit linear (without touching the exposure settings in the Minolta software) I'm able to get acceptable times: about 2 and a half minutes per frame at 1350dpi, with ICE on.

I used to worry a lot about getting the best possible exposure in the Minolta software, but after many tests it looks to me that this is not very important, as the final scan contains all the data and then some --which gives Photoshop plenty to work with (this when scanning as positive, of course.)

Also, Photoshop's "Neutralize" function seems to be better than the MSU at compensating for the negative's orange mask. Moreover, considering that any tweaking with the MSU can double or triple scanning times, this approach seems to be the most practical.

I've finished polishing the action I mentioned in my last posting, and I'm quite satisfied with its results --I'm attaching it at the end of this posting. I added a small routine towards the end, using a Selective Color adjustment layer to counteract the remaining cyan cast in the warmer colors, as well as neutralizing the blues (particularly useful for sky scenes,) which tended to be shifted towards yellow/cyan.

Also, after some experimenting, I think levels work best for the final gamma correction, giving a more "contrasty" look to the image than curves; with this in mind, I also added a final levels correction with a stop dialog (pre-set at 0.75) for the user to select the desired amount of gamma correction according to each individual image.

So, now that I'm finally getting acceptable results, I've begun scanning my entire negative archive at 1350 dpi, 16bit linear ("keeper" frames are scanned at full resolution, of course.) I then use the action in Photoshop --in batch mode-- for a quick post-processing.

I'm saving the processed images as JPGs (compression level 10 in Photoshop), while keeping the original 16linear ones as "negatives".

On the Digital Camera topic, congratulation on your recent purchase of the Canon 20D. If money was not a concern, that's the camera I'd go for. However, since money *is* a concern, I'll have to settle for the 350D, which I'm sure you know it's very similar to the 20D.

There's a lot to be said in favor of digital cameras. For one thing, they have finally (in my opinion) come of age and are able to compete with film, especially the ones in the 8 megapixel league and above. And when one considers the lack of grain, and the much faster workflow of working with RAW files versus scanning/processing negatives, I think digitals win the day.

I guess we won't be discussing film scanning much longer. I've really enjoyed this thread, and thanks to all your input I've been able to greatly improved my workflow and reduced scanning times. You and I seem to share a meticulous attention to detail which is not very common, as well as the patience to try time and again the different techniques we have discussed -- all in the quest for the "perfect scan" :o) Because of all this, I must say: it's been a real pleasure.

Hope you have fun with your new "toy", and if I come across any new method of getting the most out of the Scan Elite I'll be sure to let you know.

Best,

Marcos / www.aukereman.com

Hi Mendel,

Just wanted to let you know that I'll be going out of town for a week, on vacation, and should be back around July 21st.

Very briefly, though: I've been experimenting and tweaking with a Photoshop action I found on the Internet, and have obtained *great* results with it (scanning as 16bit linear and applying the corresponding profile while opening in Photoshop.)

I'll post more detailed instructions on how to use the action (as well as further comments regarding digital cameras, etc) when I'm back. In the meantime, I thought you might want to start playing with the action, so I'm attaching it to this post.

As you'll see it's all pretty self-explanatory and automated; I only included a couple of stops, one for adjusting the cropping (assuming an image of 1350dpi,) and another one near the end to adjust curves for gamma correction.

Hope you find it useful and look forward to your comments.

A final note: I would NOT reccomend using this action on files scanned at a resolution higher than 1350dpi, as the action contains numerous steps that require tons of RAM.

This is odd, I wonder if foliolink.com does something to alter the image. If it looks okay here and elsewhere, except in foliolink.com, then the problem is particular to that site. If that is the case, I'm at a loss on what to do.

Regarding saving without the color profile, there's a check mark on the Save dialog in Photoshop, which can be unchecked in order for the profile not to be included in the file. But don't worry too much about it, as I said it does not make much of a difference other than making the file a bit smaller.

