Gsyfuy

What is the best translation for "slot" in the context of multiplayer video games?

Term for the "extreme-extension" version of a straw man fallacy?

Was Spock the First Vulcan in Starfleet?

Why didn't Theresa May consult with Parliament before negotiating a deal with the EU?

Sequence of Tenses: Translating the subjunctive

How did Doctor Strange see the winning outcome in Avengers: Infinity War?

I'm in charge of equipment buying but no one's ever happy with what I choose. How to fix this?

Is `x >> pure y` equivalent to `liftM (const y) x`

Risk of infection at the gym?

Is oxalic acid dihydrate considered a primary acid standard in analytical chemistry?

Go Pregnant or Go Home

What does "I’d sit this one out, Cap," imply or mean in the context?

How can a function with a hole (removable discontinuity) equal a function with no hole?

Tiptoe or tiphoof? Adjusting words to better fit fantasy races

How can I kill an app using Terminal?

Large drywall patch supports

How to write papers efficiently when English isn't my first language?

Two monoidal structures and copowering

System.debug(JSON.Serialize(o)) Not longer shows full string

Hostile work environment after whistle-blowing on coworker and our boss. What do I do?

How can I get through very long and very dry, but also very useful technical documents when learning a new tool?

Where does the Z80 processor start executing from?

CREATE opcode: what does it really do?

Detecting if an element is found inside a container

Different result between scanning in Epson's “color negative film” mode and scanning in positive -> invert curve in post?

What are the differences between Epson v330/300 and Epson v500 scanners?What is a reasonable file format for film scanning?Batch processing/retouching scanned film with severe artifactsIs there any good method to invert a negative image (duplicated with a digital camera) in Lightroom?Process Silverfast color raw scans in LightroomHow to invert color negative “scan” via DSLR without clipping the red channel?Scanner for uncut medium format film?Best practices for scanning chromogenic black-and-white film?Remove orange filter from scanned negativeScanning negative 35mm: color accuracy, color balance, film bias

2

When scanning a 35mm film, if I let Epson's software doing its thing by choosing the "color negative film" mode, without any other adjustment, the resulting raw scan will be yellowish. However, if I do the other method by scanning in positive(orange) film and then invert the curve in the post in photoshop, the resulting scan will be tealish. Why is the difference?

scanning negative-film scanner epson

share|improve this question

asked 4 hours ago

reddyreddy

132

New contributor

reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

add a comment | 

2

When scanning a 35mm film, if I let Epson's software doing its thing by choosing the "color negative film" mode, without any other adjustment, the resulting raw scan will be yellowish. However, if I do the other method by scanning in positive(orange) film and then invert the curve in the post in photoshop, the resulting scan will be tealish. Why is the difference?

scanning negative-film scanner epson

share|improve this question

asked 4 hours ago

reddyreddy

132

New contributor

reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

add a comment | 

When scanning a 35mm film, if I let Epson's software doing its thing by choosing the "color negative film" mode, without any other adjustment, the resulting raw scan will be yellowish. However, if I do the other method by scanning in positive(orange) film and then invert the curve in the post in photoshop, the resulting scan will be tealish. Why is the difference?

scanning negative-film scanner epson

share|improve this question

asked 4 hours ago

reddyreddy

132

New contributor

reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

asked 4 hours ago

reddyreddy

132

New contributor

reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

asked 4 hours ago

reddyreddy

132

New contributor

reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked 4 hours ago

reddyreddy

132

New contributor

reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked 4 hours ago

reddyreddy

132

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

4

Scanning handles removing the overall orange mask in color negative film.

Scanning as positive, and then postprocessing invert does not remove it, inversion simply turns that orange mask to a deep blue overall. NOT Bluish, but very strongly deep blue. Then additional work to try to remove it.

This is a difficult job to do in digital postprocessing (not meaning the process but the result), because such extreme color shifts (to remove the strong blue) strongly risks clipping in digital. Clipping can somewhat change the colors and can lose detail.

Whereas the scanner can do this as analog (no digital clipping) by simply varying the scan time duration for each of the RGB colors (result acting like a corrective filter in the light). Scanning color negatives is a bit slower than positive slides, but it is a very good thing.

