A couple of bracketed transparency images, 4x5
(cross posts from landscape forum)
After talking to Peter Figen, thought I would try this.
A fair amount of work (and storage!) but worth the effort
Nice.
Other than scanning a lot, is the workflow the same as using bracketed digital files?
Any links to the procedure?
dswiger wrote:
A couple of bracketed transparency images, 4x5
(cross posts from landscape forum)
After talking to Peter Figen, thought I would try this.
A fair amount of work (and storage!) but worth the effort
buggz2k,
I'll give you the executive summary
1. Bracket 2 to 4 shots. Dependent on scene, contrast.
For Astia, 2 was enough but I did 4 as this was my 1st effort. For Velvia, needed 3 but also did 4. For color negative film, like Ektar, most of the time 1 shot is enough but having the backup shot 1 stop over is great for blending in shadows that might have blocked-up.
2. When shooting 4x5, the shot-to-shot times are many seconds apart, let's say 10 seconds. I found holders vs quickload about the same for me. The reason mentioned is that unlike digital where you will blast off 3 or 5 shots in a 1 second or so, things can & will move in the scene. For these it was the foliage, both fast (leaves) & slow, branches. More on that later.
3. I scan at 2400 dpi for 4x5. That means about ~600mb for each TIFF! Storage & computer speed can play a role. I use Vuescan with my Epson 4990 & I scan RAW for transparencies. That means I make NO adjustments for luminosity or color. I take care that of in Photoshop. For negative film I have used both RAW scans + ColorNeg plugin, but have also done some corrections in Vuescan on the TIFF. That workflow is still in being refined. Having the RAW files for the transparencies keeps the relationship & consistency shot-to-shot, more controlled.
4. In Photoshop, I load all the images as a stack so that they are layers. I then Auto Align the layers. Most of the time, its dead on. I have seen some variation in placement in the corners but minimal. Mostly from bumping the camera & the wide angle lens!
5. I then pick the image that is the closets to ideal and figure out if I'm going to be blending the sky from an under exposed image and the shadows from an over exposed one.
6. The blending is still something I'm working out. Because the scenes I posted had lots of foliage & it was breezy, the movement between shots didn't allow any direct blending operations. I actually tried to use the HDR tool in P/S. It was a non starter.
Basically did a mask & dodge/burn using the eraser with various opacity & flow settings.
The tree line to sky stuff did require some manual work. I also tried creating/using threshold masks but it wasn't precise enough.
7. The nice thing about transparencies scanned RAW is that I have little issue with colors & color cast! This is important as I'm color blind..... If you use expired film, not fridged, etc., you might have some additional corrections to do. I am still refining this & will post more as I go. I am hoping to put it up on my blog in the next few weeks. As I mentioned, this was my 1st outing where I was planning on this so I did more shots than needed. I wish I had done this for my Grand Canyon trip as I bet the farm on one Velvia 50 shot! That needed a lot of work & a drum scan to make it work (thanks Peter Figen). I would suggest becoming familiar with basic layers & blending operations in Photoshop. Please share you techniques if you have some better methods
Out about on a walk at the local state park over Halloween weekend. Gold400>original rebel>40/2.8 stm>souped at home in tetenal>Kodak pakon 135+ scanned>lr5
dswiger wrote:
Jon, Thanks for posting your 35 mm stuff. I have an Elan that I need to load some film in & go on hikes.
Dan
Thanks Dan. I am really enjoying shooting 35mm film since getting the pakon scanner. Makes the process so easy. My 5dmkII sits wanting attention more often than not. I am preferring personal stuff, especially of my grandson to be shot on film. The "look" is how memories should be (if you understand what I am saying). My wife is tending to agree. I show her digital files I have processed and she will say "It doesn't look real."
From few years ago. Mamiya c330. Tmax 400. Rodinal. DSLR scanned with D7000. People think just because your films are scanned they become digital? No.... I have spent the past several days trying to nail the correct workflow to DSLR scan my negatives without them looking digital (block out highlights and the mid tone, color casts, and the lack of tonal range).
Couldn't get the cruise schip in one frame, so I took two and combined them in Photoshop. Auto photomerge didn't work, so went for a diptych.
Hand-held with Zeiss Ikon Ikonta 524/2, a 6x9 folding uncoupled rangefinder with a Novar Anastigmat 105mm f4.5 lens. Expired Fuji NPS160 at iso 100, scanned with Nikon Coolscan 8000ED, ColorNeg plugin.
TooManyShots wrote:
From few years ago. Mamiya c330. Tmax 400. Rodinal. DSLR scanned with D7000. People think just because your films are scanned they become digital? No.... I have spent the past several days trying to nail the correct workflow to DSLR scan my negatives without them looking digital (block out highlights and the mid tone, color casts, and the lack of tonal range).
So... what's your conclusion on using your D7000 and your workflow?
corposant wrote:
So... what's your conclusion on using your D7000 and your workflow?
Oh....even when film converted into digital, the digital version retains the film quality. This is the quality digital can't reproduce no matter how hard you tried. I am talking about BW photography here. Because I was using a less powerful backlit light source, I couldn't reproduce the film look in my DSLR scans, no matter how hard I tried. I have my original shots scanned with my Canon 9000f as a comparison as well as a reference point. The historgram shows a very narrow inverted V shape. I was only able to make some progress when I used a more powerful backlit light source, a 60w CF bulb, being enclosed in a tube. I was able to DSLR scan the negative using ISO 100, 1/100s, F11, with a more widespread historgram. Before, I was using ISO 800 and some really low shutter speed. I was using my LCD monitor as a backlit light source.
And of course, if the image data isn't there (if your DSLR scan can't record the image information from the negative), you will not be able to render the highlight, the mid tone, and the shadows correctly in your post processing..no matter how hard you tried. Your historgram will show missing data as well.
It was a non starter.
