Jump to content

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Curiosity led me to try a Google search and yes it exists as a thing!

How bizarre, you can even have new reels for Viewmaster viewers made up - 7 shots per reel. The ideal present for the person who has everything.

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

How bizarre, you can even have new reels for Viewmaster viewers made up - 7 shots per reel. The ideal present for the person who has everything.

 

It will certainly be bizarre if we all end up trying to make analogue copies of our digital files as the safest long-term storage option.

 

Those prints I bought from 1895 are still going strong. 

 

What will happen to all our pixels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

hose prints I bought from 1895 are still going strong. 

...and so are my grandfather's prints and negatives, some getting on for 100 years old. If I scan something because I think it's worth doing then I'm not about to throw away the originals. The digital legacy in terms of photography is only about 15 years for me, can't be much more than 25 years for most people. That's nothing really, I have enough trouble keeping that backed up in 3 different places, I can't see anyone else taking the trouble. I actually don't know what museums and institutions do. How will they preserve the digital archives of today's leading photographers? I heard the other day that vinyl is the medium of choice for young music lovers who want to actually own something, and there will be a bigger analogue/film section at this year's Photography Show.

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/02/2020 at 01:59, MDM said:

If it was me, I would be inclined to remove the dust and do everything else (including removing the wisps as you call them) before downsizing

 

YES! (apart from the whisps bit). I just realised (I'm a bit slow!) that the PS/ACR sidecar files (xmp) that are created at the point of conversion from RAW also store all the dust spotting removal data (like LR does). So I've changed the sequence as you suggest.

 

1) Open RAW image in PS ACR with NO sharpening at all (i.e. 0 setting sharpening amount sliders) and some luminance noise reduction (25, 50, 0)

2) Level horizon (if needed) and crop rebate from image (so histogram becomes meaningful)

3) Apply any levels, tone and WB adjustments

4) Heal or clone dust

5) Open image in PS (all adjustments up to this point are stored in sidecar xmp file - so it's easy to return to this state at any time in the future)

6) Apply Topaz De-noise filter

    - Remove noise 15* (default)

    - Sharpen 15 (default)

    - Original detail 5 (to retain a tiny amount of grain texture)

7) Downsize using Bicubic (sharper) or Bilinear (less sharp) to 6MP (just above Alamy minimum size)

8 ) Inspect at 100%

    - double check for dust (it's amazing what appears after the grain is removed)

    - inspect edge of frame for "whisps" and use large healing brush to remove by brushing along edge of image*

9) Save as jpg quality level 12

 

*I'm also finding that increasing the TDN - Remove noise setting from 15 to 20 may avoid the whisps appearing in my images.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/02/2020 at 07:40, M.Chapman said:

 

If you have the TDN plugin in LR I assume TDN could be launched from within LR and the data transfers automatically?

 

 

 

The problem with running TDN from Lightroom as a plug-in is that it doesn't work directly on the raw image but requires it to be converted first to PSD, TIFF or JPEG so is effectively pointless. To get it to work directly on the raw image, the raw file needs to be opened into the standalone TDN. There are two problems with this. Firstly, it is  very slow doing its thing on a 36MP raw file.  Secondly, it does not recognise the sidecar xmp files so it is not possible to do any other raw processing before sending the image to TDN. Of course it is possible to send the resultant file back to LR as a DNG so it is not as bad as it sounds but the entire file must go through TDN. If one is shooting at less than 1:1, then the raw will include edges of the mount and this tends to exaccerbate the boundary artifacts. So having tried this a few weeks back on a  number of images, I decided it really wasn't worth the time and extra messing about. I am getting results that I find perfectly satisfactory just working in LR and Photoshop. Not as clean as in TDN but not a problem on the final 3000px image at all and prints to my satisfaction at A4 or thereabouts. 

 

The image you posted looks good and I expect it would have no problem passing QC. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

YES! (apart from the whisps bit). I just realised (I'm a bit slow!) that the PS/ACR sidecar files (xmp) that are created at the point of conversion from RAW also store all the dust spotting removal data (like LR does). So I've changed the sequence as you suggest.