Not saying it is "impossible" in digital, you might achieve an acceptable result, but it is just really not the same. If you have the scanner, I strongly suggest using it. It is designed for the exact purpose.

The result of a yellowish cast is not inherent at all. It will be tremendously easier to manage than the deep blue otherwise. :) There are various factors however.

Not every brand of color negative film has the same exact color of orange mask, so some scanners offered a menu of film choices.
Or the scanner calibration might not be exact.

Or more commonly likely, the film might just have been shot with an incorrect color white balance (we had very little choice with film, but there was a base choice of film type or flash bulb type or lighting or filters). Often the shot needed better white balance correction itself. So try scanning other different film negatives in their different lighting situations to see how constant the yellowish cast is? Sunshine outdoors is likely more accurate than indoors.

In digital work, it would have been better if the digital camera white balance had been correct, but usually, it might be fairly mild and easily corrected in postprocessing.

White balance was the same problem for film as digital is today, however the lab printing the picture from film did a good job back then correcting it for us. But it is NOT yet corrected in the negative itself.

Remember the blue flashbulbs? Remember that we still got a good result whether we used them or not? The printing lab fixed it for us. But in digital, or in film scans, that is now our job to correct.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

WayneFWayneF

10.1k1924

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Thanks for the clearing up my confusion, I will be scanning in "color negative film" mode from now on. I did notice that the different cast from different type of film after the orange mask removal. My Kodak gold 100-5 is slight yellowish, while Kodak gold 100-6 and GC 400-8 are slight tealish. Anyhow they're all very easy to correct as you said it.
  
  – reddy
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

reddy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106213%2fdifferent-result-between-scanning-in-epsons-color-negative-film-mode-and-scan%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

4

Scanning handles removing the overall orange mask in color negative film.

Scanning as positive, and then postprocessing invert does not remove it, inversion simply turns that orange mask to a deep blue overall. NOT Bluish, but very strongly deep blue. Then additional work to try to remove it.

This is a difficult job to do in digital postprocessing (not meaning the process but the result), because such extreme color shifts (to remove the strong blue) strongly risks clipping in digital. Clipping can somewhat change the colors and can lose detail.

Whereas the scanner can do this as analog (no digital clipping) by simply varying the scan time duration for each of the RGB colors (result acting like a corrective filter in the light). Scanning color negatives is a bit slower than positive slides, but it is a very good thing.

Not saying it is "impossible" in digital, you might achieve an acceptable result, but it is just really not the same. If you have the scanner, I strongly suggest using it. It is designed for the exact purpose.

The result of a yellowish cast is not inherent at all. It will be tremendously easier to manage than the deep blue otherwise. :) There are various factors however.

Not every brand of color negative film has the same exact color of orange mask, so some scanners offered a menu of film choices.
Or the scanner calibration might not be exact.

Or more commonly likely, the film might just have been shot with an incorrect color white balance (we had very little choice with film, but there was a base choice of film type or flash bulb type or lighting or filters). Often the shot needed better white balance correction itself. So try scanning other different film negatives in their different lighting situations to see how constant the yellowish cast is? Sunshine outdoors is likely more accurate than indoors.

In digital work, it would have been better if the digital camera white balance had been correct, but usually, it might be fairly mild and easily corrected in postprocessing.

White balance was the same problem for film as digital is today, however the lab printing the picture from film did a good job back then correcting it for us. But it is NOT yet corrected in the negative itself.

Remember the blue flashbulbs? Remember that we still got a good result whether we used them or not? The printing lab fixed it for us. But in digital, or in film scans, that is now our job to correct.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

WayneFWayneF

10.1k1924

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Thanks for the clearing up my confusion, I will be scanning in "color negative film" mode from now on. I did notice that the different cast from different type of film after the orange mask removal. My Kodak gold 100-5 is slight yellowish, while Kodak gold 100-6 and GC 400-8 are slight tealish. Anyhow they're all very easy to correct as you said it.
  
  – reddy
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

Scanning handles removing the overall orange mask in color negative film.

Scanning as positive, and then postprocessing invert does not remove it, inversion simply turns that orange mask to a deep blue overall. NOT Bluish, but very strongly deep blue. Then additional work to try to remove it.

