Adventures in scanning... B&W...

JohnR · « **on:** 21 Oct 2007, 02:31 pm »

I'm trying to figure out how to get repeatable results when I scan black and white film. So at present what I am trying is the following:

* Scan as positive film, with linear input-output curve
* In PS, invert, convert to greyscale, then apply a (saved) levels curve

The problem is getting those curves right

The amount of adjustment needed to get B&W film to look right seems like it can't be done with just one curve adjustment. I'm having to do one, then fine tune with another.

Anyway, here's my latest attempt. How does this look to you (any comments appreciated)

Going Fishing, Whale Beach

nathanm · « **Reply #1 on:** 21 Oct 2007, 04:12 pm »

Yeah there's some extreme adjustments that need to be made with BW negs. I do the same thing you describe except that I tweak the scanner's gamma so that the neg looks halfway decent. It still comes out washed out, so I do further curves in Photoshop. I also make the original scan in 16-bit. I dunno if it really helps with losing less data with all the extreme tonal remapping required, but it makes me feel better and makes my computer run slower.

Your shot looks good, perhaps a slightly dim in the highlights, like perhaps the bucket and waves could be a shade lighter. But overall it's just fine. I tend to favor a bit softer contrast in the high end on B&Ws. It's harder to get that in the darkroom I've found. Well, everything's harder. Heh!

drphoto · « **Reply #2 on:** 21 Oct 2007, 10:45 pm »

Scanning B/W negs sucks. Years ago when I was still shooting film, but scanning and digitally manipulating, I shot color trans, even if the intent was to be B/W. We found that the color film had more information, was less prone to dust and gave you built in B/W contrast filters......ie: want a red filter? pull most of your info from the red channel.

So if your shooting now....go w/ trans. If you're scanning legacy negs......good luck.

drphoto · « **Reply #3 on:** 21 Oct 2007, 10:56 pm »

Oh, yeah. Agree again w/ Nathan.....your image looks a bit flat in that it doesn't (at least on my monitor) have a true white in any highlight area. Bang on that highlight slider!

Remember that by using Adjustment Layers (either levels or curves, which ever you like) you can apply selective tone correction....because the layer carries a built in mask. In other words, load up an Level adjustment layer, twiddle w/ the the highlight adjustment so that the area of interest looks good. Don't worry if other areas get screwed up at this point. Now, fill the adjustment layer mask w/ black. Back to the original image, because the adjustment is blocked. Now, go the brush tool, switch foreground color to white (which will make a virtual 'hole' in the mask) and paint in your adjustment in the desired areas.

I might use this method dozens of times in a given image to beat it into submission. Once I get each each change where I want it, I merge down the adjustment layer. I hate having tons of layers. Part of which comes from being an old timer who used to work on painfully slow computers.

PM if you want to do what I suggest, but don't follow the above.

JohnR · « **Reply #4 on:** 24 Oct 2007, 11:59 am »

Hey doc, these "legacy" negatives were shot a few weeks ago!

Thanks guys for the advice, I'm going to retry this one with a narrower curve in the scanner, and get those highlights done better. And also try using layers for the curves. I think I finally realized what that's about, I'll try it and update.

drphoto · « **Reply #5 on:** 24 Oct 2007, 07:50 pm »

BTW: scanning color negs sucks too IMHO, although I have a protege (who's much more successful than I am, in terms of big time clients) who shot color neg and drum scanned up until he bought a P45 back.

I could never get the color conversion right, plus....it's grainy compared to trans.

Trans is easier, although of course, it does have a limited dynamic range. Plus.....depending on where you live, you may not be able to find anyone to process it. There are no longer any labs in my town. Yeah.....you CAN do it in tanks in a darkroom, but it's a bit 'iffy'. Successful E6 processing requires very precise temp control and other attention to detail.

Use the lowest contrast film you can find, like Fuji Provia. Stay away from stuff like Fuji Velvia. If you want those super saturated colors, do them after scanning.

good luck.

nathanm · « **Reply #6 on:** 24 Oct 2007, 09:51 pm »

It's true, unless you have a drum scanner looking at that gorgeous tranny in the lightbox and then looking at what comes up on your monitor with its plugged up shadows will break your heart. You'll put the loupe to your eye, see all that stuff going on in the shadows, look back at the scan and think, "What the? I've been ripped off!" Heh! When I ran the Hell and ColorGetter scanners at the printer some years ago I don't think we ever saw a single color negative come through. If one did I don't think anyone in the department knew how to adjust for it.

I just bought myself an Epson V750-M so I'm anxious to see what that can do. I probably have some old color negs in a drawer some where. I can't remember the last time I scanned one, though. Plus this thing allows for oil-mounting which I'm stoked about.

A P45 back eh? He must be doing good, that's like buying a house!

I semi-considered processing E-6 myself, but I've been somewhat discouraged, and your post drphoto adds another straw to the camel's back. Although once I do get my first batch of Velvia back from wherever I send it I could change my mind. I dunno.

drphoto · « **Reply #7 on:** 25 Oct 2007, 07:15 pm »

Hey Nathan, you can check out my buddies' work at chadress.com (which I've posted before) As you can see, he's got some pretty big time clients.

When he worked for me, he was the most scatter-brained, goofball you ever met (though a lot of fun to have around) When he went out on his own, he really pulled it together. He runs one of the tightest operations I've ever seen.

nathanm · « **Reply #8 on:** 25 Oct 2007, 08:26 pm »

Looks familiar, I probably went there earlier. Ahh yes, it's all coming back to me now. Nice photography, but the site's got that annoying Flash thing which must be designed by an elephant cause it keeps trying to run away from my mouse! Doh!