 

1) Open RAW image in PS ACR with NO sharpening at all (i.e. 0 setting sharpening amount sliders) and some luminance noise reduction (25, 50, 0)

2) Level horizon (if needed) and crop rebate from image (so histogram becomes meaningful)

3) Apply any levels, tone and WB adjustments

4) Heal or clone dust

5) Open image in PS (all adjustments up to this point are stored in sidecar xmp file - so it's easy to return to this state at any time in the future)

6) Apply Topaz De-noise filter

    - Remove noise 15* (default)

    - Sharpen 15 (default)

    - Original detail 5 (to retain a tiny amount of grain texture)

7) Downsize using Bicubic (sharper) or Bilinear (less sharp) to 6MP (just above Alamy minimum size)

8 ) Inspect at 100%

    - double check for dust (it's amazing what appears after the grain is removed)

    - inspect edge of frame for "whisps" and use large healing brush to remove by brushing along edge of image*

9) Save as jpg quality level 12

 

*I'm also finding that increasing the TDN - Remove noise setting from 15 to 20 may avoid the whisps appearing in my images.

 

Mark

 

Actually I do all my spotting in Photoshop as I find the healing and clone tools a lot better than LR/ACR and I am more used to using them so much faster. Also the brushes are pressure sensitive in PS which gives even greater control. But it is still an early stage of the process and I save the high res version as a master file before downsizing as the final step. 

 

My latest workflow is something like this

 

1.  I am now processing two versions of the same raw image in Lightroom, the only differences being that one has had some sharpening and the other no sharpening but strongish noise reduction to minimise the grain/noise effect. I have presets for the sharpening and noise settings which I apply with a single click after I do all the rest of the raw processing (exposure, highlights and shadows, often a grad filter for the landscape skies). I create snapshots in Lightroom of the two files before opening them in Photoshop so I can go back to them very easily and modify if I want. Apart from noise and sharpening, the two versions will be identical in terms of the other raw processing - white balance, exposure, highlights and shadows etc.

 

2. For landscapes, once in Photoshop, I copy the low noise image onto the high noise one as a new layer, create a layer mask and invert it so as none of the top layer is showing. I then select the sky, save as an alpha channel, go back to the layer mask and fill the selection with white which reveals the low noise sky but hides everything else in that layer. At this point the low noise sky in the top image and the sharpened ground area of the lower image are showing. An alternative is to paint the mask white in the sky area but selecting and filling with white tends to be much, much faster and more accurate than painting white on the mask. I also do spotting only on the top layer as spots and marks generally only show in sky areas (my slides are reasonably clean).

 

3. I might do some refining of other areas in the image if there is grain/noise showing so as to reveal the low-noise top layer through the mask. Areas such as water and maybe background areas where there is no proper detail tend to show noise so I might paint with grey to partially reveal and still keep them reasonably sharp. I don't worry about areas with proper detail - the grain/noise doesn't show here, especially when downsized, or if it does then it is generally not a problem.

 

I might need to do a bit of further refining of local areas of the image - I use curves adjustment layers and paint on the layer masks for local effects. The final action is to downsize but I keep the master images as PSDs with layers, masks and channels so I can rework easily if I want. I always keep raws and PSDs. Overall I would guess about 30 minutes to do this but maybe an hour tops.

 

There are other methods that could be used of course but this for me now is my favourite. I will post a few soon.

 

 

 

 

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2020 at 08:18, geogphotos said:

£35 at the time of me posting but 6 days to go.

.....and up from there to a final price of £620 in the final hour. There's still life in old scanners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

.....and up from there to a final price of £620 in the final hour. There's still life in old scanners.

 

Yes, I watched the sale yesterday afternoon. And was tempted to bid when it was only around £50 with two hours to go. And then, as expected, there was a gradual increase in tempo, then a late rush with the buyer making a last minute ( last few seconds) appearance. It was quite instructive and I wish I had learnt this lesson previously over a really nice slide that I missed out on - and as human nature is, has sort of grown in quality/importance in my mind ever since!  

 

 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

has sort of grown in quality/importance in my mind ever since!  

Yes, the ones that get away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Harry Harrison said:

Yes, the ones that get away...

 

 

Exactly. But I have learnt an important lesson! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Yes, I watched the sale yesterday afternoon. And was tempted to bid when it was only around £50 with two hours to go. And then, as expected, there was a gradual increase in tempo, then a late rush with the buyer making a last minute ( last few seconds) appearance. It was quite instructive and I wish I had learnt this lesson previously over a really nice slide that I missed out on - and as human nature is, has sort of grown in quality/importance in my mind ever since!  

