> Please have a look on my last roll, and share your thoughts on the
> above outlined process, and possibly on the work I did during
> shooting the roll.
>
I believe your WB is off but the rest is fine for me. E.g. petals of
that flowering plant are white —
I have on many occasions scanned film accidentally with the emulsion side
incorrectly placed. Never had a problem that simply flipping the image in
editing software could not fix. This issue seems like a storm in a teacup.
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 18:22, Miklós Müller wrote:
> I don't quite get
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020, at 09:53, Miklós Müller wrote:
> 2. set white balance using a spot on the film base (unexposed stripe
> between slides)
In theory, at least, the white balance should be set for the actual light
source alone, rather than the light source through the unexposed film, while
Thanks for all of you for your invaluable contribution to the journey I
started with film scanning. Using your input I now finally settled with a
minimum number of steps that gives me an acceptable start for a complete
film roll using the exact same steps for each slide. So here is my approach:
Ah, sorry, you thought bit deeper.
The film will not act as a typical lens-mounted filter (like
softeners) as it is too close to the object plane.
But lets consider this: if your film layer would be opaque you'd see a
difference between having it on the illumination side or on the lens
Hi,
the influence may be negligible. In an ideal world, the film between
lens and layer would not alter the image.
Our world is real.
YMMV.
Uwe
Quoting Miklós Müller :
I don't quite get this. We are taking a picture of a fully backlit
transparent object. My understanding is that all the
I don't quite get this. We are taking a picture of a fully backlit
transparent object. My understanding is that all the film layers act as a
filter for the light. So all layers will be equally involved regardless
which one is in the front.
Anyway I did some research:
looks a nice setup. I suspect putting in a bright 6500K LED bulb would help
and as suggested additional blue filtration might be good as well.
Advantage of LED is cool temperature so less problems with heat bending
negatives in the holder.
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 15:07, jys wrote:
>
>
> On Wed,
> Avoiding clipping is the most important thing, but also having some
> data to work with is important, too. :-)
>
If you don't clip channels you capture data good enough for work.
Having older sensor might be a problem, since they tend to produce more
noise in darker areas but I would just
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020, at 23:34, Timur Irikovich Davletshin wrote:
> I believe white balance is nothing to worry about.
The role of the white balance module is explained here:
https://discuss.pixls.us/t/inverting-photos-of-color-negatives-with-darktable/9140/44
How much that step actually
Hi,
you want to take an image of the emulsion layer (which contains the
photographic information). You do want to have as little as possible
in between that layer and your lens, not even the film carrier.
Mirroring can be done in software easily, lost information can't be regained.
Uwe
I believe white balance is nothing to worry about. Anyway you adjust
channels individually in negadoctor module without any reference to the
bulb type. The only thing you should worry about is to get no clipping
in individual channels of your "scan".
Timur.
On Thu, 2020-08-13 at 08:27 +0200,
Jys,
Thanks for the tips, they absolutely me sense. I used a 2700k led until now,
but will definitely give a try to a cooler e17 bulb.
M
> On 2020. Aug 13., at AM 7:08, jys wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020, at 08:24, Miklós Müller wrote:
>> As for the scanning resolution, I have to
Timur,
Why is that happening? Where can i read about that more? Also, thanks for the
tip on that other forum at https://discuss.pixls.us/tags/play_raw.
M
>> On 2020. Aug 13., at AM 6:37, Timur Irikovich Davletshin
>> wrote:
> Well, in this case you may be losing in resolution. But it is up
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020, at 08:24, Miklós Müller wrote:
> As for the scanning resolution, I have to resort to my 6MP Nikon D50, my
> budget does not allow for more ATM.
>
> Here's the scanning rig BTW: https://photos.app.goo.gl/8dUqTJkvmsdm9BTY8
That is a beautiful reproduction rig, but... if
jade...@ziggo.nl schrieb am 12.08.20 um 15:41:
Maybe these will help you with using darktable to process negatives.
This does need the latest darktable version (3.2.1), 'cause this is when the
negadoctor module was introduced. This module was specifically made for
processing negatives.
On Wed, 2020-08-12 at 17:30 +0200, Jean-Luc Lacroix wrote:
> Darktable 3.2.1
>
>
>
> My take only using the eyedropper tool from the negadoctor module
> in
> the dark green area of the larger tree and a slight correction on
> the dynamic range slider (0.61 db). Colors are a
> Here's the scanning rig BTW:
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/8dUqTJkvmsdm9BTY8
OMG, looks heavy. Don't break your lens mount.
darktable user mailing list
to unsubscribe send a mail to
Darktable 3.2.1
My take only using the eyedropper tool from the negadoctor module in the
dark green area of the larger tree and a slight correction on the
dynamic range slider (0.61 db). Colors are a bit oversaturated. You can
tweek this in the correction tab of that module.
Oh it's been a long time since I was on a mailing list, I have to get used
to reply to the list again. As for the scanning resolution, I have to
resort to my 6MP Nikon D50, my budget does not allow for more ATM.
Here's the scanning rig BTW: https://photos.app.goo.gl/8dUqTJkvmsdm9BTY8
M
On Wed,
> 1. Maybe its my just untrained eyes, but I fail to see the visual
> difference between the AMaZE and PPG demosaicking methods. I will do
> some reading about it.
Depends, try color smoothing and averaging option. They do make
difference for certain situation like those palm leaves with that
Hi Miklós,
Maybe these will help you with using darktable to process negatives.
This does need the latest darktable version (3.2.1), 'cause this is when the
negadoctor module was introduced. This module was specifically made for
processing negatives.
There isn't that much material available
My take on your second image:
1. JPG:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qiPsmmlaCdcNexnCa90x5gVxyswWL9M_/view?usp=sharing
2. XMP (generally there is no need to post, just load history from
JPG):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tADB3DviM8_G8oi-rMcxiZVTMZ82X0T3/view?usp=sharing
Timur.
P.S.
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 15:08, Miklós Müller wrote:
> I am trying to revie my father's 40+ year old negatives. I do the same basic
> steps what I do with my
> new films (i.e. white balance the film base on the right side, do an invert
> with picker choosing
> the now white stripe on the right,
24 matches
Mail list logo
