# Advice on converting B+W negatives from RAW to Digital Positives?



## Mark Roberts (Feb 5, 2018)

Operating System:W10 64bit
Exact Lightroom Version (Help menu > System Info):6.14

I am about to embark on converting many thousand B+W negatives (35mm) so before I do.. I would like some constructive advice please?

I am using a Sony A6000 24mb RAW image captured using  A E 3.5/30 Macro Lens.

I have made a rig that enables me to capture a roll of film i (36 exposures) in about 3 minutes.

My question relates to the best way of converting the image from a negative to positive and what software to use if not LR6?

I would like to make this process as quick and painless as possible and wonder if anyone can let me have their thoughts on the best way of achieving this?

Many Thanks


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 5, 2018)

(Assuming you are capturing raw files) I am not sure there is a better way to invert in bulk than doing it in LR using a reversed tone curve. Should one assume that this is the method you propose? The benefit is it's quick to invert everything in one go, but the downside is that all subsequent adjustments are inverted too. So you would brighten the image by adding a negative exposure adjustment, for example.

One reference source is Peter Krogh's book Digitize Your Photos with Your Camera and Lightroom


----------



## PhilBurton (Feb 5, 2018)

johnbeardy said:


> (Assuming you are capturing raw files) I am not sure there is a better way to invert in bulk than doing it in LR using a reversed tone curve. Should one assume that this is the method you propose? The benefit is it's quick to invert everything in one go, but the downside is that all subsequent adjustments are inverted too. So you would brighten the image by adding a negative exposure adjustment, for example.
> 
> One reference source is Peter Krogh's book Digitize Your Photos with Your Camera and Lightroom



try a search on "software to convert digital negative to positive"

Phil


----------



## Mark Roberts (Feb 6, 2018)

John Beardsworth - Thank you and Phil. I realise the advice given but when used in practice having everything reversed is sort of counter intuitive.
When one is capturing Colour Negatives it becomes even more of a pain as you have the Orange cast to deal with.

I guess my question was put out here to find out if anyone has come to a practical solution based on converting many many hundreds of images. I await with bated breath!

Mark


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 6, 2018)

Well, my practical solution has been to avoid capturing as raw files. I use a film scanner and invert in the scanner software, getting the best tif file that I can.  

If you are capturing raw files, I would suggest doing an inversion in LR and making whatever adjustments make sense, then exporting tif files which you would reimport and process in LR as positives. With LR's AutoSync enabled, you could adjust 36 or whatever at a time, but a lot depends on how much scratch clean-up is necessary and on the condition of the negs.


----------



## Mark Roberts (Feb 6, 2018)

Thanks John Beardsworth  - Using a scanner is very very time consuming. I have a rig that produces excellent results - it is only the post processing that I find a bit irritating! 
I have been on to Silverfast - I use one of their scratch removal plug ins - and I asked if they could 'separated' the conversion software from their scanner program.... needless to say I was turned down. I am sure someone out there has done it.. I just need to find that person! I think I might download the ..Peter Krogh's book Digitize Your Photos with Your Camera and Lightroom.. He seems to have his finger on the button! 
Mark


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 6, 2018)

I think he captures as raw, inverts and processes with the sliders counter-intuitively, staying raw (dng) throughout. We have talked through the idea of developing a Camera Calibration profile to deliver an inverted image which could then be processed normally, but apparently this isn't technically possible.


----------



## Mark Roberts (Feb 6, 2018)

In Photoshop there is a 'invert' function which works well. I will plod on and report back. My camera copy rig works very well. Once I have ironed out all the little wrinkles I will publish a resume on the end result. Total cost of the rig excluding the camera and lens is no more than £40 including a 600mm x 600mm LED light source at 5800 Kelvin. Thanks again..


----------



## PhilBurton (Feb 6, 2018)

johnbeardy said:


> I think he captures as raw, inverts and processes with the sliders counter-intuitively, staying raw (dng) throughout. We have talked through the idea of developing a Camera Calibration profile to deliver an inverted image which could then be processed normally, but apparently this isn't technically possible.



John,

I'm curious. What search terms would return that thread or threads?

Phil


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 6, 2018)

None, Phil, we Skyped! 

John


----------



## Mark Roberts (Feb 6, 2018)

Quick question... I have found this piece of software.. Has anybody come across this before? It is a Kodak original!

Kodak Professional - Photoshop Plugins & More!

I have a request into them at present but the S/W seems pretty dated.

Also will GIMP work?

For the record I can copy in ARW (RAW) or Jpeg. Just want the cleanest workflow. There has to be a solution out there. Being retired makes it possible to waste an awful lot of time achieving - so far - very little. Any advice very happy to process.

Mark


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Feb 6, 2018)

Mark Roberts said:


> Quick question... I have found this piece of software.. Has anybody come across this before? It is a Kodak original!
> 
> Kodak Professional - Photoshop Plugins & More!
> 
> I have a request into them at present but the S/W seems pretty dated.