 

 

 

Hammersnipe / Auctionstealer is useful for making those last minute bids... It's free (depending on settings and how often you want use it). It's won me some auctions that finished at obscure times. Enter the MAXIMUM you're prepared to pay and it will place a bid in the last 10 seconds. NB. If you win, you will only pay the amount required to just beat the highest bid from elsewhere. 

 

Mark 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Hammersnipe / Auctionstealer

I knew that sort of thing existed but didn't know them by name. I can see it would be useful on occasion but surely it would take all the fun out of it wouldn't it?:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Hammersnipe / Auctionstealer is useful for making those last minute bids... It's free (depending on settings and how often you want use it). It's won me some auctions that finished at obscure times. Enter the MAXIMUM you're prepared to pay and it will place a bid in the last 10 seconds. NB. If you win, you will only pay the amount required to just beat the highest bid from elsewhere. 

 

Mark 

 

Thanks Mark. I have learnt not to expect bargains and to bid what you are prepared to pay...as late as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Actually I do all my spotting in Photoshop as I find the healing and clone tools a lot better than LR/ACR and I am more used to using them so much faster. Also the brushes are pressure sensitive in PS which gives even greater control. But it is still an early stage of the process and I save the high res version as a master file before downsizing as the final step. 

 

My latest workflow is something like this

 

1.  I am now processing two versions of the same raw image in Lightroom, the only differences being that one has had some sharpening and the other no sharpening but strongish noise reduction to minimise the grain/noise effect. I have presets for the sharpening and noise settings which I apply with a single click after I do all the rest of the raw processing (exposure, highlights and shadows, often a grad filter for the landscape skies). I create snapshots in Lightroom of the two files before opening them in Photoshop so I can go back to them very easily and modify if I want. Apart from noise and sharpening, the two versions will be identical in terms of the other raw processing - white balance, exposure, highlights and shadows etc.

 

2. For landscapes, once in Photoshop, I copy the low noise image onto the high noise one as a new layer, create a layer mask and invert it so as none of the top layer is showing. I then select the sky, save as an alpha channel, go back to the layer mask and fill the selection with white which reveals the low noise sky but hides everything else in that layer. At this point the low noise sky in the top image and the sharpened ground area of the lower image are showing. An alternative is to paint the mask white in the sky area but selecting and filling with white tends to be much, much faster and more accurate than painting white on the mask. I also do spotting only on the top layer as spots and marks generally only show in sky areas (my slides are reasonably clean).

 

3. I might do some refining of other areas in the image if there is grain/noise showing so as to reveal the low-noise top layer through the mask. Areas such as water and maybe background areas where there is no proper detail tend to show noise so I might paint with grey to partially reveal and still keep them reasonably sharp. I don't worry about areas with proper detail - the grain/noise doesn't show here, especially when downsized, or if it does then it is generally not a problem.

 

I might need to do a bit of further refining of local areas of the image - I use curves adjustment layers and paint on the layer masks for local effects. The final action is to downsize but I keep the master images as PSDs with layers, masks and channels so I can rework easily if I want. I always keep raws and PSDs. Overall I would guess about 30 minutes to do this but maybe an hour tops.

 

There are other methods that could be used of course but this for me now is my favourite. I will post a few soon.

 

Thanks. I almost* managed to duplicate your procedure. I used the following detail settings on the Sky

Sharpen 0,0,0,0

Noise reduction - Luminance 50, 50, 0  Colour 25 50 50

Save as Sky TIFF

 

I used the following on the Land

Sharpen 100, 1.5, 10, 10

Noise reduction - Luminance 25, 50, 0  Colour 25 50 50

Save as Land TIFF

 

Loaded both TIFFs as layers into PS with Sky on top. Created and inverted layer mask for Sky layer.

Selected sky (using quick selection tool) and saved as Alpha channel. *Couldn't work out how to combine with mask.

So I simply painted with huge white brush into selected area of mask which achieves same (I believe)

Nudged mask up by a pixel to sharpen edge of land a bit (it was slightly blurred, maybe my quick selection tool applied a slight feather..).

