And finally, a new preset. In fact there will be a couple of presets in the next few weeks. Primarily to save me time. A release of a preset I already have done take very little time, whereas the longer posts I have been writing take a considerable amount of time. Right now I got some pretty special projects I need to pay attention to, so I need to ease up a bit on writing to focus on these tasks at hand. Of which completing the guide to Cold Storage 2 is at the top of my list. Yep, I finally got another batch of Film Presets ready to sell, but I need to make sure the guidebook had all the tips needed to get the most out of the presets.

And then there are a few more thing coming up that I will fill you in on as time gets closer. Something big is coming, but I can’t say more than that except don’t switch to Aperture!

On the note of other projects, LifeInDigitalFilm has teamed up again with X-Equals; this time providing a collection of presets to give your creativity a kick in the pants. X-Equals and LifeInDigitalFilm are proud to release our newest product, Creative Production Presets Vol. 1. This collection brings together many of the creative presets that have been provided through X-Equals, designed both by Brandon and myself. With more than 75 presets you should have plenty to experiment with to help you unlock your creativity. At $14.99 this collection is a bargain compared to many similar creative preset collections with the added bonus to LIDF reader, a selection of film emulations including some unreleased. Hop over to X-Equals and check it out and consider supporting both X-Equals and LifeInDigitalFilm by making that purchase.

Now onto the matter at hand. We got a unique preset today that you would never see in the real world, due to technical difficulties. You never see Kodachrome treated with bleach bypass development. First, only Dwayne’s of Parsons, KS still develops the stuff so special processing is hard to come by. Second, the K-14 process is unique and I am unsure if it is even possible to perform a bleach bypass on the film. Finally, there is already some residual silver present in most Kodachrome slides, and if completely lef tin, the silver may make the image too dense.

However, I can emulate the probable appearance of a Bleach Bypassed Kodachrome. Obviously this is a stretch, but the world of digital allows us some liberties with reality, right? The Kodachrome Bleach Bypass preset has a tone curve and other setting reminiscent of my other bleach bypass endeavors while stealing the basic color from my Kodachrome 25 preset. I had to adjust the color on the Kodachrome 25 settings to allow for reasonable skin tones for the bleach bypass look, but aside from that it is still fairly faithful.

This is designed to be a fun, creative preset whilst staying in line with the film focus of LifeInDigitalFilm. The concept is firmly rooted in the traditional photographic world in theory if not in practice.

Have fun, and if you are interested in my more creative presets, not limited by the confines of traditional photography, check out my preset work over at X-Equals.

Until Later,

Michael

Tweet This Post

Alright, let’s get this going. The most important step in setting up your scanning workflow is your choice of scanner. However there are so many scanners out there, it would be impossible for me to guide you towards the best scanner for your needs. I use and love my Epson Perfection V500 and my Plustek OpticFilm 7200. Both are fine scanners, but technology passes and hardware improve with time. They are both a little behind the curve now days, but still produce great scans. If money is no object, just throw down on a Nikon Super CoolScan 9000 ED, otherwise you have some research to do.

Later I will write a basic guide to help you choose the scanner you need. However today I want to look at the next most important variable, scanning software, where I feel that I am able to provide some good feedback to help you made an informed choice.

As it is, when you buy a scanner, it always comes with software that allows you to start scanning. Usually the software is fairly bare bones, with limited options. Other times, especially with high end scanners, you will be provided with some robust software to get you running quick. Nikon scanners ship with Nikon Scan, which is a robust piece of software, and may be all you need. However most other scanners on the market ship with the manufacturer’s software, such as Epson Scan with the Epson scanners.

From here we will assume you chose to but a mid-level scanner, such as an Epson Perfection V500 or Epson V700. The V500 and V700 both ship with Epson Scan. The V700 also ships with a piece of software called LaserSoft Imaging’s SilverFast SE. This is a high quality piece of software, but is crippled in comparison to its sister product SilverFast AI. You may find that SilverFast SE is all you need, or maybe EpsonScan provides you with good enough images for your needs. But either way, you may find you desire more options and more horsepower.

If you find yourself in that situation, I have two options for you to look into. The first option is LaserSoft Imaging’s SilverFast AI, which is an expanded version of the SilverFast SE software often included with mid-range scanners. The other option is Hamrick’s VueScan, a veritable Swiss Army Knife of scanning technology. Let’s look a bit closer at both, of which I have used both frequently, and then I’ll give you my take on the situation.

LaserSoft Imaging’s SilverFast AI

The SilverFast line of scanning software offers tools for any scanning need, from amateur to professional needs. SilverFast AI is there middle of the road software package, with most the pro features the average photographer would need. SilverFast AI Studio and SilverFast Archive Suite are the higher end offerings, but they offer features above and beyond what is needed for my scanning workflow. So I am going to dig deeper into SilverFast AI.

SilverFast AI is specially configured for each model of scanner. This allows SilverFast to consistently provide the highest quality scans from your hardware as the software is tailor made for your scanner. The base software download costs $119 USD for the Epson V500, you can add a custom IT8 calibration target to your software, brining it to $218 and even add in printer calibration software to guarantee accurate printing for $317. Calibration is not required, but is a must for accurate scans. SilverFast comes with both a stand-alone application and a TWAIN compliant Photoshop plug-in.

