Scanning negative film can be immensely tedious. If you wish to attempt it yourself and don’t have access to a means of applying accurate colour profiles, then presented in this post is a summary of my Photoshop workflow to achieve desirable (by my current standards) results.
Using your scanning software (I use Vuescan), scan the negative as you would a positive using completely neutral colour and contrast settings. Save as a 16 bit/channel TIFF image. I’ve often found Vuescan’s film profiles to be horrible – particularly for the recent batch of medium format Kodak Ektar I’ve been trying – so I stay away from them.
In Photoshop, invert the image. Note the blue mask from the orange base of the film – this is different for every film hence the need for profiles.
Set the black point by using a curves layer. In the pop-up box change the display to show clipping and using the black dropper, keep redefining the black point until there is only a very small amount of clipping.
Set middle grey using a levels layer. In tandem, adjust the input levels slider for white (while checking the histogram for clipping) and define middle grey with the dropper. I’ve used an arrow to point to my selection.
Adjust contrast to taste with another curves layer.
With a small rotation and removal of dust, this is the final result. Note that I’ve stayed away from colour balance layers – they ask for trouble.
Feedback is welcomed. If you scan your own film and use this, or a variant of this routine, I’d be interested to hear about it.
very nice, thank’s :)
Thank you for the advice. I don’t really mess around with any of the older stuff, I have a machine that will scan negatives to digital, also have photoshop, photoshop I use, as for the negative scanner, I have never used it. I am unfortunetly all digital. I am sure someday when I have the time I might dig into it, but I am far too busy right now.
it’s by no means useful for batch scanning but i would suggest it better for fine control – auto levels can often do just as good a job
Tedious, but so worth it. These pictures really blow me away. I am not sure what it is I love about them, but your attention to detail really shows.
tedious i know but it seems to be the only way i can get consistent results – glad the lengths i go to for detail can be seen – thanks
Have you tried the Silverfast film profiles yet ?
There’s a .pdf on their website explaining, why perhaps not to choose the photoshop approach, but instead the NegaFix functionality:
http://www.silverfast.com/PDF/NegaFix_vs_Photoshop_en.pdf
No, only the Vuescan profiles. Vuescan has profiles for Ektar but SilverFast doesn’t (from this list: http://www.silverfast.com/show/negafixprofiles/en.html ). The only benefit I can see is that it has an option of creating my own profile for the film. From Vuescan experience, this wasn’t very useful. I might just forget about colour negatives and stick with slide and B&W…
I am new to this ghame of scvanning film so a few simple questions. I am pro film althougth I appreciate digital media for customers. Am I correct in assuming the following:
1. A professioinal/reputal company will scan my negative and produce a high quality file (image) from which I can edit on my computer with software (CS4)?
2. I can make or have a high quality print made from this file?
3. I have read that a 6X6 scanned negative will produce far higher qualitry than a top end digital camera – your thoughts?
4. Does the scanned image retain the qualities (skin tones; resolution; sharpness) of original film? I believe these qualities are not as good with digital compared with film?
Thanks
This article is about Ektar and the trouble I had reproducing its ultra-vivid colours during scanning.
My experience is with a flat-bed scanner which is not at all optimal for high quality scanning but serves a purpose for online display. A professional company would use an Imacon drum scanner, see here for more information.
You can send out your negatives or transparencies to be scanned – the more detailed the scan, the more expensive the cost but high quality prints are definitely possible.
Here’s an article on resolution of medium format film versus digital 35 mm. Resolution is a function of grain size for film. If you want a trashy, grainy, grungy shot then you shouldn’t be concerned with the numbers – just alter your film speed and development process to suit.
Certain films serve certain functions. Transparencies like Velvia have limited dynamic range, high contrast and insane saturation – not good for portraiture but ideal for bling daddy landscape photographers who rely on these properties to capture people’s attention. Negatives like Portra are considered flattering for portraiture for the way it renders skin tones.
Ultimately I make prints with an enlarger and medium format B&W film. It’s accessible, easy and I don’t have to mess around with a computer. I’m far more satisfied with this process than the digital route.