Encountered a fun little friend.....

[Paul Taylor]

Might be hard to see depending on the device you are viewing on - but there is a little rattly friend in this picture.

Pentax 645

 

[Wes Hall]

Nice of him to keep tucked in the shade Paul. Diamondbacks are really stunning.

 

[Paul Taylor]

Updated the pic in this thread, as I changed my negative scanning workflow and it had dramatic results.

 

[Wes Hall]

Updated the pic in this thread, as I changed my negative scanning workflow and it had dramatic results.

If you get chance to upload both edits it would be great to know the changes you made to understand the effects

 

[Paul Taylor]

Here was the first scan - straight out of my Epson V550 using Epson Scan to "convert" and the Epson negative holders - all stock settings. The pic in the first post is directly on the glass, scanned as a positive (not a negative) then imported into Negative Lab Pro - the only "change" was using the Kodak Gold 200 preset.

It seems my V550 is much sharper scanning directly on the bed, instead of using the negative holders. Also, despite me not telling it to - the Epson Scan really overboosts the shadows for some reason.

Here is another example, from the same day / same camera. Pic w/ borders is the revised technique, pic w/o borders is stock Epson Scan / Negative holders. The colors are way, way closer to my digital cam pics with the revised method. Also, I now have to go through all my negatives as a bet a ton of them where I though I missed focus - I didn't.

 

[Gianluca Drago]

Here was the first scan - straight out of my Epson V550 using Epson Scan to "convert" and the epson negative holders - all stock settings. The pic in the first post is directly on the glass, scanned as a positive (not a negative) then imported into Negative Lab Pro - the only "change" was using the Kodak Gold 200 preset.

Here is another example, from the same day / same camera. Pic w/ borders is the revised technique, pic w/o borders is stock Epson Scan / Negative holders.

Definitely a big difference!

 

[Paul Taylor]

Another one of the more dramatic differences between the two workflow processes :

I think the only adjustment I am going to make is turn down the contrast a bit in the Negative Lab Pro preset. The revised method fixed the colors as well, as now they are way closer match to my digital files (Lumix G9 w/ Olympus 40-150 Pro) that I am using to judge.

Here is a digital shot - you can see the revised method of film scanning is way closer color wise (ramada roofs, foliage) than the stock V550 converts. The revised method is "warmer" but I don't mind that since it was Gold 200.

 

[Wes Hall]

Another one of the more dramatic differences between the two workflow processes :

I think the only adjustment I am going to make is turn down the contrast a bit in the Negative Lab Pro preset. The revised method fixed the colors as well, as now they are way closer match to my digital files (Lumix G9 w/ Olympus 40-150 Pro) that I am using to judge.

Here is a digital shot - you can see the revised method of film scanning is way closer color wise (ramada roofs, foliage) than the stock V550 converts. The revised method is "warmer" but I don't mind that since it was Gold 200.

Thanks Paul, these are distinct aren't they! The interior barn shot above is so different in contrast and the highlights (blue hue crept in on the 1st to my eye) shows what effort has to go into getting a good scan of negatives.

And although I scan a different method, I really agree about needing to rescan old negatives with an improved workflow!