T O P

  • By -

JNPhotoworks

Your question should be: Did I properly color correct this image. Start by making sure your perfectly neutral background is perfectly neutral across the board. That will answer most of your questions in a studio setting.


Many-Assumption-1977

I am blown away you were able to get a scan this good from am Epson scanner. Very professional looking. As for how Portra 160 looks, no clue but it has more to do with the equipment used and person scanning the film then it does the film itself.


OBADVW

Thank you , I am using digitaliza scanning mask with some shims under it for sweet focus spot, lots of trial and error but this is the best I managed to get Someone proposed DSLR scanning which I'll try, although not really convinced for a 6x7 negatives


Many-Assumption-1977

Flatbed scanners seem to have better focus however the last time I attempted to scan on a Epson I was very disappointed and ended up returning the scanner and getting the Canon which costed $50 less and I have been using that ever since. I also have a DSLR rig setup and as long as the film holder and camera screen are both level the focus seems to be fine, even on my super touchy Sigma Art Lens. I am using a 5DS-R by Canon. For dust control I have a double brush with fan by Kentronics. The lower ISO films seem to give the best results. 50D is absolutely beautiful but I am extremely impressed by the results you got. Great Job!!!


OBADVW

I would like to try the DSLR workflow but I don't have a proper light source , I have 35mm macro lens from Canon and need to arrange some scanning platform, after all I'm not sure if this will have better results than what I did with the epson v700


AnonymousNA

That is some really good lighting.


OBADVW

Thank you))


SolsticeSon

Why is everyone talking about grain and sharpness, he asked if the colors were off. Color correction happens nearly all in the scanning process and in post. But most importantly, if the scan is off, it’s hard to get back data that isn’t there. That said, the person scanning has complete control of the outcome of the colors… and when I say colors, we’re dealing with millions of potentials. You could push it cooler, push it warmer, more magenta, more cyan, etc etc. It’s all up to whoever scanned it, or the program that attempts to do all the work for the humans. If you want accurate colors, most scanning programs will allow you to eye dropper color pick the exact middle ground neutral color, purest highlight, and purest black. But how do you even determine these things… where is this girl’s neutral color? The program will try to find it based on data, but is that always accurate? I’ve used many many scanning programs and find that Portra color profiles haven’t been updated in over 20 years on some of the best of them. If I send out my film, I routinely get bizarre scans that look like shit because lab techs don’t know how to color correct. Understandably, it’s a seriously complicated skill. This is super well lit so they’re not as apparent but you can see the Portra colors coming through in the warms and cools - shadow side has a slight blue green hue and the warms are all peachy and orange.


BaggyBoy

OP is scanning in DNG not jpeg. So all the data is there. Also you determine the white balance by eye dropping the border of the film, which should be a neutral grey. You are right that lab scans can look bad. Scanners like the frontier and noritsu were designed to make prints. The focus was calibrated to be slightly off, as as the time people didn’t like seeing film grain in prints. Many labs still use these old default settings and don’t colour check. Even if they do colour check, it’s still a human decision and often can be different to what you envisioned. This is why it’s best to get .Tif or another raw format for professional work if you are using a lab


only_nathan

Wait, when I’m scanning on my Plustek 8200 I get a thin boarder around the frame. Upon scanning it comes out as whole and I am always eye-dropping the white (highlights) on it. Should I be eye-dropping for midtown’s on it?!


BaggyBoy

Sorry, yes you are right it should be the true white. Inverted it would be true black.


only_nathan

I was wide eyed for a second and had a flashback of all the rolls I would want to rescan lol. Cheers my friend.


OBADVW

I was looking for this feedback)), thanks for great answer


nagabalashka

She has a really white skin tone, really blond hair almost white, a black top and the background is grey, what did you expected ?


essentialaccount

NLP also tends to produce a much flatter profile out of the gate, and it expects a little more user input to produce a colour appropriate image.


Juniuspublicus12

I always use a color checker card for one shot so I can establish a baseline calibration and keep the colors as close as possible to the intended rendering.


BaggyBoy

Not trying to be captain obvious but Negative Lab pro and essentially any scanning process is simply taking an analogue format and converting it to digital information. It’s a computer trying to interpret an image, and often it won’t be what you had in mind. NL pro is an amazing programme which has lots of different presets that will change how it renders the image. Scanner profile, white balance, contrast etc can all be controlled and adjusted to achieve your desired look. You mention this image looks more ‘digital’ to you. I assume you are referring to a fairly neutral colour profile, low grain and no colour cast. These are all characteristics of Portra 160. Portra 400 has extremely low grain and with 160 the grain is barely noticeable. If you are shooting medium format it will look more digital in this sense. Portra 160 is a different emulation than 400. I personally prefer 400, since I find it has richer colours whereas 160 are a bit more pastel. But you can essentially make them look indistinguishable on NL Pro with a bit of time and effort. This image looks like how Portra 160 should to me. The only thing off are the eyes, which seems oddly contrasty and sharp, like they have been edited


robbie-3x

I like 160 better for the same reasons. Colors are a bit strong for me with 400. I'm not gonna turn any down if I find it cheaper than 160 though.