 

The result is good, but not as fast or as good (IMO) as Topaz, it might be time consuming if the border between land and sky was complex. But it is much more controllable since  Topaz has an element of unpredictability depending on the subject.  

 

What typical Detail settings are you applying to Sky and Land?

 

Look forward to seeing some of your results.

 

Mark

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New article by Peter Krogh concerning why there is nothing to be gained by using very high megapixel cameras (in this case above 45MP) for scanning 35mm. He uses a Nikon D800 and a 60mm Macro, also Nikon presumably.

 

https://petapixel.com/2020/02/22/reaching-the-megapixel-limit-for-35mm-camera-scanning/

 

Edit:

Not everyone agrees with him in the comments, another argument put forward is that the diffraction limits only show up at high resolution, rather than being caused by the higher resolution.

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

New article by Peter Krogh concerning why there is nothing to be gained by using very high megapixel cameras (in this case above 45MP) for scanning 35mm. He uses a Nikon D800 and a 60mm Macro, also Nikon presumably.

 

https://petapixel.com/2020/02/22/reaching-the-megapixel-limit-for-35mm-camera-scanning/

 

Edit:

Not everyone agrees with him in the comments, another argument put forward is that the diffraction limits only show up at high resolution, rather than being caused by the higher resolution.

 

Yes the author explains that bit poorly. This comment is correct.

 

Diffraction is an inherent property of the aperture setting on your lens. A finer pixel pitch sensor will have the resolution to see this at wider apertures than a coarser pixel pitch sensor, but the sensor has no actual effect on diffraction. 

 

The overall point of the article is right though. i.e. there's no point in going to higher and higher MP when digitising 35mm. 

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Yes the author gets (explains) that bit incorrectly.

It's strange because Peter Krogh does say "Higher pixel density requires the use of wider apertures in order to take advantage of the full camera resolution" so it does seem that is the point he is trying to make. It doesn't ring true to me though. It's a shame he didn't back it up with pictures of his test targets from a high megapixel camera, I'd be surprised if the optimum aperture wasn't still f11 but it would have been good to show it, or if more megapixels resolved more lines on the test chart.

 

He was an early adopter of the DSLR scanning technique and I believe he advises museums and institutions etc. and probably arranges to scan their material commercially also, so I'm happy to believe that his D800/60mm Macro combination produces the quality required for just about any real world application. Producing 36"x24" prints to prove it seems a bit extravagant but again that would offer 'real world' proof to a potential scanning client rather than just pixel-peeping.

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be clearer if he reworded this paragraph

 

When you use a very high resolution camera, you are going to be limited to using wider apertures, in order to avoid diffraction problems. Unfortunately, this may lead to a depth of field problem for scanning film that is not perfectly flat or for cameras that are not properly aligned with the film. So the marginal resolution increase you get with more megapixels may be entirely lost to a lack of critical focus across the entire frame.

 

To this

 

To get the best from a very high resolution camera, you are going to have to use a lens aperture close to the sweet spot (often around f/8 - f/11) to get the best performance from the lens and avoid diffraction problems. Unfortunately, this may lead to a depth of field problem when digitising film that is not perfectly flat, or not perfectly aligned, or for lenses with field curvature. So the resolution increase you get with more megapixels may be entirely lost to a lack of critical focus across the entire frame.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's the bit I don't understand then, why would the optimum aperture be anything other than f11 (in this example) if the megapixel count is increased? For me the range of apertures where the image is sharp into the corners is very small, it depends upon the lens but typically with a standard 6-element enlarging lens I can't differentiate between the results at f8, f8/ll, or f11, so just 1 stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Well that's the bit I don't understand then, why would the optimum aperture be anything other than f11 (in this example) if the megapixel count is increased? For me the range of apertures where the image is sharp into the corners is very small, it depends upon the lens but typically with a standard 6-element enlarging lens I can't differentiate between the results at f8, f8/ll, or f11, so just 1 stop.

 

If the slide isn't flat, then the end result maybe better (optimum) at a smaller aperture, irrespective of the MP of the camera. It all depends whether diffraction or lack of focus is causing the most degradation to the final image. In the case of a low resolution camera the sensor won't "see" the diffraction degradation so quickly, so the aperture sweet spot range appears to be wider.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Topaz testing.

