Posts RSS Comments RSS 68 Posts and 23 Comments till now

Archive for the 'Software' Category

Raw Scanning

Beach Shower.jpg

Last year, Colin Jago talked on his blog of an interesting software for negative scanners: Colorneg.

I downloaded the trial version and gave it a go. It did indeed produce fine results but at that stage I was reluctant to add yet another software. Moreover, at the time, I was not really using film all that much.

Since then I have started again to use my Leica and so the question of B&W film scanning and processing became current for me too.

For digital processing, depending on my inconsistency among other things, I currently use Aperture, Photoshop CS3, Bibble Pro, QuadtoneRIP and some nice PhotoShop plugins.  Still reluctant to add yet another software piece, I tried different things. Clearly, VueScan is best at driving my Epson scanner. Its B&W output is adequate but not exactly great and the control it offers does not suit me. Besides, I like the idea of scanning to RAW. I find the curves to apply to VueScan RAW files quite steep and I produced unwanted effects that way.

I then noticed the DNG option in VueScan. It produces a DNG raw file, just ready for Adobe Camera Raw. That software was designed precisely to do what I need: correctly map a gamma 1 file to the more useful gamma 2.2 or 1.8 or whatever is in QTR Lab space. It works beautifully. The trick to invert the picture in ACR is to use the point curve, select the Linear setting and invert its slope. The controls in ACR allow to produce a very good starting point for further finishing in PhotoShop.

Glaring Arrogance

Apple has disclosed their new laptops. In a word, this is rubbish.

The most annoying aspect is of course the glossy only screens. And not merely glossy like the previous Macbook was. No, this is glass, like the iMac. I just got a new iMac. The reflections are terrible. Since it is a desktop, I can tailor the environment and position the computer so that reflections do not appear. Not so with a laptop, contrarily to what an Apple executive said in an interview.

Apple also dropped all Firewire 400 ports from the new laptops. It means the Macbook has no Firewire and the Macbook Pro only has Firewire 800. Now, I don’t know, this saves what? $2 per machine to Apple? Let’s get crazy and make it $10 per machine. For the customers, this is a royal blunder. All the consumer video camera which use iLink (Firewire) to communicate with a computer are not impossible to connect to a Macbook. Nice move!

All the Firewire 400 peripherals will now need a special cable to connect to a MacBook Pro. This will also create inconvenience to people who wish to connect two Firewire devices to their Macbook Pro while on the road. Then I look at the Macbook Pro price and I wonder.

Who again brought Firewire to the market and explained everyone how superior it was? Apple. Go figure.

This is arrogance, complacency and, again, corporate stupidity.

Apple seems to think they don’t need the creative professional market anymore. The very market that kept them half afloat during their worst days. They choose to do so during the golden opportunity Microsoft gave them with the Vista disaster. Apple might find out, too late, that a large number of professionals will decide they can do without Apple. Especially if Windows 7 turns out to be half good.

Those glass screens are just a fashion thing. Apple is giving substance to arguments saying their product are all about looks.

The most immediate consequence for me is to make me feel uncomfortable to depend on Aperture. I might reconsider that.

Power Retouche

Hotel St Laureins

 

Power Retouche is a collection of 25 PhotoShop plugins that will, in my opinion, appeal to fine art photographers. The collection covers many image corrections and all the ones I have used have proved particularly well tuned. The quality they provide is excellent, up there with the best well known.

They are available individually or as the complete pack. I got the whole lot several years ago. Recently I emailed the author for an update and noticed there are many new ones.

The pic above uses the one called Radial Density. If it was named vignetting more people would understand immediately what it does. I suppose the author called it that way because vignetting is actually something entirely different.

Anyway, that plugin does borders shading (or burning in darkroom-speak) very easy and very well.

The plugins can be used as smart filters in CS3, yet augmenting their power. Click here to see how to activate that feature.