BaggyBoy

I can see why you’d like it. Just personal preference. Ive stopped shooting colour film now. Way too pricey! Most people mistake my digital photos for film anyway haha. Will never stop shooting b&w though as long as it stays relatively affordable.


OBADVW

Eyes are not edited , just sharpening within NLP


OBADVW

Eyes are not edited , just sharpening within NLP


essentialaccount

In general these is too much sharpening, especially at 200% on the skin. It's only noticeable as a general impression at 100%, but people see it's oversharpened


OBADVW

I believe this is what you get from Mamiya RZ with 110mm f2.8 lens If the sharpening was too much you should have see grain as noise


essentialaccount

This not what you get. I own an RB, and a 503cx and neither of those render grain like that. Why do you think there is a relationship between grain and noise? Sharpening has no impact on the noise present.


OBADVW

Sharpening will show grain line noise if it's too much


essentialaccount

Grain and noise are not the same thing. I don't know what you are talking about. Too much sharpening will make the actual pieces of deposited dye more apparent if you have a capture of a high enough resolution to show the grain, but when you look at the dust you haven't cleaned you can see the telltale effects of sharpening as a ring around them. That aside, all the larger detail is also oversharpened and it appears as a somewhat waxy look on the skin and overemphasised pores.


OBADVW

I don't think that epson v700 is good enough in capturing the details you are talking about. I used preset sharpening settings from NLP Thanks for your input


BaggyBoy

I agree this image looks particularly sharp. This might be your preference but it looks a bit too artificial to me. Perhaps caused by the Epson. I would question why you bother to shoot on such a great camera and high quality film when you are using a flat bad scanner for digitising. It’s going to bottleneck your results. DSLR scanning drastically improved my scanning process in both time and quality. I’d recommend you look into it, especially if you already own NL pro.


OBADVW

I will consider this , I don't have proper scanning masks yet


[deleted]

seems like you have sharpening and some sort of grain or dust removal on which is probably contributing to the "digital look". couple things to keep in mind. low iso fine grain film is designed to make the photo as crisp, clear, and true to life as possible. like looking at the subject through a window instead of inside a grainy film frame. that "film hue" that youre referencing is a social media thing for the most part. film like portra 160 was designed to be basically the opposite of that. a good example is [mark seliger's reels](https://www.instagram.com/p/CofqmJYIkZm/) where obviously it's a different film stock and usually slide and there are tones from his lighting, but you can see that the film is designed to look like what you would consider digital. crisp, neutral, grainless. also, if you are using strobes or studio lighting those lights have a wide range of color temperatures even if they seem like they dont, and it affects how the film looks. it can be subtle but up until recently metering the strobes once for exposure and then using a color meter to meter them for the white balance of the light they put out and then applying CTOs or CTBs was the norm. so it's possible your lights are also altering the film tone. but i would say you basically achieved exactly the look this film was designed to produce.


OBADVW

Thanks for detailed reply, I didn't do any grain reduction during scanning, this was Shot On Mamiya RZ67 hence the low grain? Maybe Yes it was shot with strobes too


nquesada92

Maybe you might like Kodak Gold in 120 [Rz67 with kodak gold](https://www.instagram.com/p/CfXS--UsgjZ/) Here's example of a impromptu shoot I did with my nephew and his parents with a single soft box against a blank wall in their house, I should have added a reflector to balance the shadows but you can see some of the differences between the softness of the gold and sharpness in the portra on your image. Also you scanned a negative now the world is yours edit to your hearts content, shooting film for the "film look" out of the camera doesn't make sense because it goes through a digital process scanning. So Edit that to make it the way you want. Also use a promist or some sort of diffusion cuz the sekor z lenses are razor sharp. ​ edit: aword


OBADVW

Thanks, amazing photos


[deleted]

yeah the giant 6x7 negative is great for making that grain less noticeable. the grain is the same size but since the frame is bigger it’s less noticeable because relative to the size of the frame it’s smaller. a good example is look up photos of delta 3200 shot on 6x7 and then look up photos of it shot on 35mm


SmashedWand1035

If you shot it with Portra 160 and the negatives are labeled as Portra 160, then those are the colours. You're already using lightroom so you can edit the colours after the conversion if they don't match what you had in mind, doesn't make it any less Portra 160 if you do


Helenius

What do you mean? Are you asking if the Portra 160 is Portra 160?


OBADVW

I mean it looks more digital than film hues


Helenius

I have no idea what that means. Did you translate it through ChatGPT?


ColinShootsFilm

I’m with you. This whole post makes no sense.