After the initial purchase, SilverFast is a workhorse when it comes to scanning. It can use your scanner’s Digital ICE technology and has its own built-in scratch and dust repair capabilities as well. A big plus is SilverFast’s ability to scan “HDR” scans from film and they offer a separate piece of software specially designed to manipulate these custom scans. SilverFast is not merely a scanning app, but is expandable to a full suite of scanning tools, called SilverFast Archive Suite. The sky is the limit, but so is your wallet.

SilverFast is full of features, from their excellent NegaFix optimization, which optimizes color and contrast of film scans based on profiles for individual stocks of film. Adaptive Color Restoration helps you bring the color pop back into old shots that have faded. Selective Color Correction allows you to make up to four layers of adjustment, allowing you to selectively alter objects of the same color inside the same image. GANE is an excellent Grain and Noise Elimination tool, allowing you to make clean images from even the grainiest negative. SilverFast’s USM sharpening tool sharpens better than any other scanning application, as it can compensate for your scanner’s sensor and scan motion. MidPip allows for the easy removal of color casting at time of scan and SilverFast’s Multi-Sampling tool combines multiple scans of the same image at different exposures to aid in creating noise free scans, from the deepest shadow to the brightest highlight.

In actual use, SilverFast has a slightly odd feel. If you are used to how the image program GIMP is configured, you have a general idea. Each pane of SilverFast is in a separate, undocked window. At first this is disconcerting, but can easily be adjusted to. Once you get used to the strange layout, SilverFast’s scanning workflow is simple and easy to get used to. It is easy to get high quality, true to the film scans. Even Kodachrome, notoriously one of the hardest film stocks to scan, is handled well by SilverFast, and LaserSoft even offers a complete Kodachrome workflow for sale with Kodachrome IT8 targets.

You will not be let down if you choose to utilize SilverFast as your primary scanning application. While not overly customizable, SilverFast is solid and knows your scanner inside and out.

Pros

• Excellent scan quality
• Awesome tools to tweak your images into perfection.
• Allows a bit of layer editing, allowing you to perfect you image before you get into Photoshop.
• Excellent handling of scratches, dust and excessive grain.
• Beautiful color rendition.
• With the IT-8 target, calibration is a breeze and guarantees accurate colors.
• Fast scanning, including multi-sampling scans.

Cons

• Disconcerting workspace.
• Limited level of customization for scan settings.
• Software is tied only to one make and model of scanner. Cannot upgrade to a new scanner and still use SilverFast without new purchase.
• Relatively high cost, rapidly increasing by adding calibration targets and additional software.

Hamrick VueScan

Hamrick VueScan, as mentioned before, is a veritable scanning Swiss Army Knife. With a single purchase, you have one software package that can be used with almost any scanner, old or new. VueScan is a stand-alone application, with no Photoshop plug-in, but the relative ease of use more than compensates for the lack of a plug-in.

VueScan is developed and maintained by Ed Hamrick, and he built the software from the ground up, by himself in C and C++, to allow him a better interface to manipulate his scanners, getting better quality out of them by accessing them at the hardware level, by passing the normal scanner drivers. He still maintains VueScan on his own, rapidly updating the software for new scanners and fixing bugs on a regular basis. VueScan is updated frequently, with a new version out about every one or two weeks.

Unlike Silverfast, VueScan supports a multitude of scanners. As opposed to configuring special versions for each unique scanner model, Ed Hamrick has profiled many scanners and their capabilities into the VueScan software. While this does not allow the familiarity that SilveFast and its custom versions allows, VueScan is more than capable of getting a lot of your scanner. Plus, since you are able to use VueScan with any scanner, you get more from your purchase as time goes on.

VueScan comes in two flavors, standard and professional. The Standard edition has most all capabilities of the Professional version and allows for free upgrades for one year for $39.95. The Professional version is the same as the Standard, but allows you to save raw scans, define color spaces for your scanner, monitor, printer and file output and calibrate your scanner using IT8 targets, much like SilverFast. If those additions are not enough to persuade you to choose the Professional edition, then consider this. For $79.95 USD you get all those added features and unlimited upgrades past the one year mark. Pay for VueScan Professional once and you have a scanning solution well into the future.

VueScan also has a different interface than you may be used to, as it is very vanilla. However this lack of visual polish allows for an easy to maintain software package for Ed and allows for easy porting to other systems. VueScan works natively on Windows, OSX and Linux (and usually in BSD as well). While Spartan, the interface is very utilitarian, allowing an insane amount of customization to scan settings.

VueScan also has different levels of use. There is a very basic interface, allowing only the most basic of tools to be available, to keep scanning as easy and straight-forward as possible. Then as you step through, you add more features of VueScan to the interface, until you reach the Advanced set-up that allows you precise control over all scan and image processing settings.

VueScan come packed with features for you to utilize. Batch scanning works great, allowing you to define differing areas of your scan platen as separate images and scan them all at once. A life saver when you are scanning a roll and you can scan the maximum amount of negatives your scanner can hold at one time. Multi-sampling and multiple passes are additional options, for scanners that are capable, allowing for an average of scans of multiple exposures with multiple scans of the image. When compiled these multiple passes allow you an image with less noise and more dynamic range, surpassing the normal capabilities of your scanner.

VueScan also supports infrared scanning, i.e. Digital ICE, and does an exceptional job of reducing scratches and dust using it. Upon scanning a preview or even a whole resolution scan, VueScan has a strong editor, allowing for setting white and black points, adjusting color balance and contrast. VueScan has built-in profiles for a variety of common film stocks, although not as large as SilverFast’s NegaFix offers. However, VueScan has a procedure allowing you to sample a film’s base color and lock in exposure and base color for an entire roll, allowing custom profiling of film with no additional need for target.