 

It's clear (as mentioned by MDM), that by using a combination of selective noise reduction (in low contrast areas e.g. sky) and sharpening (for more detailed areas) it's possible to mitigate the effects of film grain and achieve results similar to Topaz. So I thought I'd try a tougher test with fine tree branches against the sky. 

 

Here's a 100% crop from the image using ACR defaults.

Tree-ACR-defaults.png

 

Here's the result after Topaz Denoise AI (using the workflow I described previously).

 

Tree-Topaz-Denoise.png

 

I struggled to achieve the same quality (retention/enhancement of detail whilst removing film grain) using sliders and selections in LR/PS/ACR. That maybe due to my lack of skill :unsure: But then that's the point I suppose, Topaz makes it easy for someone like me to get good results, and quickly...

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

More Topaz testing.

 

It's clear (as mentioned by MDM), that by using a combination of selective noise reduction (in low contrast areas e.g. sky) and sharpening (for more detailed areas) it's possible to mitigate the effects of film grain and achieve results similar to Topaz. So I thought I'd try a tougher test with fine tree branches against the sky. 

 

I struggled to achieve the same quality (retention/enhancement of detail whilst removing film grain) using sliders and selections in LR/PS/ACR. That maybe due to my lack of skill :unsure: But then that's the point I suppose, Topaz makes it easy for someone like me to get good results, and quickly...

 

Mark

 

I wouldn't bother doing selective work of the type I have been talking about on an image like that. Not that it is impossible, only very difficult. My aim in all of this is to get a good compromise between a decent quality image and a sensible (to me) amount of time spent on doing it. As I said above somewhere, I am a pragmatic perfectionist but there are definite limits. The workflow I described above seems to me to be a reasonable balance to get a decent looking image.

 

For landscapes where there are big blocks of areas likely to show heavy grain or noise (skies in particular, still water, distant background) then it is quite straightforward. I am not producing images for forensic examination but what I am producing will almost certainly pass Alamy QC. The quality of my images has definitely improved with this thread for sure though and Mark's persistence with TDN is enlightening. I might even give it another go at some point but not on the raw images and when I have plenty of time to watch my computer screen doing nothing as I wait for it to finish. However, at the moment if I find the images are still a bit too grainy after processing as above, a quick run of the low noise layer through the ACR filter in Photoshop is more than enough for my needs.

 

 

A few downloadable examples of what I have been doing. The Anglesey pair - one was sharpened in LR at 60 - 1 - 25 - 0 and the other had no sharpening at all. Both were downsized. I started using this  high sharpening value a while back but could probably bring it back to the default. I always use some colour NR in LR  (tyically 25-50-50). The high luminance noise reduction layers I usually give something like 50-50-0 or 50-0-0> which is about what I give for high ISO images (<1600) for normal shooting. I don't spend time checking out each image for optimum NR settings-  just something that works. I might do a bit extra with the ACR filter in Photoshop on the high NR layer if it really is not looking too good after the processing. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MDM said:

I wouldn't bother doing selective work of the type I have been talking about on an image like that.

 

Agreed. I'm grateful to Geoff (Smith) for an alternative way to tackle the noise in background of the tree image, which is easy to apply.

In LR or PS/ACR do the following.

- select the adjustment brush and make it large

- set noise reduction to 100

- paint over the entire image

- at the bottom of the panel - turn range mask on and select colour then click the eyedropper on the blue sky (at several places to get a range)

 

The quality of the result is almost as good as Topaz Denoise.

 

Tree-Brush-denoise.png

 

16 hours ago, MDM said:

A few downloadable examples of what I have been doing. The Anglesey pair - one was sharpened in LR at 60 - 1 - 25 - 0 and the other had no sharpening at all. Both were downsized. I started using this  high sharpening value a while back but could probably bring it back to the default. I always use some colour NR in LR  (tyically 25-50-50). The high luminance noise reduction layers I usually give something like 50-50-0 or 50-0-0> which is about what I give for high ISO images (<1600) for normal shooting. I don't spend time checking out each image for optimum NR settings-  just something that works. I might do a bit extra with the ACR filter in Photoshop on the high NR layer if it really is not looking too good after the processing. 