It's extremely dated. Photoshop support now up to CS3!


----------



## Mark Roberts (Feb 6, 2018)

The response from Kodak (!) says... 'We no longer produce scanners, why dont you use Photoshop Invert function.. ALSO.. the quality from the method you propose will produce inferior results!! 

I will continue to find out if there is anybody out there......


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Feb 6, 2018)

I doubt these plugins will still work at all. No doubt they are 32 bits.


----------



## Peter Krogh (Feb 6, 2018)

Mark, while running in Lightroom in "reverse" takes a little getting used to, it's actually pretty easy once you get going. Plenty of videos in the book that show you exact methods, as well as downloadable curve presets that make great starting points.

Here are some samples of Lightroom conversions from negative. Krogh Family Archive

Note that there are some significant advantages to raw conversion. The primary ones are that file size stays low, and that you can do a quick proof conversion and go back to refine at any point in the future. 

There are some older videos here:
Camera Scanning | dpBestflow 
But the work done to formalize the process in the new book will save you a ton of time and increase the quality of the results.


----------



## Mark Roberts (Feb 8, 2018)

Hi Peter Krogh
Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I will be downloading the e-book today and then I will start the reading and playing before diving into the scanning.

A couple of questions... In your video you mention using Silverfast VLT.. This is just what I was looking for but the cost is pretty steep if that's all you want to do with their software. Are there any other comparables to Silverfast with VLT functionality.?

I enjoyed your presntation on your camera  rigs for copying negatives...  Wish I had seen it before I designed and built my outfit. However maybe my 'approach' has some merit - we will see once I get the workflow sorted.

Also thanks to everyone who has been so helpful on the forum. Much appreciated.


----------



## Peter Krogh (Feb 8, 2018)

Mark, 
The first step is definitely to give it a whirl using the techniques I show and a full Lightroom workflow. Read the B&W negatives chapter and look at the videos and you'll see. 
If you really can't get what you want in Lightroom, I'd first try taking the Lightroom conversion into Photoshop as a positive and try "finishing" it there. But I think you'll be able to get great conversions in Lightroom.

The other software you could try are really best left for color negatives, which are harder to convert. If you run into this problem, try ColorPerfect first, then VueScan, then SilverFast. 
Peter


----------



## Mark Roberts (Feb 9, 2018)

Thanks Peter. I have downloaded ColorPerfect and will give it a whirl. I anticipate that the 3,000 colour (color!) negatives will be more of a challenge..
Is there any particular reason why you have put the software in the order you did. ColorPerfect is a bit of a departure from the LR norm..If I have to invest in software then it must be a one time thing..  I cant justify buying all three. She would kill me! I like the ability to 'add' or subtract colours using an array of 9 images all slightly different. Rather like going to the optician when they ask you 'which suits your eyes better - left or right ..?


----------



## Peter Krogh (Feb 9, 2018)

Mark Roberts said:


> Is there any particular reason why you have put the software in the order you did. ColorPerfect is a bit of a departure from the LR norm..If I have to invest in software then it must be a one time thing..  I cant justify buying all three. She would kill me!



Mark,
As I suggested, I'd first give it a try in Lightroom. Make a bunch of scans so that you have a number of film types to experiment with. Do your best in Lightroom. If you are still not satisfied, THEN I would look at the other software. And I would try first with Photoshop, since you already have that.

This does a couple things - it gives you a benchmark to compare against, it allows you to try a bunch of film types (including the effects of film aging), and it allows you to make the best use of the trial period. 

Note that you will probably find some film that is really hard to convert with *any* of these packages (weird film color, bad light, color fading in film). You won't really know which one works best until you have a broad sample to test with.

As to the order, its a combination of my ultimate disappointment with SilverFast, and the high recommendation of ColorPerfect, which I have not put through its paces.
Peter


----------



## Mark Roberts (Feb 9, 2018)

This is very sound and welcome advice. My attempts with LR has as you so correctly predicted resulted in some 'unacceptable' results. But once again as you said - it could well be a 'difficult' sample.

I will now retire to the 'lightroom' and start doing some trials. Again - Many thanks for all your help and having now downloaded you e-pub which I find comprehensive and very very clear. Money well spent.

Mark


----------



## PhilBurton (Feb 10, 2018)

Peter Krogh said:


> Mark,
> As I suggested, I'd first give it a try in Lightroom. Make a bunch of scans so that you have a number of film types to experiment with. Do your best in Lightroom. If you are still not satisfied, THEN I would look at the other software. And I would try first with Photoshop, since you already have that.
> 
> This does a couple things - it gives you a benchmark to compare against, it allows you to try a bunch of film types (including the effects of film aging), and it allows you to make the best use of the trial period.
> ...


Peter,

I hope I'm not being off-topic here.  Can you be more specific about your disappointment with SilverFast.

