# Proposed Methodology for Processing Copied Negatives



## Mrdavie (Oct 30, 2019)

This negative copying project is at its beginning. It would be nice to get off to a solid start with regard to cataloging and processing copied negatives because it is so easy for the Lightroom catalog to get out of hand and detract from the goal of creating new photo artistry from old negatives. This methodology will be different from the one utilized for original digital images taken with the camera. That method consists of importing the raw files and converting immediately to DNG, and then processing the DNG files. The original raw files get backed-up by the import check box to" make a second copy." The proposed methodology for copying negatives is thus:

1. Import images into Lightroom without copying to DNG. 
2. Apply a preset that simply reverses the tone curve.
3. Export the image to TIFF  with the option checked to add that image to the LR catalog.
4. Proceed with processing the TIFF image. The reasoning for not processing the raw file, is that after reversing the tone curve, some of the development sliders work in reverse. That does not happen with the TIFF file. Do you like this plan or have any other suggestions?


----------



## clee01l (Oct 30, 2019)

Mrdavie said:


> This negative copying project is at its beginning. It would be nice to get off to a solid start with regard to cataloging and processing copied negatives because it is so easy for the Lightroom catalog to get out of hand and detract from the goal of creating new photo artistry from old negatives. This methodology will be different from the one utilized for original digital images taken with the camera. That method consists of importing the raw files and converting immediately to DNG, and then processing the DNG files. The original raw files get backed-up by the import check box to" make a second copy." The proposed methodology for copying negatives is thus:
> 
> 1. Import images into Lightroom without copying to DNG.
> 2. Apply a preset that simply reverses the tone curve.
> ...



There is no reason to convert to DNG. Lightroom will handle the proprietary RAW format just fine. I am a proponent of the KISS principle. Once you import into LR the original RAW data has been converted to RGB pixels and only then can you apply the reverse tone curve. Follow that reverse tone preset with any other Lightroom processing that you require. Exporting to TIFF a finished image is optional always 
The end result is an original image captured digitally by camera and imported into Lightroom, LR processing instructions stored in the LR catalog file and a derivative finished TIFF created only when there is a destination media that requires a file. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Califdan (Oct 30, 2019)

I assume you are scanning the old film negatives.  You may want to see if the software (drivers) that came with your scanner has a setting for scanning negatives.  If so this will automatically reverse the colors and remove the film masking.  Some scanners even let you specify the type of film and will correct for the specifics of that film type.   

I also don't see what file type you are starting with out of the scanner.  Many scanners will let you create Tiff files directly.  If the scanner is producing JPG's, then you are not gaining any added quality or getting more information by converting them to DNG or Tiff afterwards - just larger file sizes.    In this case, the scanner saved the image as a Jpg which lost some data due to lossy compression.  When you import that image into LR, and it decompresses it (filling in the missing info) that is really your starting point.  Then saving it as a Tiff or DNG won't information that wasn't already in the Jpg.   With "pixel pusher" type programs such as Photoshop, keeping it as a Jpg is problematic as each time you do some edits and re-save the jpg (i.e. version 2, version 3, etc.)  you loose more and more information due to Jpg's  lossy compression and the image degrades - many times noticeably.  However with LR's non destructive editing you don't have that problem as it is not re-saving the image again each time you get done with an editing session.  It is just saving a list of things you did to the image, always referring back to the originally imported version of the image.    

So, my bottom line is this.

1) having the scanner convert the colors from negative to positive is better than inverting the curves in LR or PS

2)  having the scanner produce Tif or PSD or DNG at scan time is preferrable to having it produce a Jpg

3)  No matter what it produces, I don't see any compelling reason to convert it to something else along the way.  If it was scanned as a Tiff or DNG or PSD you already have the max quality (depending on scanner settings).  If it was scanned as a Jpg, and you are using a non destructive editor such as LR there is no benefit to up-grading it to a larger file format as it will still have the same (jpg) quality, but will just consume way more file space to store it.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Oct 30, 2019)

I have been doing this off and on for some time and find there's no great solution here, but I will make some observations for consolidation.

