I've had a go at re-scanning some Portra 400 negatives today. Got the process nailed by the time I arrived at the one I'm going to print. The only way around this is to use NLP to make a positive copy whish basically exports the image back into the same folder as a "positive" at which point Lightroom controls work as normal.Īpologies for the terrible sample image, it was the 1st one I scanned and ended up being the one I tried all the different scan methods to find the best. The only downside (and it's quite a big one) is that the Lightroom sliders don't work as you'd expect in the Develop module so you need to use the NLP "develop" controls (under "Advanced"). I think I'll definitely be deleting the crap (like my test shot above)! That's 1Gb storage per roll of film! Reading the website, Nate looks like he's developing the programme to work with the 48bit HDR scans so it looks like I'm going to have to suck up 270Mb/image. Looking at the profiles that come into LR, using the TIFF forces you to use the v21 profile, but using the HDR allows you to choose a lot more options. This is Ektar though which doesn't (in my experience) have the dynamic range of something like Portra. No blown highlights but not much to recover from the shadows. In terms of the difference between the HDR scan and the TIFF scan, I'd say "not much". The Silverfast "normal" scan has a wash over it that mushes them, and the Filmdev scan is nasty with a greeny-brown tint that ruins the sky. It looks to me like NLP has separated the greens and browns really nicely. But it's also noticeable in the greens too. I'd call that a "significant" difference in sky tones. At first glance, they appear quite similar, but the Ektar "punch" was missing from the colour and the blue sky still didn't feel right. Vuewscan standard vs NLP was a little more interesting. It's taught me that Filmdev are probably ok for internet use but for prints, they're not really up to par - especially with Ektar. Not sure if it's been over-warmed, but I was expecting something a bit more colourful from Ektar. There is a "tint" to the overall image that takes all the blue out of the sky. I was actually quite pleased with the results.įirst - all my scans were completely different tonally to the Filmdev one. I didn't do anything fancy with the sliders, just kept everything as default as I wanted to compare default NLP with default Silverfast. I then went through the process of converting in LR. The Silverfast "normal" scan looked pretty awful (hence me going to Filmdev for proper scanning!) NLP recommend scanning as a 48bit HDR file in Silverfast, which is what I did and the results were quite stark vs my regular 16bit TIFF.
Silverfast vs vuescan sharpness free#
I'm not going to complain because it was a small scan free with developing, but I'd have been pretty miffed if I'd paid the extra for a larger scan! I'm guessing the scanner has a 6x12 limit or something.?Īll images taken on Tomiyama 6x17 camera with Kodak Ektar. These are my findings.įirst up, annoyingly, Filmdev seemed to have decided that several of my 17cm weren't worthy of being scanned. Then I read the instructions for NLP and did it again.
This triggered me, so I found my old NLP license, redownloaded it, put it in LR, then scanned as a positive and flipped it in NLP. So I started my scan, and a standard Silverfast scan looked completely different from the Filmdev scan. Normally, I don't need anything other than small, but this time, I got a couple of decent photos back that I wanted to print. In the end, I gave up and sent everything to Filmdev asking for "large" scans so I didn't have to worry.īut the expense of paying for a "large" scan that is the same size no matter whether it's 35mm, 6x7, or 6x17 means that when I do send off my semi-large format negs, I ask for smalls. So this is probably overly dull, but getting decent colour has been a real thorn in my side for a *long* time now.
0 kommentar(er)