News

Scales

 

Many things going on photographically:

  • got an Olympus E-3 with its seemingly obligatory 12-60mm zoom. Works amazingly well.
  • went through a printing session that made me want to shoot some film again (above is HP5+)
  • ordered chemicals, film and the few items I needed to develop
  • shot very little recently but still have a backlog of the Spring shootings to process
 

Epson V750: Good enough for 35mm?

The Epson line of flatbeds has been much maligned over the years for having inadequate resolution for film scanning.

It has been gradually accepted they got good enough for medium format but it is still common to read that for 35mm film, one really needs a dedicated film scanner.

I am in the process of going through old negatives for an old series I never really finished. I also put a roll of film in my M6 just for the fun of it. So I am again interested in small format scanning. And what I have is an Epson V750 from my medium format times.

It turns out that scanner is plenty enough for small format scans, provided:

- the intended output size is no more than 16×24″ (roughly 40×65 cm)

- the film is either very flat or held very flat

- the film holder height has been carefully tuned

My old negs have been in files for yers and are naturally very flat. I have tuned my film holder height and I don’t think 35mm is really appropriate for larger ouput than 16×24″. In my opinion, that’s considerably large anyway.

To illustrate my point, I chose what I call a good negative. It was made on tripod with my Leica M6 and Elmarit 90mm on Fuji Acros 100 exposed at IE64 and developed in Ilfotec HC (same as HC-110). The Elmarit 90 is an extremely good lens and any softness we might notice certainly will not come from there.

The software I use is VueScan and I scan the negative in “Image” mode, meaning VueScan jsut tries to show the scanned object. I scan at 3200dpi. I VueScan Color tab, I choose None for the color balance, meaning VueScan does not apply any clipping and anly minimal curve treatment to the file. The result is a low contrast file that I open in PhotoShop CS. I get this as a starting point:

Initial file from scan

I do some cropping to keep just a fine black border, invert the file to get a positive and apply this Levels adjustment:

Levels adjustment

I also apply this curve :

Curve adjustment

And I get a good starting point:

Adjusted tonality

Tonalities with B&W negatives are not a problem for the scanner. Negative films have a DMax around 3 at the maximum, and for B&W that will only happen in case of severe over-development. Any film scanner on the market can easily scan through this, provided the light source is diffused. Otherwise, the Calier effect can produce blocked highlights. So it is not surprising I can get good tonality from this scanner. Well, it might not be good, but it is certainly not the scanner’s fault.

What is criticized is resolution. Let’s see what we have here. I took two details: one from the forground herbs and one from the background hotel wall:

Detail 1:
Detail 1 before sharpening

Detail2:
Detail 2 before sharpening

OK, this looks soft. However, if your screen has 100dpi resolution, like most LCD, you’re looking at a 32x enlarging factor! Let’s apply some sharpening. I applied PhotoShop simple Unsharp Mask Sharpening filter with a radius of 0.7 pixel and an amount of 323%. These value are very much dependent on the picture. Some will take less, other even more. Sometimes two successive milder sharpening are better. Let’s see what our details have become:

Detail 1:
Detail 1 after sharpening

Detail 2:
Detail 2 after sharpening

Now, remember, we are looking at a 32x enlargement. At 16x, we’d have a 16×24″ print with all the sharpness such a print needs and, in my opinion, very close to the maximum practical usage of a small format negative.

I have owned dedicated film scanners and they are indeed even sharper than this. however, with B&W silver negatives, it is a mixed blessing. The increased sharpness tends to produce exaggerated grain. With the negative I used in this example it woould probably not matter that much, but try it with some Tri-X and the dedicated scanner does not look so attractive anymore.

As Colin points out, the new Microtek M1/F1 could very well give us further progress by including autofocus. Autofocus is really what the Epson lacks. The holder height tuning thing is a bit ridiculous.

Another thing I’d like to try sometimes is to develop for much higher contrast. A film like TMax 100 could very well be suited for that experiment. The idea is that the heavy levels adjustment to get the contrast back should also amplify grain. If the neg was of higher contrast, this effect could be reduced and maybe I could get scans with even less grain.

But to answer the question in the title, definitely yes!

Next »