With the pro version of VueScan you have the ability to define ColorSpaces for your scans. This comes in handy, as your scanner normally has a wider gamut than that of sRGB, so you can save your scans in Adobe RGB or ProPhoto, allowing for more color depth in Lightroom and Photoshop. If you happen to have an IT8 target or purchase one, you can custom calibrate your scanners for more consistant scanning, beginning to end. Raw film scans are also possible with VueScan (which is much like SilverFast’s HDR scans) allowing you to save the scan generated by the sensor, in full color plus infrared in a 48/64-bit file. This allows you the most perfect conversions of your scans in Photoshop.

Of importance to my workflow, VueScan allows you to directly save TIFF scans directly to DNG. Many would disagree with my use, but native DNG compatibility is a big plus in my book and integral to my workflow.

The biggest drawback of VueScan is also one of its strong suits. Frequent updates. The current version of VueScan is not playing nicely with batch scanning, with its automatic multi-frame feature not working right with my V500. This is easily remedied by downgrading to a prior version of the software, however the prior versions are not available on Hamrick.com. You will need to save copies of the installer for “known good” builds for your needs. While the occasional update will break your scanning, the quick revert to a known-good copy will fix your ailments. Plus, Ed is always working on new updates, so if he knows something is broken, it will be resolved rather rapidly in an upcoming update. In fact, the latest release alleviated psrt of the problem, however the feature is not back to 100% yet, on my V500 at least.

While not as intertwined with your scanner as SilverFast, VueScan will get more out of your scanner than the manufacturer’s software. At the cost, especially when considering the compatibility, VueScan is a must have. With this software, you will be scanning for years, even as you upgrade your hardware.

Pros

• Inexpensive, $79.99 for the Pro version with unlimited updates.
• Insanely compatible, with over 1200 scanners working and more to come.
• One purchase and you have high-quality software for all your scanners.
• Very customizable scans, with many adjustments and variables to pull the most out of your film.
• Cross-compatible. The software supports Windows, OSX and Linux. In fact, VueScan is the only real contender for high-quality scanning in Linux.
• Exposure and base-color locking ensures consistent results for scans from the same roll.

Cons

• Not as good as SilverFast in manipulating your hardware, but not far behind.
• Spartan interface takes some getting used to.
• Stand-alone only, no Photoshop plug-in.
• Not as good as NegaFix in SilverFast at correcting scans based on film profiles, but exposure and base-color lock more than compensate.

My Verdict

If you couldn’t tell by now, I whole heartedly recommend VueScan over SilverFast. Four big reasons weighed my choice.

• Price – For a one-time $79.99 purchase, I have updates for life and can use it on any scanner attached to my computer.
• Compatibility – I use two scanners on a regular basis and I own four. VueScan is my one-stop shop for my scanning needs, regardless of the scanner I am using at the time.
• Customization – The amount of variables VueScan allows me control of allows me to take the quality of my scans into my own hands. SilverFast does not even come close to the level of control VueScan gives me over my scanner.
• DNG out of the box – I have to convert TIFFs from SilverFast to DNG in Lightroom. This is a step I would rather not take. VueScan allows me to wrap my TIFF scan directly into a DNG wrapper, allowing for segregation from other images, protection of my original scan, and allows me to carry Lightroom edits and snapshots directly in the DNG wrapper.

Those four reasons where the reason I chose VueScan. For the rest of my scanning series and impending e-book, I will be utilizing VueScan for my tutorials and workflow. I feel if you chose to use VueScan you will not be let down and have a solid workhorse application day in day out for years to come.

That is not to say SilverFast will let you down. If you choose to go that route you will get high-quality scans easily, without having to concern yourself with the myriad of options VueScan allows you. SilverFast is solid, and comes just behind VueScan in my book. I some areas it is superior to VueScan, and I feel it generates better scans with less work. However, I feel with the tools VueScan gives me, I can consistently create better scans with that software.

In the coming days, I will post an in-depth review of both SilverFast and VueScan. They will delve deeper into the software than I did here and even do a basic workflow for each, so you can get the gist of how to use each. So if you are still up in the air hang around for that.

Hopefully this gives you some insight into third-party software for you scanner. You can still use your OEM software that came with your scanner, but you will get better results easier with either VueScan or SilverFast. Choosing your scan software is the cornerstone of your scanning workflow. You have to get the image data you need at time of scan, and these two pieces of software guarantee you will get the most out of your negative and slides.

See ya next time,

Michel W. Gray

Tweet This Post

[Image scanned by ScanCafe from old, cheap 3M film shot on Minolta Maxxum 7000 ]

I really don’t know what triggered this, but it seems the great film vs digital debate has risen from the depths of Flickr groups and message boards and surfaced in the photo blogging community. In the past few weeks I have read pieces from all over focusing on film, and casting it in either a positive of negative light in comparison to digital. Frequently the comments below these posts have exploded into heated discussions from both sides of the aisle.

Film vs Digital seems to be the great argument in the photo community, and has been for a while. Much like the Windows vs Mac debate in the computer world and the right-wing vs left-wing squabbles in politics, film vs digital seems to never die out and occasionally rises to prominence. It seems to be a prominent discussion at the moment.

As a self-described hybrid photographer, using both digital and film in my work and even blending the two together, I fail to understand the need for this discussion. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and a reasonable person can see this. There are cost, creative and stylistic issues for both.

