B&W processing and scanning help sought.

[vanman]

Tombo,
I don't think that you get camera fairs up on The Wirral but twenty to twenty five quid seems to be the giong rate for an Orbital when I visit one.
If you don't want to use trays, because of the risk of scratching, and don't mind developing in the dark I've seen some pictures of pretty interesting home made "sloshers" on the net.
Best wishes,
Vanman.

[Tom Green]

Thanks Vanman,I will keep hunting,Cheers tom,

[Patrick Dixon]

I've played around with the scanner settings, and got a bit more out of the sky, but I think the image is just a bit lacking in the blacks department and therefore lacking contrast.

I guess I just need to underexpose more.

[Joanna Carter]

I've played around with the scanner settings, and got a bit more out of the sky, but I think the image is just a bit lacking in the blacks department and therefore lacking contrast.

Not at all. Are you using Photoshop after scanning? If so, you need to add a "Levels" adjustment layer to bring the black level closer to the start of the histogram. If you are not using Photoshop, then you can do the same thing with the levels on the histogram in the Epson scanner driver.

[Dave Tolcher]

Joanna asked what PS - this can be brought up nicely in PS with a good curve. If I knew how to repost images I would show you..... it is all there but needs PS to make it zing.

[Patrick Dixon]

The scanner default seems to clip everything at the top end, but there's nothing below about level 80 (out of 255) at all.

If I push the 'white' point up, the whole image just goes dark, and if I increase contrast, I'm back into bleaching the sky.

There are a variety of controls in the software (including gamma) but I can't find any instructions as to what they do and how to use them. So it's all a bit plug and pray.

I've increased the scanning range, brought the black level up, and boosted the mid tones significantly to get the pathetic result you see before you.

I'm using gimp rather than photoshop after that, and whilst I don't really understand how its layers work, I'm OK with curves. In the main I prefer to do no more than adjust exposure and contrast slightly, as IME almost everything else makes photos look unnatural/worse.

[Joanna Carter]

Joanna asked what PS - this can be brought up nicely in PS with a good curve. If I knew how to repost images I would show you..... it is all there but needs PS to make it zing.

As you suggested, I have put Patrick's image into Photoshop and added a couple of level and curve layers and here is the result :

[Patrick Dixon]

I think I'm going to go back to shooting Kodachrome like I did for 30 years. You send it away and if it comes back crap you know it's you. Occasionally you get lucky.

There are so many variables here, I might as well be using a paintbrush

[joolsb]

OK. I had a (very) quick play with Levels and Curves. Obviously, you'd get better results by spending a bit more time on it but it's really quite a transformation in less than five minutes....

(Damn. Jo beat me to it and made a better job of it as well. Curses. )

[Joanna Carter]

I think I'm going to go back to shooting Kodachrome like I did for 30 years. You send it away and if it comes back crap you know it's you. Occasionally you get lucky.

There are so many variables here, I might as well be using a paintbrush

Patrick, Did you get my PM? Just as you cannot hope to get a great wet print from a neg without a lot of work, so you have to do some learning to find out how to get the best digital print.

Please feel free to send your neg to me and I will gladly verify whether it is the neg or simply the scan that is at fault. I can also take some screenshots of the scanning process to show you how to get the best out of the Epson software, using your picture as an example.

BTW, I just downloaded and installed the Gimp software and have to say that it appears to be the roughest, least competent software I have had the displeasure to use. IMO, you really need to invest in something a bit better if you want to turn out decent B&W images

[Patrick Dixon]

Thanks Joanna, it's a very generous offer and much appreciated.

Unfortunately, I've heard people say similar things about Photoshop and Lightroom, and I personally wouldn't go near a Mac. So, not that I have anything invested in gimp to seek to defend it, but these things are often a case of different strokes for different folks.

I'm not really that interested in spending hours in a darkroom or playing with PS/LR/Gimp. For me the fun in photography is in taking the pictures rather than re-creating a masterpiece later. I just don't want to spend a lot of time doing the modern equivalent of dodging and burning.

So I'm thinking that if I can't achieve worthwhile results by doing the equivalent of adjusting print exposure and using high or low contrast paper, maybe B&W just isn't for me.

[Joanna Carter]

Unfortunately, I've heard people say similar things about Photoshop and Lightroom, and I personally wouldn't go near a Mac. So, not that I have anything invested in gimp to seek to defend it, but these things are often a case of different strokes for different folks.

My comment was based on the fact that I couldn't even create an adjustment layer with which to apply a Levels or Curve. This is a fairly fundamental requirement and something that is available in other programs, available for Windows if you don't like Macs.

I'm not really that interested in spending hours in a darkroom or playing with PS/LR/Gimp. For me the fun in photography is in taking the pictures rather than re-creating a masterpiece later. I just don't want to spend a lot of time doing the modern equivalent of dodging and burning.

I'm not sure if you are aware that it is almost impossible to create any picture by scanning without using adjustment layers, be it B&W or colour. Sure I've had one or two pictures that have required very little work but, as any photographer worth their salt will tell you, taking the picture is only a part of the whole process.

So I'm thinking that if I can't achieve worthwhile results by doing the equivalent of adjusting print exposure and using high or low contrast paper, maybe B&W just isn't for me.

Adjustment layers, such as curves and levels, are the digital equivalent of choosing contrast and printing exposure; most scanning software like the Epson driver is only really meant to capture the image so that it can be printed; it is the equivalent of putting the neg into the carrier under the enlarger head.

Please send me your neg and I will post a tutorial showing you how you can do most of the work in the scanner driver, without having to do too much faffing in an editing program.

[Patrick Dixon]

I'll post it tomorrow.

I don't bother using layers in gimp, I just apply the curve to the image and save it as a new file. For exposure I just move the (linear) curve up or down, and for contrast I make it steeper or shallower.

I've found that most other curves adjustments, just make the image look noisier and more unnatural - but that's probably just me.

Thanks for all the help.

[Joanna Carter]

I don't bother using layers in gimp, I just apply the curve to the image and save it as a new file.

And this is where you get your noise from. Adjusting the original layer is "destructive", which means that you can't readjust what you've already done without doing more "damage". You might like to consider Paintshop Pro, it is relatively inexpensive and has a free trial version.

[vanman]

Joanna,
With a scanner that won't take a 4x5 neg would Patrick be better off making a contact print and scanning that if he needs a digital image? I've done this in the recent past and the results were pretty good as far as I could see?
Vanman