Got any idea what those big blown up sheets of paper say? Doesn't appear that you can get a larger pic. Hmmm. I really like the dog\landscape shots, very beautiful.

drphoto · « **Reply #9 on:** 26 Oct 2007, 12:18 am »

Funny you should mention those 'blown up sheets of paper'. That was a job for the anti smoking campaign, and those are supposedly real documents from the tobacco companies that list things like all the nasy chemicals in cigarette smoke. I thought it was a lame idea.

That was Chad's first big job and I went out to LA to be a line producer for him. Those things were real.....they were built on-site by a local production company. That one sign is 40' tall. For some dumbass reason the art director insisted they be there and not put in digitally. Only cost $40K!! The locations were Santa Monica Pier, Venice Beach, and Mammoth Mt.

So you don't like the scrolling thumbs? I was thinking of doing my webite like that. I have a slide show that I email as a stop gap that works like that.

Maybe I can hire you do something for me that would be better.

nathanm · « **Reply #10 on:** 26 Oct 2007, 05:46 am »

The scrolling images are fine if it's an automatic thing just to look at, but I think that if the element needs user interaction then it's better if the targets don't move.

JohnR · « **Reply #11 on:** 27 Oct 2007, 04:20 am »

nathanm, you should get good results from that V750!

Here's my latest attempt. This time, I used a narrower range on the scanner, (still a straight line), and added a Levels layer and a Curves layer. The curve was a lot easier to deal with with the levels more spread out already. Also, I used more sharpening at scanning resolution (2400 dpi).

What do you think?

nathanm · « **Reply #12 on:** 29 Oct 2007, 12:47 am »

Yep, that's snappier. The histogram is always a good indicator. Sometimes an image will pop into place when you move the highlight and shadow sliders in to meet the edges of the data, but not every image has absolute shadows and highlights. My cemetary B&Ws for instance have no true white in them. If I did put the whites in the 250+ range the fog goes away. If you shoot outside in overcast light but maximize the levels later on you can make it seem like it was not a cloudy day if you want.

JohnR · « **Reply #13 on:** 29 Oct 2007, 03:35 am »

I'm pretty pleased with the result, I don't think I will be able to do too much better with 35mm... I've started going back to rescan a few shots that I've done before. One thing I've noticed is that some lenses seem to generate a lower range of values on the scanner... need to investigate more.

nathanm · « **Reply #14 on:** 31 Oct 2007, 04:46 am »

I got my new Epson fired up finally. No more dollar sign watermarks on my scans, yay! (Although the Epson certainly cost a few..*grumble*) Here's an adventure in B&W scanning, and inept photography! This day was the opposite of my cemetary shots. Spent the afternoon in this patch of sticks, took six exposures with my new Lee filters, graduated NDs and colored gels. Well, clearly my math needs work. This was the only usable shot, all the others were grossly underexposed.

Lots to learn... I'm still pretty impressed that the scanner was able to see anything from this thin-ass neg. Hmph.

JohnR · « **Reply #15 on:** 31 Oct 2007, 08:38 am »

Blimey, what are the gels for? I thought scanning was complicated enough

nathanm · « **Reply #16 on:** 31 Oct 2007, 02:56 pm »

For the camera lens, not the scanner. There's Red, Orange, Yellow and Green gels for altering tones in B&W. This one had the ND and I think an orange filter. Filters are one of those things rendered obsolete in the digital realm, but I wanted to revisit the old school. (with the exception of the polarizer and NDs I suppose)

I do really like the tonality I get from film, though. You can indeed get a very similar look in Photoshop, but you just have to work harder at it.

I think forgetting about reciprocity is what killed me on this shoot. Ilford has a chart with the compensations you need for anything over 1 second. These should've probably been closer to 30 seconds than six or seven like I was using. Doh!

drphoto · « **Reply #17 on:** 31 Oct 2007, 03:27 pm »

Hey Nathan,

I'm tellin' ya man. Try shooting trans......you get those filters built in. Want red? Use channel mixer and draw heavily from the red channel.

Now I'm know your thinking.....b/w neg has a much larger tonal scale than trans. True, but less than high end drum scanners have a hard time digging out the info. Plus, trans seems far less prone to picking up dirt on the film during the loading/exposure than neg. I never could figure that one out. I'm not talking about dust on the film after it is processed, but before.

If you can find outdated trans film that has been kept frozen, you can probably get it for next to nothing.

nathanm · « **Reply #18 on:** 31 Oct 2007, 03:52 pm »

Yeah but I can process my own B&W for relatively cheap! Just three chemicals, I can handle that! Heh! If I do E6 or C-41 I've gotta buy a bunch more stuff, water jackets and temperature precision and whatnot, more chemical mixtures to deal with... it's too much hassle in my view. The current level of hassle seems to suit me.

That's not to say I don't appreciate the color to B&W conversion stuff, it's definitely cool, but I dunno...I just like shooting black and white and knowing I can go back home and develop it.

For example, here's a digital shot from the cemetary where I did some "creative" conversion in Lightroom. (too creative perhaps!

) Kinda did the infrared thing I guess, blacken the sky, make the foliage very light etc.

This has a totally different look and feel than the 4x5 film shot in the 2nd pic. Not all attributed to film of course, the lens plays a big part too. I dunno, the analog setup is just a whole different animal. It takes forever to shoot anything, but I prefer the end result. Also I think if you go out with color film in the bag you might tend to seek out colorful scenes whereas with B&W you're looking for texture and composition.

JohnR · « **Reply #19 on:** 31 Oct 2007, 09:50 pm »

I'm the same, I can't shoot digital or slides and think in B&W...

Your second shot has great depth (for want of a better word). I don't get that with my 35mm scans, perhaps this is one reason to go for a larger format...