As you can plainly see from my work on LifeInDigitalFilm, from my film emulation presets, to discussion film and scanning, I love film. From my articles on X-Equals, it is plain to see I am just as devoted to digital. I feel as such, I can give a fairly balanced overview of the argument and show, in the basest terms, there really is not debate at all.

I could discuss this on a point by point basis, but that is asinine and could make this article drag on forever. So I am going to make this quick and do a quick pros and cons list for both digital and film photography. This is by no means a thorough listing, but the points that come to mind most frequently when I find myself in this discussion.

Digital Photography

Pros

• Lower cost per shot. You pay for the camera up front and take virtually unlimited shots with no encumbrance of development and scanning costs.
• Highly flexible. Digital allows you liberties with your images that film simply cannot offer. Shoot in Raw and the world is your oyster, you can do most anything your heart desires with Raw processing programs and graphics editors (Lightroom and Photoshop in particular).
• Consistency. Once you understand your camera’s operation, you can consistently get great results, controlling almost all variables. Be it ISO, noise or even color … digital gives you consistent results from frame to frame and shot to shot. You normally know what you will get before you even push the shutter.
• Virtually unlimited shots. With just a few memory cards, you can go out and shoot all day. Each card allows literally hundreds of shots with little to no down time while shooting. Aside from full buffers and the occasional change of card, you can shoot all day without interruption. No need to change film. Plus you get multiple renditions of any particular scene, allowing you the freedom to choose exactly the one you want.
• Shoot now, process later. Digital does not force you to commit to a style beforehand. You can shoot away, in Raw format, and worry about stylistic decisions later. Make a black and white image, boost saturation, re frame shots via cropping. You are not locked in at all, the Raw format free you to make those decisions later.

Cons

• Overabundant options. Nothing can stifle creativity more than unlimited processing options. Upon reviewing each photo, you have to consider your processing options. This process can be more time consuming than actually carrying out the process. This creates the photographer’s version of writer’s block, you don’t know what you want to create because there is little to constrain you. Constraints are challenges, and challenges encourage creativity to overcome them.
• Virtually unlimited shots. Many of use frequently fall back to a “run and gun” mentality when shooting digital. When take countless photos of the same subject, at differing angles or exposures. A simple afternoon outing can translate into thousands of photos quickly. From this glut of images, you have to take time to find the images you really want. If you do not have self control, you can quickly overwhelm yourself when it comes to processing time.
• No surprises. Consistency is a pro, but also a con. Frame after frame, upon import the images tend to have a similar feel, even from shoot to shoot. Your Raw files will have their own feel, unchanging until you start your processing workflow. Before, different films would give you different feels, and that would impact your shooting and change things up. Again, it is easy to fall into a rut without even realizing it.
• Upfront costs. Now this is a bigger issue for some than others. Digital systems can get expensive, as good DSLRs get quickly up into the multi-thousand dollar range. Obviously you don’t have to stay on the cutting edge, but to maximize returns on digital photography, you still want to stay close to the blade. New models drop frequently, each with new desirable features, better noise handling, higher ISO and larger resolutions. And lets not forget the cost of the top-end lenses required to get the most out of these bodies, check the price on good Canon L glass lately? If the prices on those lenses don’t make your checkbook cringe, then this is not remotely an issue. However, for the average photographer it is an issue. And don’t forget flash units and other must-have accessories. I won’t even touch on Digital Medium Format
• Development cycles. Tying into the cost scenario, the rapid development of DSLR technologies keeps bringing out better tech each year. Obviously no one is holding a gun to your head trying to make you let go of your D40, but you have to admit it is getting rather long in the tooth by today’s entry level technology. In the film era, the only real upgrade you had to worry about was new. better film. You rarely had to upgrade bodies, instead you simply changed film. To stay up on image quality in the digital era, you have to be ready to sacrifice some cash to the camera gods, as a DSLR is essentially one huge roll of film that only runs out when you replace your gear or it dies. You can just push your DSLR film speed further and easier than you could with film.

Film Photography

Pros

• Incredible variety. In direct opposition to digital, where your sensor defines how the image you are shooting is rendered and cannot be changed, film photography allows you to change your film at your whim. This leads you to entirely different interpretations of the scene, each unique to the particular film emulsion and format you choose to shoot. Even today, in what many consider the waning days of film, there is still a wide variety of film stocks each providing their own unique rendition of the world on the other side of the lens.
• Wider variety of equipment. As it appears we are in the waning days of film, it is surprising the bargains that can be had on great gear. From 35mm to Large Format, great deals can be found on great cameras and excellent lenses due to the rapid migration of many to strictly digital. I, for example, shoot Canon for digital and Minolta manual focus for film. I have a small selection of lenses for my Canon gear, primarily due to the cost of the equipment … I have just the lenses I need for weddings and portraits, and they ain’t “L” glass either. Now, for less than the price of a Canon Rebel, I have an extensive Minolta collection, anchored by an SRT and an X-700 with a wide variety of Rokkor lenses. These old lenses are every bit as good as most lenses on the market today, and some can put “L” lenses to shame with the right film behind them.
• Simple limitations. As mentioned earlier, limitations can enhance creativity. Shooting film automatically limits you to the film you chose, and the film’s speed. If you are shooting black and white, you will never have a color image from those shots. If you shoot color negative, you will never get the same vivid colors slide film can provide. High-speed film produces some wicked grain, and virtually grain-free film are painfully slow (try shooting at ISO 6 – EI 6 for film purists). You know these limitations going into your shoot and create your images accordingly, sometimes having to get creative to express what you desire to be conveyed to the eventual viewer.
• Forced deliberation. Film had no preview and rarely allows a second chance. To nail a shot you have to expose carefully and still you bracket your shots. The known limit of shots forces you to slow down and work more deliberately. Sure you can do this with digital, but temptation to chimp and delete bad images is overwhelming. Shooting film, you won’t know if you got it right until you develop your film or develop a large degree of faith in your photographic skills.
• Freedom from post. If you sent your film out for development, scanning and prints; your post processing ends at dropping the film off at the lab. What you get is what you get. Now this benefit does not apply to me, as I develop, scan and print my own images from film. This is why I shoot digital for weddings, I would hate to have to develop and scan 25 rolls myself. If you are not going to do any of the developing or scanning yourself you are done. This can be liberating and the excitement of seeing your images for the first time is beyond description.