Some negatives actually can be handled well in Lightroom.  If the negative was in good shape, not faded, and you get a good image of it, I find I can invert the tone curve and fiddle with the various sliders to get a good result.  There's also a plugin that helps make that happen easier (though it does not solve the slider reversal).   It's called "Negative Lab Pro"  and is here.    Note I've only done the trial and a few negatives and when I saw the sliders still reversed I did not go further, but ... it did do a fast job of getting the initial inversion tweaked to a decent result.

The advantage of staying in lightroom is that it saves a ton of space.  That may not be an issue depending on number of negatives and disk of course.

If you are going to export to TIF to do the actual work, my suggestion is not to deal with either raw  or DNG at all.  Once you go to TIF you will do all your editing there anyway, so it seems unlikely you will go back to the raw, right?   Why bother with raw/dng.  Now I say that partly as I also plan to file all the negatives so I can quickly get back to them if really needed, so in the unusual circumstance I need the raw again vs the TIF, I could just shoot it again.  So far have not.

And I would invert in Photoshop.  I find that if I invert there, I can tweak the R, G, and B channels in curves quickly to isolate the data, and end up with a better starting point for further editing.

Now while I am on that subject... I've also tried the inversion and editing in other tools, silverfast and vuescan in particular, as well as photoshop.  Also some others which I forget at the moment.  What I have learned is that there is no best answer -- I've got negatives that work great in lightroom itself, but awful in vuescan, and vice versa.  Same with the little I did on a silverfast trial (admittedly several years ago).   Unless your negatives are pristine, you will find many that are challenges regardless of the tool, and you might want to keep more than one handy.  But the most flexible is photoshop, I think.  Not the best really, but I can do a decent job on all negatives with it, even if for some other tools are better.

Finally I find that a workflow is best that first does a roll (or whatever increment you plan to file), to a staging folder in lightroom.  I review and code metadata, invert, etc. and once I think I have all of an event I put in the permanent folder.  If I don't know -- need more ID, need to ask a relative (e.g. I know it's Chris's birthday party and he was 7 but I don't remember the date I can ask his parents), etc.  I ended up with a LOT that lived in the staging area quite a while, some I ended up deciding I have no clue, maybe a stranger grabbed my camera and shot some random people, and I just delete them.  

But having a workable flow so you don't get stymied in coding and filing helps you keep going with digitizing.

Good luck.  It's time consuming and often frustrating.  Slides, by comparison, took me a week for a HUGE pile, but negatives are taking forever.

PS. I just saw the note above mine and I interpreted your "raw" to mean you were photographing the negatives with a camera.  If you are going from a scanner, than I'd use some scanner software like silverfast or vuescan, and go straight to TIF.


----------



## Mrdavie (Nov 1, 2019)

Ferguson said:


> I have been doing this off and on for some time and find there's no great solution here, but I will make some observations for consolidation.
> 
> Some negatives actually can be handled well in Lightroom.  If the negative was in good shape, not faded, and you get a good image of it, I find I can invert the tone curve and fiddle with the various sliders to get a good result.  There's also a plugin that helps make that happen easier (though it does not solve the slider reversal).   It's called "Negative Lab Pro"  and is here.    Note I've only done the trial and a few negatives and when I saw the sliders still reversed I did not go further, but ... it did do a fast job of getting the initial inversion tweaked to a decent result.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the detailed response. I only want to work in tiff to avoid having to use the adjustment sliders in reverse. I think there is enough information saved to allow plenty of latitude for adjustments (versus working with the raw file and living with the reality that adjustment effects will be reversed). I already have some good results. As you wrote, it’s time consumin, but that’s the price for being an artist, right?


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Nov 1, 2019)

While I commented on saving only TIF's, there is also the possibility that Adobe one day may fix Lightroom to allow tone curve inversion earlier in the process.  They have talked about it at times, but I have heard zero commitment to it.