This is a difficult job to do in digital postprocessing (not meaning the process but the result), because such extreme color shifts (to remove the strong blue) strongly risks clipping in digital. Clipping can somewhat change the colors and can lose detail.

Whereas the scanner can do this as analog (no digital clipping) by simply varying the scan time duration for each of the RGB colors (result acting like a corrective filter in the light). Scanning color negatives is a bit slower than positive slides, but it is a very good thing.

Not saying it is "impossible" in digital, you might achieve an acceptable result, but it is just really not the same. If you have the scanner, I strongly suggest using it. It is designed for the exact purpose.

The result of a yellowish cast is not inherent at all. It will be tremendously easier to manage than the deep blue otherwise. :) There are various factors however.

Not every brand of color negative film has the same exact color of orange mask, so some scanners offered a menu of film choices.
Or the scanner calibration might not be exact.

Or more commonly likely, the film might just have been shot with an incorrect color white balance (we had very little choice with film, but there was a base choice of film type or flash bulb type or lighting or filters). Often the shot needed better white balance correction itself. So try scanning other different film negatives in their different lighting situations to see how constant the yellowish cast is? Sunshine outdoors is likely more accurate than indoors.

In digital work, it would have been better if the digital camera white balance had been correct, but usually, it might be fairly mild and easily corrected in postprocessing.

White balance was the same problem for film as digital is today, however the lab printing the picture from film did a good job back then correcting it for us. But it is NOT yet corrected in the negative itself.

Remember the blue flashbulbs? Remember that we still got a good result whether we used them or not? The printing lab fixed it for us. But in digital, or in film scans, that is now our job to correct.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

WayneFWayneF

10.1k1924

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Thanks for the clearing up my confusion, I will be scanning in "color negative film" mode from now on. I did notice that the different cast from different type of film after the orange mask removal. My Kodak gold 100-5 is slight yellowish, while Kodak gold 100-6 and GC 400-8 are slight tealish. Anyhow they're all very easy to correct as you said it.
  
  – reddy
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Scanning handles removing the overall orange mask in color negative film.

Scanning as positive, and then postprocessing invert does not remove it, inversion simply turns that orange mask to a deep blue overall. NOT Bluish, but very strongly deep blue. Then additional work to try to remove it.

This is a difficult job to do in digital postprocessing (not meaning the process but the result), because such extreme color shifts (to remove the strong blue) strongly risks clipping in digital. Clipping can somewhat change the colors and can lose detail.

Whereas the scanner can do this as analog (no digital clipping) by simply varying the scan time duration for each of the RGB colors (result acting like a corrective filter in the light). Scanning color negatives is a bit slower than positive slides, but it is a very good thing.

Not saying it is "impossible" in digital, you might achieve an acceptable result, but it is just really not the same. If you have the scanner, I strongly suggest using it. It is designed for the exact purpose.

The result of a yellowish cast is not inherent at all. It will be tremendously easier to manage than the deep blue otherwise. :) There are various factors however.

Not every brand of color negative film has the same exact color of orange mask, so some scanners offered a menu of film choices.
Or the scanner calibration might not be exact.

Or more commonly likely, the film might just have been shot with an incorrect color white balance (we had very little choice with film, but there was a base choice of film type or flash bulb type or lighting or filters). Often the shot needed better white balance correction itself. So try scanning other different film negatives in their different lighting situations to see how constant the yellowish cast is? Sunshine outdoors is likely more accurate than indoors.

In digital work, it would have been better if the digital camera white balance had been correct, but usually, it might be fairly mild and easily corrected in postprocessing.

White balance was the same problem for film as digital is today, however the lab printing the picture from film did a good job back then correcting it for us. But it is NOT yet corrected in the negative itself.

Remember the blue flashbulbs? Remember that we still got a good result whether we used them or not? The printing lab fixed it for us. But in digital, or in film scans, that is now our job to correct.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

WayneFWayneF

10.1k1924

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

WayneFWayneF

10.1k1924

answered 3 hours ago

WayneFWayneF

10.1k1924

answered 3 hours ago

WayneFWayneF

10.1k1924