Cons

• Backside costs. You can easily put yourself in the poor house buying film and paying for development, scans and prints. This cost can be mitigated by going develop only and scanning for yourself or even go all out and start souping your own negatives. However the money saved is offset by time lost. If you shoot a lot and are not restrained in your snapping, you will quickly abandon the thought of film photography and seek sensible refuge in the low cost per shot world of digital.
• Film lock in. Unless you want to get into the rather advanced techniques (although quite simple really) allowing you to change out film mid-roll, you are locked into one ISO and one color rendition for anywhere between 12 and 36 shots. You lose a lot of flexibility by going the film route.
• Technique. Film photography really requires a lot more technical skill to get consistent quality results. Quite a few older cameras have no light meter, so you have to use a handheld meter, use the “Sunny 16″ rule or get good as guessing exposure. Then you have to account for your film’s reciprocity and it’s inherent reciprocity failure, exposure based color shifting and compensating for light temperature by using filters and flash gels. None of this is remotely a concern in the digital world, and these rules and techniques can slow a shooting pace to a crawl until you warp you brain around them. Although understanding these quirks can improve your digital skills, not knowing them will not hamper your abilities as a spectacular digital photographer. And I didn’t even mention the cocepts of pushing and pulling film.
• Filters, filters everywhere. And keep in mind, you will need a lot of different filters for film photography that are simply not needed for digital. In digital photography, all you really need are a few Neutral Density filters and a good Circular Polarizer. For film, you will want split ND’s, color correcting filters, ND’s, Polarizers, Circle Polarizers just to get started. Delve into black and white and you will want a variety of color filters, ranging from reds to blues. I guess you really don’t need these, as you can just shoot straight on, but for advanced techniques you will be wanting them. That said, once scanned you can simulate many of these effects in Photoshop, much like you would with digital, but the desired effect is rarely as good as if you shot with the filter or faked it with a digital image.
• Freedom from Post. Lets not kid ourselves, Photoshop and Lightroom are great tools and can really make an image sing. If you take the hands off approach to photography, you are precluding yourself from utilizing these tools to their fullest ability. Albeit it is freeing to drop off a roll and wait for the final results, you loose a lot of control over you images. Again, you can go the scanning or self-development routes. But again, those methods require an investment of time. While rewarding and giving a great feeling of accomplishment, the do it yourself methods are painfully slow compared to the all-digital methods.

So there, a fairly balanced list of pros and cons for each. There is no right answer for the question of film or digital, so I compromised and use both. For work shots I shoot about 80% digital and 20% film. For personal work its about 80% film and 20% digital, so more or less I am 50/50. When shooting film, I develop myself and then scan in myself, digitizing my film early in the process and working up the images as I would any shot from a DSLR. I still step in the darkroom once and a while and make some optical prints, but I have also been known to make a transparency print from an inverted digital shot and make contact prints on photo paper from my digital work. I blend both photography techniques together on a regular basis, working towards what I envision my final product to be, not limiting myself to a chemical or digital workflow at any time. I do what works best. There is no film vs digital debate in my book.

One other benefit of film I forgot to mention is resolution vs cost. I can much more affordably shoot medium format or large format film and scan in for a high resolution image than invest in a digital medium format system. a $300 dollar camera and a $6 roll of medium format film can easily be scanned into a 40+ megapixel image at home on a consumer grade photo scanner. To get comparable results in the digital world would require an prohibitively expensive setup. Sure, comparing 35mm film to digital is one thing, digital has won that war years ago. But comparing Medium Format and larger film to digital is another situation entirely. When I know I need to go large, I still shoot larger format film.

From my point of view, film and digital where equivalent in resolution around the 10 megapixel mark in DSLRs. Now this is a generalization, as maximum resolution in film really depends on the film used. I would still put 35mm Velvia up against any Pro level DSLR today. Velvia’s resolving power and resolution is still insane to this day, but the DSLR will still win out in the end, especially if you include color accuracy in your rating matrix. I shoot a lot of 35mm film still, but the argument really leans in digital’s favor in this film format. I still love the unique look of each film available, and I love using the inexpensive, high quality gear at my disposal, so I still shoot 35mm film. But as I just alluded to, digital will not be displacing my Mamiya gear any time soon.

So, those are my arguments both ways, take them for what they are. I love both methods and use each every day. I see no need to debate film vs digital, as in my consideration photography is both film and digital. With proper technique, even 35mm can compete with digital any day of the week, and like it or not there is a certain feel to film that digital does not have. Same as records vs CD’s, there is a certain warmth to film.