The current issue is that the tone curve inversion is done late in the development process, whereas many slider calculations are done more early.  If they provided a mechanism to invert the tone curve earlier in the ACR process, then all the sliders would work as normal.  Unfortunately inverting it in DCP profiles does not solve this (wasted half a day proving that to myself also), and am told that lut profiles have the same issue.

So a real fix could happen, and might make sense to keep the raw image.  Though I'm not holding my breath.

On a distantly related note... when you shoot the negative, are you trying to use any special light source to help correct for the negative color cast, e.g. to get a head start on the color correction?  I've experimented and now am using fluorescent gel on a flash, which helps very slightly, but wondering if anyone has  worked out something better?


----------



## PhilBurton (Nov 1, 2019)

As a comment, note that if you are copying negatives with a scanner, you may not be able to get a RAW file output, and in any case, it would be RAW in name only.  Thus the need is still there for a TIFF-based workflow for negatives.

Phil Burton


----------



## Mrdavie (Nov 1, 2019)

Ferguson said:


> While I commented on saving only TIF's, there is also the possibility that Adobe one day may fix Lightroom to allow tone curve inversion earlier in the process.  They have talked about it at times, but I have heard zero commitment to it.
> 
> The current issue is that the tone curve inversion is done late in the development process, whereas many slider calculations are done more early.  If they provided a mechanism to invert the tone curve earlier in the ACR process, then all the sliders would work as normal.  Unfortunately inverting it in DCP profiles does not solve this (wasted half a day proving that to myself also), and am told that lut profiles have the same issue.
> 
> ...


It would be great if Adobe would allow the tone curve to be reversed on a raw file while the remaining sliders affect the image in the normal way (eg. sliding highlights to the left to reduce, etc.). I am copying the negatives with a camera. Lumix GX9 with legacy Nikkor 55mm/f3.5 macro lens adapted to it. For light, I am utilizing an affordable LED portable lightbox, which puts out a very white light. I do not understand color cast, but working the sliders went a long way in yielding a good result. I found the new Texture slider in the Basic panel to yield maximum detail/grain from the image. I probably over adjusted that slider but compensated with adjustments in the Detail panel.


----------



## Roelof Moorlag (Nov 1, 2019)

Peter Krogh wrote a book about this matter and his advice is to add Silverfast to the (camera)scanning proces. It has built-in color correction for negative film that can be applied to TIFF files. 
A side benefit is that the face tagging tool in LR does not work on negative images. If converted to positive  it does. 
I can reconmend the book, Peter gives a lot of tips and best practices. Some are free available at: Color Negatives - The DAM Book


----------



## Mrdavie (Nov 1, 2019)

Thank you or this information. I have thoroughly studied Krogh's DAM Book Guide to Organizing Your Photos in Lightroom 5. However, I am not a fan of face tagging in LR as it drains cpu power. Most of the faces in my photos are family and I utilize keywords to search for them.


----------



## Califdan (Nov 1, 2019)

Okay, out on a very weak limb here so take with grain of salt.  

As I recall the "profiles" feature (enhanced in LR 7.3) of LR Classic, applies changes to images which for all intents and purposes precede what you do inside of LR in the Develop module.  In other words, changes made with such profiles become the starting point as is evidenced by all sliders (except WB & Tint)  still being in their zero position.  I suspect that if there was an "artistic profile" that inverted the colors that all the sliders would work properly.  In fact, I suspect that one could even have artistic profiles for different negative films.   Maybe such profiles are being marketed.  

Again, just speculation here.


----------



## johnbeardy (Nov 2, 2019)

Reading your thoughts, Dan, I just created such a profile based on a Photoshop Invert adjustment layer. While it reversed negatives inside LR, it doesn't solve the slider problem - they still work the wrong way round. It looks to me like the profile doesn't precede other adjustments.


----------



## Mrdavie (Nov 2, 2019)

johnbeardy said:


> Reading your thoughts, Dan, I just created such a profile based on a Photoshop Invert adjustment layer. While it reversed negatives inside LR, it doesn't solve the slider problem - they still work the wrong way round. It looks to me like the profile doesn't precede other adjustments.


