How did SFW do this?

[rokosz]

I've begun the arduous job of digitizing my analog stuff. I'm not a pro photog -- nor a advanced user of Photoshop (CS5).

For years I used Seattle Film Works. However good they were or not -- I was ok with them. And they had a good deal:
processing, prints, slides, mailer and a replacment roll of 36 for about $16.

Well, in my current effort I'm finding that those 20-30 year old negatives can, often, be a much worse exposure than the print SFW provided would imply.
Closer examination in Photoshop shows heavy cropping of the print and increased graininess/loss of resolution -- But the exposure is so much more accurate/correct/desirous.

I've got negs that are so overexposed that they lose detail -- but the SFW print somehow restores it.

I've saw a PS tutorial that will "polarize" a hazy landscape shot. I tried it once with only modest success.

Now, SFW presumably processed these rolls by machine, without digital aids. How did they make such (excellent IMO) corrections?

And if they could do that, presumably by analog machine -- why can't PS? If someone has any ideas or can direct me to a resource for correcting this kind of issue
I'd greatly appreciate it.

I've attached an example of negative vs. print below. I'm pretty sure this negative is the one I attempted to "polarize" via the PS tutorial. No comparison to the SFW
print.

[url option=Negative Here]http://www.mountcrumpit.com/images/... Prutz, Austria (47.079N 10.697E 9 SP 90).jpg[/URL]
[URL option=Print Here]http://www.mountcrumpit.com/images/... Prutz, Austria (47.079N 10.697E 9 SP 90).jpg[/URL]

I'm not sure the BBCode for img or url are working for my "new registration". Will resolve asap if this post doesn't work.
thanks folks!

 

[Ysarex85 79]

SFW used an automated printer that measured exposure when making your prints. In the case of the example you posted they printed that neg darker than your scan (also with a different color balance).

You noted that you have negs that are 20-30 years old. As such they are already badly faded and can't be expected to print as they did when new. Still, better results are likely possible than the example you showed. Please provide details on how you are getting the negs scanned.

Joe

 

[DiskoJoe]

I would say that you need to find a buddy that has a personal developing studio.

 

[rokosz]

Hello Ysarex, and thanks for the info and responding.

I'm using Epson Scan software with an Epson Perfection V700. the negs go in the area guide, then I marquee them by hand and scan. I've tried some of the options in the scan dialogue like unsharp and color restoration -- nothing there has any signifcant effect (or rather nothing I've tried there does). I get better results in Photoshop CS5. The auto Tone or auto Color options are quick and often an improvement -- sometimes not. Sometimes the birghtness and contrast sliders help -- but too much and the photo can become abstract.

I mentioned a "polarizing" tutorial in my OP. That involved channel masks using the Lab Color Mode. The results were hopeful -- but not enough.

I understand negs can fade -- and presumably they can fade at different rates of time and degree? I ask because some negs match the original print pretty closely.
Strangely, I was trying to research another example of (faded) neg with bright chirpy print. I scanned the neg again, yes, very faded -- found the scan I'd done back in October for the same neg -- and I must've corrected
the print _Really_ well -- because its ok. But I can't reproduce what I did -- and I don't have a lot of tricks in my bag currently so its somewhat of a mystery.
Here they are: (recent neg scan)
http://www.mountcrumpit.com/images/Ausredos007.jpg
(earlier scan that was fixed (presumably))
http://www.mountcrumpit.com/images/35%20National%20Park%20Schweizer,%20Zernez,%20Switzerland%20(46.668N%2010.096E%209%20SP%2090).jpg

I'm going to search out some color balance tutorials for PS. If you (or anyone else out there!) have any tips, leads or hints please lay it on me. Thanks again.

 

[Ysarex85 79]

OK -- well, if you're going to use a flatbed scanner for 35mm film at least you are using a V700. My first reaction is you need to use a film scanner to scan film, but the V700 is the next best thing. You will get a better scan from a dedicated 35mm film scanner but you should be able to get workable results from the V700.

Is the film you're scanning a variety of different stocks? And I'm assuming it is negative film and not slide (transparency) film. Neg film fades faster than most slide films so 20-30 years is certainly well past the period of measurable loss. You are likely dealing with restoration tasks at this point and that means you need a skill set both with the scanner and with Photoshop that is tailored to the problem.

The V700 is capable of extended bit depth scans (48 bit versus the standard 24 bit). Photoshop can handle those 48 bit scans. Make sure you are NOT blowing out the highlight detail and Photoshop should allow you to salvage the photos. Given the fading you'll have to manually color adjust the final result -- automated software isn't going to do it.

Joe

P.S. Send me an email and maybe I can help further.