Now let me know your thoughts on the matter. Fire off your thoughts in the comments below. I would also love to run a series on why you use film still today, so if you would be interested in writing up a piece telling why you still love film, email me at michael@lifeindigitalfilm.com and let me know, I’ll get your opinion up for the world to see, along with some of your work if you would like.

That’s it for now.

Michael

Tweet This Post

Hey, what is up with everybody? Sorry for the extended absence, but I have had way too much on my plate of late and needed to get some crap lined out. Sometimes I feel it is better to do nothing than to do something half-assed, henceforth the lack of updates on LIDF since the Kodachrome 10 release in October. After sorting out some issues, running away to the woods to regain my sanity, and laying out my 2010 roadmap for LIDF, I am back, on December 1 to relase my first Lightroom 3 Beta preset.

So, on with what you are here for. Today’s preset is designed primarily for Lightroom 3, and as such the download only contains the Lightroom version of this preset. It is an emulation of Kodak T-Max P3200, done in my tradional LIDF release format with a Normal, Auto and Curve version of the preset. What is new, is that this is the first LIDF preset to feature grain simulation, leveraging the new Grain capability presented in Lightroom 3 Beta. To this extent, the download also includes a Grain version of the preset that applies the custom grain settings that I made to simulate the look and feel of T-Max P3200 developed in 1:1 D-76.

Once you unpack the zip file and install it in Lightroom, you will be presented with 4 presets. Regulars already know this bit of info, but since there is no readme file in the download today, I felt I should explain my preset packaging here, for new users.

Kodak T-Max P3200

This is the basic preset, and will adjust most settings preset in Lightroom to create the effect. This is the final product of my development cycle and represnts the closest emulation I could manage on my PC. If your image is well exposed, this preset will usually provide good results with one click.

Kodak T-Max P3200 Auto

In this preset the Grayscale Mixer, Tone Curve and Clarity is set byt the preset, while basic tone is automatically adjusted by Lightroom. This preset is excellent to use on images that are off in exposure, or to simply see what the preset lookslike on any given image.

Kodak T-Max P3200 Curve

This preset, which is the most basic emulation but the most versatile, applies only the Grayscale Mixer, Tone Curve and Clarity settings, leaving all other adjustments untouched. This preset plays the best when stacking with other presets and is the one to use if you have lready edited you images.

Kodak T-Max P3200 Grain

This preset strictly proveds the grain simulation for the emulation. There is no color adjustments made, it strictly applies grain. Use this after applying the film preset of you choice from above. As this preset only adjusts the Grain Simlation sliders in Lightroom 3, you can apply this grain profile to any other preset or image without using the other presets in this set.

Please note, this download works fine with Lightroom 2, just do not install the Kodak T-Max P3200 Grain preset,as it will literally do nothing in Lightroom 2. The film color and tone simulation will work just as any other LIDF preset would.

Hopefully you enjoy the preset. I chose to use Kodak T-Max 3200 as my first LR3 emulation, as it has visually heavy grain in real life and was a good film to test out Lightroom 3’s grain capability.

Other Stuff

Now that I got my apology gift to you out of the way, I am going to tak another moment of your time to update you on some of my projects.

First, Cold Storage 2 is complete, with the exception of the guidebook, which I am slavishly working on. The second the guidebook is complete I will get Cold Storage 2 up and available for sale. 46 more presets, featuring all the presets release on LIDF since the first Cold Storage collection and a litany of new, exclusive presets only found in the Cold Storage 2 collection. Hopefully this will be ready to roll shortly.

Also, my Scanning series will start up this weekend, sharing my film scanning workflow for Lightroom/ACR helping you get the most out of your film and scanner by taking the editing process into the RAW workflow of Lightroom and ACR. This will be a fairly long series, and will also have an E-Book released during its run with all the blog content and some fesh content, all related to scanning. Stay tuned for that.

Next, on the topic of books, in the very near future Brandon, of X-Equals, and I will be releasing an E-Book bringing together all of our Lightroom/Photoshop articles present on X-Equals into one easy to use book. I’ll let you know when the bomb drops, it will be soon, and if you use Lightroom you will find it to be an valuable resource.

Everything else aside, my little break gave me a good refresh, and I am ready to rock again. I am going to take LIDF to a once a week schedule for the forseeable future, set up for Friday/Saturday post each week. I am not going to stick fast to that schedule, as I plan on sprinkling other posts in occassionally, but the regular post will be up at the end of the week each week.

Anyways, its good to be back, and thanks to all the visitors who kept droping by, all the tweets and links from others, and actually growing my volume of visitors while I was away. It means a lot to me.

Tweet This Post

Recently the Twitter persona of the Lightroom team asked what plug-ins would we most like to see for Lightroom. Which is fine, but most plug-ins process their magic on raster images. If that was a concern, I hit my go to Lightroom plug-in Photoshop. Another big question that should be considered is “What features does Lightroom need added or refined?” In general, I think Lightroom is near perfect, and is a specialized tool, not a one size fits all solution. That being said, I am going to waste a post and share with everyone some of the features that I would most like to see added to Lightroom.

First off, if you really want something, be sure to send your wish to Adobe via their feature request system. We can all blather on about what we want on message boards, Flickr, Twitter and the litany of blogs that dot the Internet but if you don’t tell Adobe, they will not know why you feel the feature is important. For some of these points, I have submitted feature requests, others, I see where the feature would help me, but in the long run hinder Lightroom’s scope and performance. To submit your feature requests, head over to the Adobe site or click right here.