...which is the reason I create a raster image after applying the tone reversal preset. Just to reiterate, converting to raster "bakes-in" the tone reversal. Based on the raw file created by my 20.3 megapixel camera, the size of the resulting TIFF is 118,000 KB, which contains sufficient information to process a good image from copied negatives.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Nov 2, 2019)

Califdan said:


> In fact, I suspect that one could even have artistic profiles for different negative films.   Maybe such profiles are being marketed.


No, I "talked" to an adobe developer once, and they understood completely what was needed, and confirmed it requires a change in their processes, it's not something you can cheat on.

Except... I've often wondered, could one invert the raw image itself inside the raw file?  Before de-mosaicing?  Is there math that you can apply to the values there, which when converted, is inverted? 

It's really easy to read a raw file and do math on the bits.  What's hard (for me) is having a clue what the math is.

Note one serious advantage of staying in raw (vs TIF) is that the conversion to TIF bakes in the white balance. Which is almost always wrong due to color cast in the negative media until you do a lot of tweaking.  Applying all the adjustments to raw gives you a bit more latitude.  Now 16 bit TIF's mean you still have a lot of latitude but it's still not quite the same.

Anyone understand the math between de-mosaicing, and know how one might modify the raw file to invert it?


----------



## Mrdavie (Nov 2, 2019)

Ferguson said:


> No, I "talked" to an adobe developer once, and they understood completely what was needed, and confirmed it requires a change in their processes, it's not something you can cheat on.
> 
> Except... I've often wondered, could one invert the raw image itself inside the raw file?  Before de-mosaicing?  Is there math that you can apply to the values there, which when converted, is inverted?
> 
> ...


Why would the white balance be baked in? The Temp and Tint sliders still work.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Nov 2, 2019)

Mrdavie said:


> Why would the white balance be baked in? The Temp and Tint sliders still work.


I'm talking about on TIF (or JPG) conversion.  I don't know enough to answer technically, but raw files have no color, and as you convert them you calculate a white balance and how it affects the relative colors of things.  So a red and a green thing get different shades applied depending on color temperature and tint. 

Once converted to those shades the relative colors is baked in, and when you adjust as a TIF it tries to, in a sense, undo that math and re-apply it, but my lose understanding is there is not enough information present to do so as precisely as it can when starting in raw.

Hopefully someone with better raw-conversion math skills can comment.


----------



## clee01l (Nov 2, 2019)

Ferguson said:


> >>>
> It's really easy to read a raw file and do math on the bits. What's hard (for me) is having a clue what the math is.


I would think the simply multiplying the value captured at each photo site by -1 would invert the value allowing a positive image to be demosaic’d and converted to RGB. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Nov 2, 2019)

clee01l said:


> I would think the simply multiplying the value captured at each photo site by -1 would invert the value allowing a positive image to be demosaic’d and converted to RGB.


Well, maybe I'll get ambitious and try some experiments with different formulae, but it won't be -1, since the values are 0..2^14 or 0..2^12 I think.  What is much less obvious is how scaling works, since a gamma curve is usually applied as well during the process and whether you have to allow for that in some fashion (e.g. change scaling of light and dark) I have no idea.  But might be fun to experiment with.   When I get some time I'll search because there's a ton of open source raw processing routines out there, so there may be something already made.


----------



## Mrdavie (Nov 4, 2019)

How do you know when you’ve got 1:1 magnification with a macro lens?


----------



## clee01l (Nov 4, 2019)

Mrdavie said:


> How do you know when you’ve got 1:1 magnification with a macro lens?



