Filmscanners mailing list archive (email@example.com)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme (LONG)
Johnny Deadman wrote:
> Do minilabs read the emulsion type before printing neg? No.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "do mini-labs "read" emulsion
types before printing negs"
If you mean do they read for each subtle change of emulsion a
manufacturer makes, then your answer is correct.
If you mean do they have a starting point that is based upon the
emulsion dye base, the answer USED TO BE absolutely. Our Noritsu unit
had something like 32 "channels", each one was pre-programmed for a
specific emulsion dye base. As new emulsions became available, I
programmed them myself, if they weren't provided by the manufacturer.
Today, I think newer machines just read the blank film area and make an
automatic correction. With faster computers and more sophisticated
software it is no longer really necessary to have a base filter pack
programmed into the machine for each film type. That means they do not
correct for difference responses of the emulsion layers, or
characteristics of the color balance of the film, but just attempt to
come up with a "zero" point, so that if you were to make a print for a
18% grey card, you'd get something approaching a print that looked like
Unless one considers the sensitivity peculiarities of a specific film as
a type of defect to be corrected for (all films suffer from their own
versions of reciprocity errors, as well), then it would be best not to
correct in complex profile of the film. Kodak used to offer two
versions of scans for PCD. One was a base correction type that did not
alter for film characteristics. The other was an averaging type that
attempted to make all films look the same regardless of the emulsion type.
The reason for this was simple. For a pro photog who wanted to maintain
the integrity of the film's characteristics, the base type was good, but
for a person creating a PCD presentation where they had multiple sources
(different age, emulsions and film types -including maybe both slides
and negs) and they wanted some consistency of color throughout the
presentation, then the second type of scan made more sense.
This is a philosophical issue. Some photogs simply are after repeatable
results, and do not want to either play with or emphasize the film
characteristics, while others want the scan to represent the film image,
and have chosen (or accidentally) gotten a result that works with the
specific emulsion characteristics. I know that sometimes an image has
been pushed beyond my expectations due to the film doing something I
wasn't anticipating, making it into a winner, while other times, upon
reflection, I can look at an image and say "Gee, had I just used
__________ film instead, this would have been so much nicer."
More often than that, I say "Gee, had I just bracketed that a bit more,
or had I just waited for the lighting to change a bit more, or had I
just not used that lens, or that angle or that processor (who put a
scratch in the middle of it!)..." you get the idea...
Although I haven't gotten to the point where I'm saying "Gee, if I had
just remembered to recharge the batteries, put film in the camera, to
remove the lens cap, or worse still, to bring my camera equipment!" I'm
sure that will eventually happen.
I have had one "gee, if I had just remembered to rewind the film into
the cassette BEFORE opening the back of the camera, that would have been
a really good idea (or works "to that effect" ) ;-)
Actually, in case this happens to someone else (I'm SURE I'm the only
photog who ever did it...) if you do happen to open the back of the
camera before rewinding the film into the cassette (yes, I know, Canons
work the other way around) Quickly slam the camera back shut. Believe
it or not. Film is relatively opaque before processing, and although
you will lose your last frames and have some edge light fogging, most of
the frames will likely survive... really!