That being said, here is my wishlist for the next iteration of Lightroom. Hopefully some of these are added and others are pure flights of my fantasy, but still doesn’t change the fact that these features would make Lightroom absolutely perfect for my needs. I write this from my perspectives of being a wedding/portrait photographer, film photographer and preset developer. First I will cover the few that I have sent in feature requests for, leaving my flights of fantasy for last.

Soft Proofing

This is probably one of the most requested features to be added into Lightroom’s realm of capabilities. Without a doubt this single feature would be of the utmost value to professionals world wide utilizing Lightroom for their post processing. To be able to render you image onscreen, preview what final output will look like via printer or lab would be an absolute timesaver for any serious photographer.

By utilizing ICC profiles to render the image on the screen, demonstrating a likely final print appearance, Lightroom would vastly improve any photographer’s work flow. If Lightroom had a hot-key that would apply your preselected ICC profile to your image to preview output quickly from within Lightroom, instead of having to open in Photoshop to soft proof would be great. Even a develop module selection box featuring all available ICC profiles would help.

What would really be killer though, would be the ability to further utilize the Develop Module while Soft Proofing. Instead of just temporarily displaying the proof, actually allowing you to tweak you image with the profile applied so you can perfect your image’s presentation before export. It seems that it would be simple enough with Lightroom’s design as a metadata editor, not an actual pixel editor. However implemented though, anything that eliminates and otherwise unneeded trip to Photoshop is a welcome addition.

Relative Presets

For the preset developer in me, this would be an absolute godsend. If when developing a preset I could set a slider to be adjusted from its current location a set number of units would allow a wider versatility in prets that are developed.

Here is an example. I am currently developing a set of Wratten filters as a preset toolkit. Currently I am running into issues with exposure compensations caused by use of these filters. Many correcting filters will drop exposure 1/3 to 1 full stop in the process of applying their effect. As it is, I have to hard code the Exposure slider to -25 or -50. It would be incredibly helpful to both the accuracy and eas of use of these presets if they could simply adjust the current setting on the image instead of completely rewriting the exposure value.

If you had perfectly processed you image and it required a +1.25 exposure value to get the image there, applying any filter would automatically reset the Exposure slider to the preset’s defined value. If that adjustment applied to -.25 to the current value, it would then it would simply back the exposure off to +1, altering the image in a manner closer to the actual effect of the real filter.

And this would not simply be useful to my emulation presets, but would be of value to any other preset designer that see a need to manipulate Exposure, Recovery, Black or even Contrast. Presets are designed relative to the image they are being developed on. If the presets were relative to the image settings and not simply a predefined script of settings, theoretically the preset would be consistent in its application to all images, making an equivalent alteration to any image from its starting point, completely unrelated to the image that the preset was originally designed for.

As to implementation, I feel it would be as simple as adding a check box and value box to the Save Preset dialog in Lightroom (and ACR for that matter to maintain compatibility). If a value needs to be relative, then simply check the box and set the relative value in therms on + or -. Lightroom could even pull the difference from 0 automatically and then allow the designer to override.

Either way, this would enhance the preset tools Lightroom provides and allow Lightroom users to create even more useful and versatile presets that extend beyond pure image enhancement to honest to goodness tools, ala Photoshop Actions.

Input Scanning Interface

This could be either applied as a part of Lightroom, or as an input plug-in. I don’t care if this is designed by Adobe, LaserSoft Imaging or Hamrick, creator of VueScan. I know that Lightroom is designed as a cataloging tool with RAW processing capabilities, but I shoot a lot of film and Lightroom handles the scans beautifully. 48-bit scans in Lightroom react almost as well as RAW files do, so let us add a utility that allows import from film, scan to 48-bit, output as DNG and automatically import the images into Lightroom.

As more film photographers and those who have switched to digital scan their film stock, many are finding Lightroom capable of handling much of the adjustments required to digitize the images. Lightroom also adds the benefit of the original scan never being manipulated, which is good if they scan once and wish to reinterpret scans.

It is easy enough to scan in VueScan to a set folder as 48-bit Tiff based DNG files, however to be able to do so in Lightroom and have Lightroom automatically import whilst you continue scanning would save me time and effort. As it is, I have to scan my entire folder contents, usually on rolls of film, taking hours. Then I have to import them into mu Lightroom catalog and generate my 1:1 previews. This can take time, if Lightroom automatically grabbed the newest scan, added it to the library and created the preview whilst I scanned the next frame, I would save the 5-15 minutes of import time at the back end. Not to mention that I can start processing images immediately, while scanning continues.

This would be good for me and the rest of the small, but growing, film community.

Relocate Derivative Files

This one is courtesy of my good friend Brandon Oelling from X-Equals. He points out that whenever you Edit in Photoshop…Lightroom generates the derivative PSD of TIFF in the same folder as your original. For many workflows, this can be an issue, as you want to have your processed images in a completely different location from your originals for the sake of clarity and organization. While Brandon provides a good workaround in his post +THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS on X-Equals, it is a time consuming workaround that Adobe could easily eliminate with one, simple change.

When in the Edit In Photoshop… dialog, simple at a File Location option beneath the output image settings. Simply input your folder of choice, and Lightroom creates a raster PSD or TIFF and places it in that folder, creating a new folder in your Lightroom catalog with said image automatically. This would help remove filmstrip crowding and accidentally reworking a process image when you really wanted to manipulate the original RAW image again. Simple fix that would help many photographers out there keep things organized.