I’m not sure this belongs in this thread about copying negatives but I will answer anyway. 
1:1 magnification means that the object at the surface is exactly the same size on the camera sensor. Assuming a full size sensor of 24X36mm an object that exactly fits inside a 24X36mm rectangle would completely fill the sensor. If your macro lens is 105 mm (Canon/Nikon) then the minimum focus distance is ~300mm. At that minimum focus distance, the sensor records a 1:1 image. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Mrdavie (Nov 5, 2019)

clee01l said:


> I’m not sure this belongs in this thread about copying negatives but I will answer anyway.
> 1:1 magnification means that the object at the surface is exactly the same size on the camera sensor. Assuming a full size sensor of 24X36mm an object that exactly fits inside a 24X36mm rectangle would completely fill the sensor. If your macro lens is 105 mm (Canon/Nikon) then the minimum focus distance is ~300mm. At that minimum focus distance, the sensor records a 1:1 image.
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks! That’s the answer I needed. I’m using micro four thirds so 1:1 not possible. Question was very relevant to copying negatives, however.


----------



## ccardona7-me (Nov 5, 2019)

Is no one here using Negative Lab Pro? Having started shooting film again (medium format) a month ago, I  downloaded and started using it, and it works better (and SO much faster) than the Lightroom or Photoshop workflows I've read about online. $99.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Nov 6, 2019)

Mrdavie said:


> Thanks! That’s the answer I needed. I’m using micro four thirds so 1:1 not possible. Question was very relevant to copying negatives, however.


There's nothing inherent in copying negatives that requires 1:1.  Film negatives resolution (or maybe acquity is a better term) varies widely depending on the quality of the lenses you had at the time, as well as accuracy of focus and steadiness.  I know when copying mine I have nothing like the sharpness i get today even on a moderate resolution body.  If you are using quality macro lens and sensor today, unless you were a really good photographer with great lenses back in the day, there's no reason a 4/3 can't capture enough detail to exceed what is actually there in the negative.  Obviously your mileage may vary, but if in doing some pixel peeping you see film grain large relative to your pixel size you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## clee01l (Nov 6, 2019)

I like Linwood's use of the term Acuity.    When converting film to digital you are converting grain to pixels Pixels are uniform and a regular grid.  Grain is random in both size and position.   When developing a film negative to print, you focus the enlarger on the grain.   If you do that, then the printed image is as sharp as the focus if the camera when the image was captured.    I think the same holds true when converting old negatives or slides to digital.  If you are using the camera, then you probably have one of the film attachments that fits on the front of the lens.  Ideally, you want a true 1:1 Macro Lens that has a minimum focus distance at or in front of the position of the image.  Then you can focus on the grain rather than the general image.   All of my film to digital efforts have used this approach.  (I will also add that I have not been entirely satisfied with my work in this regard.   However, I do have the equipment including the Macro Lens and this is the approach I've used .

Some important considerations are DoF and shutter speed.  You want a large DoF such that the minimum in focus distance is in front of the film and the maximum in focus distance is behind it.   With slow shutter speeds, mirror flop (on SLRs) can cause enough vibration to blur the result.   I have not tried this with a Mirrorless camera  yet So, I can't say if shutter curtain movement causes enough vibration to affect the image "acuity".


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Nov 6, 2019)

clee01l said:


> Some important considerations are DoF and shutter speed.  You want a large DoF such that the minimum in focus distance is in front of the film and the maximum in focus distance is behind it.   With slow shutter speeds, mirror flop (on SLRs) can cause enough vibration to blur the result.


Or use a flash (I actually use two so the batteries collectively last longer).  I have a drop light I use for focus and on each side of it a flash with diffuser pointed at the screen in the slide copier I use for negatives.  The flashes are several stops brighter than the focus light so they are (effectively) the only light (and thus color) in the exposure and eliminate any vibration. 

One challenge I have had is that a glassless carrier (which seems preferable) lets old negatives curl a bit, and you need a really deep depth of field (ok "deep" as in 2-3mm but that's deep at this distance). So you need to be up at F11 or so, but need to not get up into the area where diffraction softens the result.

I originally did my copies with a D800, but switched later to the D5 as I found all those D800 pixels were really wasted on my negatives, dropping to half the resolution was just fine.  Again, your mileage may vary with pristine negatives and great film lenses.

