- This topic is empty.
Tip for scanning X-pro film
-
Just a FYI…
I’ve been trying to scan the negs from the lofi day, the posts were from the shop’s cd.
I thought I would share a tip I got from the web.I was having difficultly scanning the film. It is positive [slide film] but it didn’t scan well at all. Scanning it as negative film gave a very bad approximation.
Searched the web and found this technique.
I don’t know why it works, I got this info here.#1 Scan as Positive Film (with Color Correction on)
#2 Invert the colour (in PS or whatever)
Gives me an excuse to repost a photo (rescanned)…
Martin
Well that’s pretty impressive Martin-
colour looks almost how you’d expect it to look;
you’d imagine that it might be possible to correct it fully quite easily-I’m not a huge fan of cross processing,
though there can be individual pictures that can be suited to it, I’m sure-With everything replicable (almost) in ps,
effects can sometimes reach saturation (sorry) level,
and what started out as an unusual, quirky treatment can become devalued through over exposure (sorry).I think there might still be a treatment that retains some of the colour casts and shifts you hoped to achieve through the cross processing,
perhaps by merging with these corrected versions, I don’t know,
but it would certainly be worth experimenting…There have been a lot of these LoFi day pictures posted,
maybe it’s time to step back a bit from them,
and see if there are any which will stand up on their own in the c+c sections.
I’d like to see some of your x-processed pics without the full effect of the colour shift,
now that you’ve found this technique…joseph
Joseph, I think there might be a misunderstanding here. The technique above tries to get “what was printed at the lab” from the negs, ie actually get the cross-processed image.
Straight scanning the film as negs doesn’t do a very good job, that is why I searched the web, to find a better way.The confusion stems from the example above, which I used purely because it did not scan properly in the lab. But it is the one that doesn’t show much effect of cross-processsing.
So the technique doesn’t actually reverse-engineer xpro.I guess creative photography often tries to get an unusual view from life, with blurs, bokeh, milky water, tilted shots, or unusual angles etc. I think cross-processing (or fisheye) is an unusual view of the world that can soon get tiring (a bit gimicky), and so should be used judiciously. But I think it was good for the day that was in it.
I will have a look at what I took and see if there are any I think I could post individually from them. I think they work ok as a set to document my day.
I often like my photos viewed as sets and so often post here that way (not the fuji ones but in other cases).
I guess it is because I’m quite self-critical of individual photos, the flaws hide in the crowd, or one or two keepers carry the lot.I’ll try to figure out what the keepers are of the bunch. My taste is a bit off, I really like the one of the skyway between the two buildings at Guinness, and one I didn’t post of the shadow of the rabbit statue [see below], but perhaps the angle on it is too severe. Hmm, I’ll think about which might be worth analysing, have to go out now. ..
Martin
MartinOC wrote:
I guess creative photography often tries to get an unusual view from life, with blurs, bokeh, milky water, tilted shots, or unusual angles etc. I think cross-processing (or fisheye) is an unusual view of the world that can soon get tiring (a bit gimicky), and so should be used judiciously. But I think it was good for the day that was in it.
Yes, would have to agree-
I suppose once something is digitized, it becomes a ‘digital negative’
and you have even more options-
including, I suppose, control over saturation among other things-That RH pic looks good,
especially at the size posted, I had to try to figure it out…It does rather bring colour palette issued to the fore, however,
and as they are in no way ‘realistic’
it makes colour choices an important part of the picture…Sorry I took you up incorrectly over the original post,
but that looked pretty ‘normal’ to me…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
