# Processing a scanned "negative" in LR



## Jimmsp (May 8, 2012)

I have just begun to "scan" many of my old slides and negatives into digital format.
Instead of a commercial scanner, I have made my own lightbox, and am using my Canon 60D with extension tubes to shoot the slides and negatives.
The resultant raw shot now has plenty of resolution and the whole setup is pretty straightforward to use.
So far, it has been straightforward, if not easy, to process my slides using LR4 rc2.

I have just started on negatives (1 so far). I discovered that you can flip the tone curve around, so that the negative looks like a positive. It is now a saved preset.
It seems to be the Photoshop equivalent to invert.
All of the tone sliders are now reversed, but if I simply look at the screen as I move the sliders, all seems well.
I don't understand why my white balance temps are so different between the slides and negatives, though I have only shot one negative so far.

The purpose of this post is to look for advice from anyone who has processed negatives before with Lightroom (or even PS or PSE). 
Do you have any advice on the initial capture?
What should I be careful of during the process?
Any tricks that would help me?

Thanks in advance.

Jim


----------



## kbfoot (May 9, 2012)

There were some very nice negative tone presets available for LR3, but they no longer work correctly on LR4.  In LR4 I have done as you have by creating a reverse slope curve.  After several hours of playing with DSLR-copied color negs--both in LR3 and LR4--It has been my experience that color negs are sometimes extremely difficult to reverse and have look "normal".  Some convert well, and some never seem to.  It may have to do with the orange mask being slightly different on different film stocks.  Kodachromes and monochrome negs are no problem.


----------



## rNeil (May 9, 2012)

The problem with color negs is that orange film base. Using a camera-copy setup for slides and for bw negs works great, and Peter Krogh (author of "The DAM Book" on digital assets management) is a proponent of what you're doing as the easiest good way to get slides and bw negs digitized. However, as getting around that orange filmbase mask of color negs is near impossible, he only suggests using this method with color negs as a quickie way to get a 'record' of your color negs into the system, then go back through and choose which ones you wanna mess with the time/effort to scan.

You really need to scan 'em with a decent film scanner to get a good digital image of a color negative ...

Neil


----------



## JimHess43 (May 9, 2012)

My advice is something that you aren't going to want to read.  I was given the assignment last year of scanning 40 years of departmental photographs, slides, negatives, color and black and white.  I considered going to the camera route like you are doing.  I have a nephew who is head of the digital photography department at Utah Valley University and I asked him what I should do.  Without hesitation he told me to get a good scanner because it would be a lot more efficient and a lot quicker.

I did the work on an Epson V700 and then used Lightroom to touch up the images.  I had a preset that I applied when I imported into Lightroom, then I just had to go through the images and correct the ones that were not quite the line with the rest of them.  It took me about nine months to do the project.

I have a Canon 9000 at home.  The image quality is nearly as good as the more expensive Epson.  The software that came with both scanners handles negatives very well.  That orange mask makes it difficult to work with images the way you are trying to do it.

Now that I've said this, someone will probably say that I don't know what I'm talking about.  I probably don't.  But after scanning 13,000 images last year, I'm glad I did it the way I did.


----------



## Jimmsp (May 10, 2012)

Thanks to all for the comments so far.

I am delaying shooting the negatives for a few weeks - I still have quite a few slides to do, and they are easy.

I don't intend to scan thousands - at least not yet. I am scanning 400-500 slides, and a lot fewer negatives.
I will probably process the negatives as I go along, perhaps in groups of 10-20, so that I can see if I am wasting my time or not on specific shoots and film types.

I suppose that for the negatives I really want, and can't do myself, I'll have to pay to have them scanned.

Later, I'll tackle the prints I have, most of which don't have negatives.

Jim


----------



## rNeil (May 11, 2012)

"Camera" ingestion, as noted by many others, can be quite efficient in bringing slides and bw negs into digital form in a completely usable way, even for large volumes. But for color negs, yes, as you've commented ... do it only to figure out which ones are worth really scanning. 

Neil


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 12, 2012)

The other thing you could try - the DNG profile editor to create a custom profile.


----------



## Effeegee (May 14, 2012)

I am embarking on a similar slide digitsation project but have not found a suitable light source.  For speed I started using an auto change slide projector with a diffuser and no projector lens but the project bulb still had horrible high spots and fall off as well as significant issues w.r.t alignment.  A simple viewer with an autochange mechanism is more promising although an entirely satsifactory light source for colour temperature, low heat and without spikes in the spectrum. A mirror with Northern light is currently the most promising.      