I am curious though if others have used glass carriers to keep the negatives flat.  I worry that even if I get the curve in focus, the curve itself is adding distortion.  One reason it is so bad on mine is I have not found a carrier which has cross pieces at the border of each frame, at least not any I can fit into the slide copier.  I spent a lot of time trying to find something more useful without success (even this one is modified with a bandsaw slicing some off).   

I think finding a good holder for photographing the negatives is a real key to success, one I have yet to really achieve.


----------



## Mrdavie (Oct 30, 2019)

This negative copying project is at its beginning. It would be nice to get off to a solid start with regard to cataloging and processing copied negatives because it is so easy for the Lightroom catalog to get out of hand and detract from the goal of creating new photo artistry from old negatives. This methodology will be different from the one utilized for original digital images taken with the camera. That method consists of importing the raw files and converting immediately to DNG, and then processing the DNG files. The original raw files get backed-up by the import check box to" make a second copy." The proposed methodology for copying negatives is thus:

1. Import images into Lightroom without copying to DNG. 
2. Apply a preset that simply reverses the tone curve.
3. Export the image to TIFF  with the option checked to add that image to the LR catalog.
4. Proceed with processing the TIFF image. The reasoning for not processing the raw file, is that after reversing the tone curve, some of the development sliders work in reverse. That does not happen with the TIFF file. Do you like this plan or have any other suggestions?


----------



## Mrdavie (Nov 6, 2019)

clee01l said:


> I like Linwood's use of the term Acuity.    When converting film to digital you are converting grain to pixels Pixels are uniform and a regular grid.  Grain is random in both size and position.   When developing a film negative to print, you focus the enlarger on the grain.   If you do that, then the printed image is as sharp as the focus if the camera when the image was captured.    I think the same holds true when converting old negatives or slides to digital.  If you are using the camera, then you probably have one of the film attachments that fits on the front of the lens.  Ideally, you want a true 1:1 Macro Lens that has a minimum focus distance at or in front of the position of the image.  Then you can focus on the grain rather than the general image.   All of my film to digital efforts have used this approach.  (I will also add that I have not been entirely satisfied with my work in this regard.   However, I do have the equipment including the Macro Lens and this is the approach I've used .
> 
> Some important considerations are DoF and shutter speed.  You want a large DoF such that the minimum in focus distance is in front of the film and the maximum in focus distance is behind it.   With slow shutter speeds, mirror flop (on SLRs) can cause enough vibration to blur the result.   I have not tried this with a Mirrorless camera  yet So, I can't say if shutter curtain movement causes enough vibration to affect the image "acuity".


Right now I’m struggling a little at the early stages of this project. The camera is attached to a copy stand and negatives placed in holder on LED light tablet. Used Nikkor 55mm macro lens with adaptor for MFT mount. Hard to focus because lens mechanism not real smooth. Also, there seems to be a lot of latitude for exposure with this setup. I did not want to drop $300 for a new auto focus lens. I’m still experimenting with histogram exposure support and understanding ideal utilization of Lumix GX9 camera with “dumb” lens attached. There is a lag for the camera to catch up with focus adjustments.


----------



## Umberto Cocca (Nov 6, 2019)

Ferguson said:


> Well, maybe I'll get ambitious and try some experiments with different formulae, but it won't be -1, since the values are 0..2^14 or 0..2^12 I think. What is much less obvious is how scaling works, since a gamma curve is usually applied as well during the process and whether you have to allow for that in some fashion (e.g. change scaling of light and dark) I have no idea. But might be fun to experiment with. When I get some time I'll search because there's a ton of open source raw processing routines out there, so there may be something already made.


I the correct operation is not subtracting one but getting the complimentary bits. Example for a 8 bit photosite that can be either of RGB:
1111 1111 is max luminosity for the photosite
0000 0000 is minimum (negative)
Therefore if a photosite has a value of
1011 1010 in negative becomes
0100 0101

Then of course comes the antialiasing. 

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Nov 6, 2019)

I got some interesting responses over in another forum that's aimed at my scientific aspects of photography, if you want to read it here.  I decided to give up.


----------