 

Thanks for posting. Fascinating. It's interesting the difference in the end results of Topaz, versus your images. IMO the images you have posted retain more of the feel / appearance / authenticity of digitised film landscape pictures (probably due to the grain, slight softness and maybe some other qualities I can't put my finger on). Whereas the Topaz De-noised images tend to look more like "processed" direct digital camera images of the landscapes. I'm not sure which I prefer, and differences only become noticeable when zooming in. However.... If it's true Alamy QC recognise digitised film images and allow them more QC leeway, then could Topaz de-noised images run a greater risk of QC fail? (e.g. over-sharpened, over-processed, soft focus?). 

 

It raises a question; Should I be striving to make my digitised 35mm slide images look like direct digital camera photos of landscapes, or should I be retaining more of the qualities (defects?) of 35mm film? Certainly my objective at the moment is the former. But it's a struggle to match the quality of direct landscape shots that today's digital cameras produce. Maybe I need to leave more obvious grain in them. :unsure:

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

It raises a question, should I be striving to make my digitised 35mm slide images look like direct digital camera photos of landscapes, or should I be retaining more of the qualities (defects?) of 35mm film? Certainly my objective at the moment is the former. But it's a struggle to match the quality of direct landscape shots that today's digital cameras produce. Maybe I need to leave more obvious grain in them.

Mark,

 

I am happy to see what you wrote and I would add that it is exactly why I prefer scanning rather than photographing film with a DSLR.

 

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Agreed. I'm grateful to Geoff (Smith) for an alternative way to tackle the noise in background of the tree image, which is easy to apply.

In LR or PS/ACR do the following.

- select the adjustment brush and make it large

- set noise reduction to 100

- paint over the entire image

- at the bottom of the panel - turn range mask on and select colour then click the eyedropper on the blue sky (at several places to get a range)

 

The quality of the result is almost as good as Topaz Denoise.

 

 

Quote

 

Thanks for posting. Fascinating. It's interesting the difference in the end results of Topaz, versus your images. IMO the images you have posted retain more of the feel / appearance / authenticity of digitised film landscape pictures (probably due to the grain, slight softness and maybe some other qualities I can't put my finger on). Whereas the Topaz De-noised images tend to look more like "processed" direct digital camera images of the landscapes. I'm not sure which I prefer, and differences only become noticeable when zooming in. However.... If it's true Alamy QC recognise digitised film images and allow them more QC leeway, then could Topaz de-noised images run a greater risk of QC fail? (e.g. over-sharpened, over-processed, soft focus?). 

 

It raises a question; Should I be striving to make my digitised 35mm slide images look like direct digital camera photos of landscapes, or should I be retaining more of the qualities (defects?) of 35mm film? Certainly my objective at the moment is the former. But it's a struggle to match the quality of direct landscape shots that today's digital cameras produce. Maybe I need to leave more obvious grain in them. :unsure:

 

Mark

 

Yes that is one way of doing it. However, a potential problem with an image like the one you posted is that there are a lot of transitional areas where the blue of the sky is bleeding onto the branches so the masking may be very difficult to do properly.

 

This leads on to the second point really in that one has to ask what is the aim here. I would suggest that one does what makes one happy. For me it is certainly not to attain the degree of perfection in terms of really clean images with very high dynamic range that I can achieve with my digital camera gear. That is not possible. But I can achieve more than satisfactory results using my DSLR copying and some care in processing. As I said, if I can get nice clean A4 prints and pass QC then I am happy with what I am doing. I am not aiming for a film-like effect but if the images look like they were shot on slide film then that is fine.

 

As for TDN, then it certainly works but it is mainly a time thing for me. I would rather get things done than hang up my machine and I think the results in LR noise reduction are more than good enough for my purposes. It is good that you have taken to it though. I might use it on certain images but not on landscapes (LR and PS good enough for me) and maybe not on portraits asthe few I have done make the skin look a bit like plastic (like that blurred skin effect that seems to be very popular on social media).

 

However, having said that I ran a black and white neg through it earlier as a raw file and with a high recover original detail setting it looks a lot better. But again it is slow on my machine and I prefer what I get just from LR and PS. I haven't really done much in the way of copying black and white negs yet which is something I intend to do in due course but for the few I have done I have allowed them to retain some of the film grain as I like that effect although I would be wary of putting stuff with too much grain or noise through QC.

 

 

 

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.