|
I just got 10 rolls of film back that I'm trying to scan and my v500 has started giving me color banding: My google-fu is failing and I can't figure out why it's suddenly doing this. Anyone seen this before?
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
I store my MF negatives in archival plastic sleeves placed into paper envelopes with relevant information (date taken, location, any special notes about processing) and placed into a photo box. Not the most efficient, but it's cheap and quick to look things up by date if you place them in the box chronologically.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
Scan at 300 dpi for whatever your print target is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:What do you guys use for dust control on your scanners? You'll get dust on it anyways. Use a blower (rocket blower works nice) to blow dust off your negatives and get used to spotting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
The most frustrating part of using multiple exposure scans is bumping your scanner slightly during one of the scans and loving the whole thing up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Are you sure your holder didn't move? My SF install used to do the same thing and I just "solved" it by scanning a larger film area & cropping afterwards.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Maybe you could take three scans, with the iPad set to backlight the film with #FF0000, #00FF00, and #0000FF, respectively, and then composite them? Yesssssss
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:Thanks! Using a levels or curves control? Because I tried setting the black and white points for each channel in these and the end result is what you see in my post. Hard cyan highlights. I'm wondering if I'm just not playing enough. Open curves, select the red channel. Check 'show clipping'. Drag the leftmost point towards the right until you see dots appear, then back off until the dots disappear. Repeat for the rightmost point, bringing it left. Switch to the green channel, repeat, blue channel, repeat. Enjoy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Use the eyedropper tool and bring down the green channel where that green cast is. You don't need to do this in CMYK.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Dust by hand in PS/LR, scan with minimal settings (no b/w points, no inversion, no sharpening.) No reason to trust your scanning software.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
I haven't found any increase in DR by setting the points in the scanning software. If you're going to have to edit the curves elsewhere you might as well just scan each negative the same (no points.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
notlodar posted:For B&W it was just too drat annoying, even using the HDR setting, which is apparently the raw setting, I get a small amount of clipping. MrBlandAverage posted:Scan as 16 bit positive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
notlodar posted:for b&w wet scanning it's the bees knees. you can always isolate the best color channel in photoshop but who wants to do that. You give the most misleading and stupid advice in this thread. Please stop.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
If you really need to do wet scanning to counteract film curl you really must have serious issues in your developing workflow. TIFF is "raw." DNG is just a wrapper around a TIFF. There's no reason to use levels at all. Your inability to learn the tools in front of you is clearly a barrier you struggle to pass. Have you considered shooting digital?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
ansel autism's guide for notlodar's posting: don't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/dng_spec_1.4.0.0.pdfquote:DNG is an extension of the TIFF 6.0 format, and is compatible with the TIFF-EP standard. You don't know what you're talking about. Please stop posting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
What was garbage about it? Too noisy? Is it correcting for color as if it was C-41?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:Could you lay a strip of blank c41 film over the e6 that you're scanning to give it the orange mask to remove. Might cause an exposure problem but it may be a work around to the software automatically removing the orange mask that isn't there on e6. That'd almost definitely move past the scanner's dmax
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Cool, thanks. Got a .sit file, what do I do with this? That's old school. StuffIt Expander.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Why not just press your negatives between something heavy for a few days to remove curl?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Sell your DSLR and iPad and buy a scanner that won't clip your red channel.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:A fuckload of curves and even some split toning to neutralize color casts. If your negative was scanned correctly you would only need minimal curves.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Doing some research, it looks like a problem with the "calibration" area, on the bed. Usually a bit of dust or something. Can anyone confirm this? I had a bad habit of blowing dust from my negatives towards the top (back) of the scanner - after a few dusty rolls I started to have this exact same issue. There's a small gap behind where the holders are and where the glass ends, that's the calibration area. Just make sure it's the cleanest part of your scanner.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
I don't know of any flatbeds with anything but uncoated, plain glass.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Scan as 16-bit TIFF positive and invert and correct in Photoshop
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
I do almost everything in PS but LR is still fantastic for the last leg - tiny color shifts, sharpening (I'm pretty sure LR uses sharpening in the L channel which is kind of a pain to do in photoshop quickly), non-destructive cropping, etc. It's not dirty~
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:Anyone got any tips for scanning Kodachrome in VueScan? Despite previewing well, the RAW files come out insanely dark. Hope you're scanning 16 bit per channel ('48 bit') and setting your black and white points after scanning correctly
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Keep on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
That looks like ICE, it sucks, don't use it, use a rocket blower and dust manually instead
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
I've heard some things about just using pure naptha as mounting fluid.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
The betterscanning holders are worthwhile if you suspect your stock film holders are not at the correct height.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I am really curious to see and get some insight to the workflow that some of you guys have when processing color negatives. I feel like my scanner produces really dull scans and I always have to increase some combination of exposure, contrast, and saturation to get an image that I think looks decent. I always start out with a "raw" scan straight from the scanner, and I obviously follow the ~one true processing video~ that gets posted every month, but that alone is never enough. I wonder if it's just my scanner. Maybe the backlight is too dim? I dunno. I have the same problem across all different kinds of cameras and film brands. My scanner is an Epson 4870. Maybe I should just get a V600 instead. Exposure/contrast/saturation adjustments are just a coverup for learning how to manipulate your curve more efficiently.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
If you scan as negative it'll always gently caress with your curves - that's why you should be scanning as positive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
fix your levels in Photoshop afterwards like any other scan
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Also scan in positive and invert in photoshop 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Your holder isn't in focus. Consider putting tiny pieces of paper underneath the feet to raise it slightly, if that makes it worse you likely need to start filing the edges to bring it down. Hot tip: if the grain on the negative isn't in focus, the negative itself isn't in focus, regardless of the actual image.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
It's got a really great lo-fi aesthetic, perfect for a moody night in with your friends
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
If you put it on the glass you're going to get newton rings. If it happens to be sharper despite the rings, you know you'll need to shave it down. If shimming it up makes the image worse, consider shaving it down. It's an iterative process.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Seriously. I'm pretty sure that action isn't for Ektar, either. There's also no reason to do the b/w points in an adjustment layer - anything you discard is data you'd be throwing away anyways
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 16:05
|
|