Thanks,

Phil


----------



## Peter Krogh (Feb 10, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> Peter,
> 
> I hope I'm not being off-topic here.  Can you be more specific about your disappointment with SilverFast.
> 
> Phil



Phil,
Not off-topic at all. Disappointments include:

Poor documentation
Very complicated interface
Stripping of all embedded metadata in DNG file
Not honoring embedded instructions they should understand, like rotation and cropping
Poor batch processing tools for camera scans
Quality improvement was simply not worth the hassle of the above items, for me.
All of the above items make a pretty poor workflow for a large collection of scans, but might be okay for a handful of scans that need best possible optimization. However, once that becomes the criteria, your benchmark becomes "can it beat Photoshop?", since LR users will usually also have that. 

Peter


----------



## PhilBurton (Feb 10, 2018)

Peter Krogh said:


> Phil,
> Not off-topic at all. Disappointments include:
> 
> Poor documentation
> ...


Peter,

Thanks for the reply.  I'm very, very late to the party on scanning.  So far, I've limped along wiht Nikon Scan (running with a 64-bit hack) but I'm trying to decide between Silverfast and VueScan for doing scans of 20K+ Kodachromes, 3-4 thousand B&W negatives, and some color negs.  Do you comments still apply in this situation?

Phil


----------



## Peter Krogh (Feb 10, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> Peter,
> 
> Thanks for the reply.  I'm very, very late to the party on scanning.  So far, I've limped along wiht Nikon Scan (running with a 64-bit hack) but I'm trying to decide between Silverfast and VueScan for doing scans of 20K+ Kodachromes, 3-4 thousand B&W negatives, and some color negs.  Do you comments still apply in this situation?
> 
> Phil


Phil,
Personally, I don't think you are late, from a technology standpoint. The use of a camera to scan has really come into its own in the last several years with high-resolution sensors. And a full raw workflow with Lightroom is an amazing environment for the collection (including the use of face tags, which I have only found useful for scans and not for digital originals.)

I strongly recommend that you take a look at my new book, Digitizing Your Photos. I would use a camera and Lightroom instead of either of those pieces of software. I do not believe that either of these software packages will do better than a camera + Lightroom. You can get a 10x-100x increase in speed by using a camera, excellent quality and significant file size savings.

Digitize Your Photos with Your Camera and Lightroom


----------



## PhilBurton (Feb 10, 2018)

Peter Krogh said:


> Phil,
> Personally, I don't think you are late, from a technology standpoint. The use of a camera to scan has really come into its own in the last several years with high-resolution sensors. And a full raw workflow with Lightroom is an amazing environment for the collection (including the use of face tags, which I have only found useful for scans and not for digital originals.)
> 
> I strongly recommend that you take a look at my new book, Digitizing Your Photos. I would use a camera and Lightroom instead of either of those pieces of software. I do not believe that either of these software packages will do better than a camera + Lightroom. You can get a 10x-100x increase in speed by using a camera, excellent quality and significant file size savings.
> ...


Peter,

The reason I have been using Nikon Scan is that I bought a Nikon 5000 ED scanner + batch feeder right at the end.  That batch feeder can do 50 slides at a time.  In practice, I have been setting up the scanner for an overnight scan job, and that works.  Much, much faster than feeding slides one-at-a-time into a scanner or into a camera-scanner rig.


----------



## Peter Krogh (Feb 10, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> Peter,
> 
> The reason I have been using Nikon Scan is that I bought a Nikon 5000 ED scanner + batch feeder right at the end.  That batch feeder can do 50 slides at a time.  In practice, I have been setting up the scanner for an overnight scan job, and that works.  Much, much faster than feeding slides one-at-a-time into a scanner or into a camera-scanner rig.



That scanner is one of the few that can handle batches in headless operation, so yes, that's a reasonable. 

I will point out, that we have gotten throughput of more than 1000 scans a day using a camera. 20k kodachromes at 50/day is 400 days, if you run it every night.

Of course, if you are measuring end-to-end, you'd have to factor in the time to set it up, and you already have the other one running.

Peter


----------



## jnstovall (May 31, 2018)

Mark Roberts said:


> Operating System:W10 64bit
> Exact Lightroom Version (Help menu > System Info):6.14
> 
> I am about to embark on converting many thousand B+W negatives (35mm) so before I do.. I would like some constructive advice please?
> ...


Mark,
This may be a little but late for you, but I've been using Profiles to apply an inversion/color correction LUT that I create in Photoshop. I see major benefits over the tone curve preset method, primarily that the initial color correction is done in Photoshop where I can achieve much more accurate colors using an automated action. It is similar to Peter Krogh's presets, but easier to create the initial correction and (I think) easier to get satisfactory results. I never had much success getting good results with the RGB channels in Lightroom because it is a tedious manual process and the tone curve window is so small that it is difficult to fine-tune the adjustments. Incidentally, I'm using the same camera and lens as you for digitizing-I just got started with the lens and it is fantastic!
One Click Inversion of Color Film Negatives in Lightroom


----------