A suggestion - if you practical - for colour negatives you might try a light source for which you can tune the RGB components such as an enlarger head and negative carrier.  This could enable you to overcome the orange mask by deliberately increasing the red exposure component - a negative scanner or traditional printing process works in a similar way.


----------



## OldFrank (May 15, 2012)

I'm using the lightbox, DSLR camera approach and have had good results. The trick is to use a good piece of quartz diffusion glass mounted far enough from the light source to get even lighting. I started with a 300W photo flood bulb which worked great, but was concerned about starting a fire! Strangely, my results have been as good using a CFL "white light" fluorescent even though the spectrum is spiky. Just be sure and give the bulb a minute or 2 warmup. I use f11 aperture priority and the shutter runs in the 1/2 second time frame. I use LR4's tether mode which let's me look at each slide as I go. 

At the beginning a session I take a shot of the diffuser without a slide in the holder. This gives me a light temperature "White" to create a pre-edit white correction for the source.
My real challenge is my library of 1950's Ektachrome slides with the orange cast. I've had better luck with PS5 on those, but haven't had a chance to try the new LR4 adjustments on them. It took me a while to discover that the problem was faded blues. On the worst ones I added blur to the blue channel and then increased the gain.

I've been happy with this approach and have done around 9,000 slides so far. Also, around 2,000 B/W negatives using the curve flip method. Many of these negs I've never seen since I shot them in the 1960's. What has amazed me is the consistency of exposure the Zone System gave me. I didn't do much in those days with color negs so no experience there.

I have no doubt if my slides were of later vintage and maybe large format I would be more picky about lighting spectrum.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 15, 2012)

Back in 'the good old days' we used to photograph negatives to create slides.  The camera was mounted on a bracket on the wall, with a lightbox below, and coloured filters were used to offset the orange mask.  It sounds like a similar set up to your Frank.


----------



## OldFrank (May 16, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Back in 'the good old days' we used to photograph negatives to create slides.  The camera was mounted on a bracket on the wall, with a lightbox below, and coloured filters were used to offset the orange mask.  It sounds like a similar set up to your Frank.



Yep! Since I have a limited number to do I put the whole thing together in a cardboard box. (That's why I was concerned about the 300W photo flood). My thought was that I had a high quality lens and image sensor, and only needed to illuminate the slides. It is a simple setup. I tried a couple of the midrange scanners, but they were slow and were noisy in the shadows or underexposed areas. With the light box I can up the light source for a few difficult ones.


----------



## kbfoot (May 16, 2012)

I have used a fluorescent "photo correct" lightbox, more recently a TTL flash backlighting a 1/4 inch thick white translucent plexiglas(perspex) several inches behind the slide.  Exposure is quick, but a modeling light must be set up for line up and to focus. Color has seemed good both ways.


----------



## Jimmsp (May 16, 2012)

OldFrank said:


> ....The trick is to use a good piece of quartz diffusion glass mounted far enough from the light source to get even lighting. ....I use f11 aperture priority and the shutter runs in the 1/2 second time frame. I use LR4's tether mode which let's me look at each slide as I go.
> 
> At the beginning a session I take a shot of the diffuser without a slide in the holder. This gives me a light temperature "White" to create a pre-edit white correction for the source.
> ......



I agree with you about the light and a diffuser. I am currently trying a commercial LED lantern, an Energizer "Weather ready" which has a couple of diffusers in it. I bought a slide holder used in a commercial scanner and have it mounted above the light source. This holds the slides reproducibley.  As long as I get the alignment of the light & slide set up properly, I have been able to get good results. The color seems good as well; and the light appears quite white. I am settling in on shots at f7 which take about .5 sec. 

I like your idea of taking a shot without the slide. It does verify alignment, and gives a pretty decent wb to start with. I haven't tried the tethered mode yet, as my camera has a movable rear screen and I can use it in a "live mode". 

I am now in the mode of fine tuning the light box et al so it is not quite so "Rube Goldberg" like.
I have another holder on the way for my negatives.

Jim


----------



## OldFrank (May 17, 2012)

We have a lot of creative people here on the forum. 

I'd thought of doing some improvements on my light box, but I'm about 2/3's of the way done and then won't need it again.


----------