Marcos Rodriguez / www.aukeramen.com

Hi Newton,

What happens is that web browsers in general are not able to handle color profiles. For web publishing, make a copy of your image, convert to sRGB ("sRGB IEC61966-2.1" is the name under which you'll find it) in Photoshop and save as JPG.

Another tip to make the image even smaller: you can save it without the color profile; this won't make any difference as the image itself will have been altered by the reduced colorspace conversion.

Best,

Marcos Rodriguez / www.aukeramen.com

Many thanks for your suggestion, Andrew. The All Channels option seems to do the work, albeit taking a toll on screen space --but at least it gives a view of all three channels, which is what I was looking for.

Best,

Marcos

Hi Mendel,

Thanks for your continuing update. I spent all afternoon doing tests --mainly batch-scanning as 16bit linear at 1350dpi and doing bulk, quick-fixing in Photoshop, to see if the workflow holds for most images. So far it does, although I want to re-check the results tomorrow and see how everything looks after a good night's sleep.

Regarding your comments:

1. I also work on copies, leaving the original "raw" scan as a backup should the need arise to re-process again. When I'm done scanning, I also compress the final image to high-quality JPEG, to save space --as I set Photoshop's preferences to store a detailed history log as metadata on the file, I can always re-trace the steps that led to a good image.

Also, I'm currently scanning the entire roll at 1350dpi (which only takes a little over 2 minutes per frame using 16Bit Linear), just to see what images came out fine and make a contact sheet; then I re-scan the best frames at higher resolution for printing and archiving.

2. I've also noticed that scanning either at 2700 or 5400 takes practically the same amount of time, so for the "keeper" images (that is, those going into my portfolio) I will probably scan at top resolution, even though I'll only be able to fit some three files on a CD.

3. About the first curve adjustment, since it is an automatic step (using Photoshop's auto-color) it is indeed the same to use curves or levels. However I prefer curves for the second adjustment layer (whose blending, by the way, I set to "luminosity" in order to avoid introducing any color cast) as I think it does a finer job than levels --it is my impression that levels tends to darken the shadows too much, whereas curves does a finer job at preserving detail there.

And you are quite right that setting the white clipping point to 0.02 (and sometimes even higher) instead of 0.01 does a good job at aligning the three color channels when these differ in size or placement significantly --on images taken under generally neutral lightning conditions and good exposure, however, the effect is not as dramatic.

I set a clipping point of only 0.01 for both shadows and highlights merely as a starting point, with the intention of increasing it further along the way if need be.

I currently have the second curves adjustment on an action (which I call gamma), with the following settings: Input 217, Output 197, blending as "Luminosity". I think it provides a good starting point from which to work on later.

4. About 16bit Linear versus 16bit. I find the two take practically the same time to scan, providing that you don't make any manual corrections on the Exposure Control; if you do that, then there is no telling how long the latter will take to scan --as I've said on other threads, I usually get scanning times of up to 20 minutes per frame when fiddling with the Exposure Control. (Right now, scanning 16bit Linear at full resolution, I'm getting a little over 5 minutes per frame, including auto-focus time.)

I'll probably spend much of the weekend scanning and doing yet more tests. I really need to nail the workflow, as I want to scan my entire negative archive --this in preparation for my planned move out of film and into the dSLRs. I'm saving to get my hands on the new Canon EOS 350D (a.k.a. the Digital Rebel XT), which seems to be a good choice for my budget range.

In any event, I'll post any new developments here, and in the meantime have a great time in your upcoming vacation.

Best,

Marcos Rodriguez

By default, whenever a new image is opened in Photoshop (CS2), the

histogram always shows the RGB channel.

I'll be batch-processing a lot of images and need the histogram to

stay in "colors" all the time, however Photoshop doesn't seem to

allow this, other than by stopping the action and manually setting

the histogram channel to "colors" --which of course is a no-go as

this would render the whole batch-processing impossible. I've even

tried assigning a keyboard shortcut for changing the histogram to

colors but to no avail.

Does anyone know of a way to change Photoshop's default histogram

view so that it shows "colors" instead of "RGB"?

Many thanks in advance.

Marcos Rodriguez