As a side to this feature request, it would also be beneficial to stack images from disparate folders. This allows you to keep the original and derivative together, whilst at the same time, not destroying your organizational schema on your hard drive. This should be a separate request, but I mention it here because it seems easy to do and goes hand in hand with relocating derivative files.

For more insight as to why Brandon feels that these are important points for Adobe to address, check out his series on Digital Asset Management.

Now for the pipe dreams

Grain Addition

This is great for me, good for those who want a film look and completely worthless to the rest of the Lightroom community. I really wish Lightroom had a way to add grain to images. Three sliders that represent size, density and coarseness and proceed to clump pixels together to simulate grain. I would like this to generate the final image with grain ala Silver Efex Pro, not as an overlay as typical in Photoshop.

The way I see it functioning would be similar to the way the clone tool works, but creates areas of a solid color with a definite edge to them. By no means easy to implement, but it would allow me even better film emulations by factoring in grain into my presets. This is a very niche request, and the Lightroom team would be half insane to implement it, but I feel the ability to add grain to an image would be spectacular and make Lightroom an even more useful tool to a portion of the target audience.

Obviously, the Grain Simulation would have to be preview at 1:1 zoom. It would be a processor intensive procedure that would take forever to render if it is applied to the whole image during post processing. But you would only want to see the grain at 1:1 anyways, as grain shouldn’t really be so large as to see it in a normal image preview at all. Sure it would add time at export, but it would be well worth the price to avoid having to fake grain in Photoshop or run the image through Silver Efex Pro just to get grain applied after the image is rendered. Rendering grain at time of RAW export would create a more high quality presentation in my opinion.

But again, it is a pipe dream.

Limited Layer Support

This would be useful for many times when layer may be needed to process an image. If Lightroom could support layering of images, such as 4 Virtual Copies of a file, and provide basic Layer Masking support, I could eliminate my need for Photoshop about 50% of the time.

In application I see this as very limited support. Allow me to stack together up to 5 Virtual Copies into a new Virtual Copy. All adjustments to the layers should be done before the layering process, as I believe that in layer mode, Lightroom should not allow for further manipulation of the layers. If you want to manipulate a layer midstream, go back and re-edit the original Virtual Copy that was brought into the layer image.

Now simply allow only masking of layers in layer mode. This would allow multiple exposures to be blended, different presets to be applied to different parts of the image and even double exposures if the layers are from different images. When the file is exported, the Layer Copy would cull data from the Virtual Copies and use that data to generate a fresh Tiff or Jpeg from the combined data. Again, this avoids Photoshop and creates a pristine output file generated only from RAW data, never having to deal with raster images in the interim. A similar process can be carried out in Photoshop via Smart Objects, but it is a rather time consuming work flow, as I detailed on X-Equals recently.

Layering more complicated than this is beyond the scope of Lightroom, and many would argue my proposal is as well. However I see this as a natural extension of Lightroom, and with the limited functionality, should not create a lot of added overhead while providing a way to create images while in RAW without manipulating pixels.

Again, a pipe dream.

Lens Perspective Correction

PTLens is an awesome plug-in for Lightroom, but why can Lightroom not have some of the basic features on its own? I would think that basic keystoning could be done in Lightroom fairly easily. Since Lightroom is based solely on the editing and interpretation of metadata, would it be so difficult to institute basic image correction for lens distortion?

Case in point, doing a large group portrait with a wide angle or even fish-eye lens. As it is you could retouch the image in Lightroom and then have to rely on PTLens or Photoshop to correct distortion for you before you crop. If image distortion correction was provided in Lightroom, you could simple correct the distortion, crop the image and then export the image as you desire. Again this provides the benefit of you image being produced solely from RAW data and not requiring further manipulation of pixels on the final rendered, raster image.

Although this seems simple enough to me, there may be issues under the hood I am not considering. So for now, I am going to again chalk this up as a pipe dream.

So What Can You Do?

So we can sit here and whine about what we desire all we want, but if your desires are not made know directly to Adobe, then you are simply preaching to the choir. If you see something on this list you think is needed in future revision of Lightroom, or if you have an idea that would really take Lightroom up a notch, let the Lightroom team know through Adobe’s Feature Request/Bug Report Form on Adobe.com. Surely they are already working on some of these ideas, but it never hurts for them to know that you, their customer, desire these features.

There is no sense in cluttering up Lightroom with features that have little or no demand, which is why I keep my pipe dream requests to myself for the time being. What makes Lightroom special in comparison to Photoshop, is that it is a limited, scope precision tool, like a scalpel. Photoshop on the other hand, is a massive application that does almost everything and then some. A behemoth of a program to master, and is not as streamlined as Lightroom.

We need Lightroom to stay trim, if it grows too big it will slow more and become another piece of bloated-code. However, new features are needed to enhance an already great product. Lightroom has an edge on Aperture at the moment, and it has to continue to evolve to stay ahead, otherwise photographers will start to drift away to Aperture, much like many Aperture users are starting to currently drift to Lightroom.

The Lightroom team has to balance new features with performance, and can only devote so much time and money on developing new features. Your feedback helps them gauge what people are clamoring for and what people really need. This helps them stay focused and provide a better product on a timely basis.

Just food for thought …

Michael

Tweet This Post