Sorry to keep bringing this topic up, but frustration reigns supreme.
Yes, I do have a flat bed scanner with an illuminated lid (HP 3570c),
capable of handling two 35mm color negatives at a time.   The process
is incredibly slow, takes about 15 minutes per 2 images.   

I can use a light box with my digital camera and acquire hi-resolution
images in seconds, but I can't easily. reliably convert these images
to corrected colors in Photoshop 7.

So, if the scanner manufacturers know how to deal with color negatives
simply through their drivers, why can't graphic editors do the same?
Surely this is not rocket science!

Thoughts of others......?

Regards,

Terry Smythe

From: "Terry Smythe" <smythe@shaw.ca>

> Sorry to keep bringing this topic up, but frustration reigns supreme.
> Yes, I do have a flat bed scanner with an illuminated lid (HP 3570c),
> capable of handling two 35mm color negatives at a time.   The process
> is incredibly slow, takes about 15 minutes per 2 images.
>
> I can use a light box with my digital camera and acquire hi-resolution
> images in seconds, but I can't easily. reliably convert these images
> to corrected colors in Photoshop 7.
>
> So, if the scanner manufacturers know how to deal with color negatives
> simply through their drivers, why can't graphic editors do the same?
> Surely this is not rocket science!

Here's the drill:

1) photograph a negative with both clear orange and completely black areas. 
The film leader works reasonably well for this.
2) in curves, click the white eyedropper on the clear area, and the black 
eyedropper on the black area.
3) invert the ends of the RGB curve to get a positive image
4) save the resulting curve,
5) load an actual image, and load the curve you saved in the previous step
6) adjust the middle of the RGB curve up or down a bit to get the overall 
brightness where you want it.
7) if the image has an overall color cast, adjust the middle point of the 
other channels to get rid of it.
8) save the resulting curve, and use it as a starting point for your other 
images that use this film type.

If you email me an image, (mike at curvemeister.com) I'll use it to make a 
tutorial.

It's not rocket science, and even if it were, you would be more than equal 
to the task :-)
---
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:47:55 GMT, "Mike Russell"
<RE-MOVEmike@Curvemeister.comRE-MOVE> wrote:

>It's not rocket science, and even if it were, you would be more than equal 
>to the task :-)
>---
>Mike Russell
>www.curvemeister.com
>

Mike,

Thank you for your input on this topic, appreciated.     I do not
disagree that it is possible to use Photoshop or PSP to convert color
negatives to corrected colors.    In the previous exchange of messages
on this issue, numerous suggestions emerged, and I did try them all.
Yes, possible, but certainly not quick, nor convenient, nor easy.

What really bothers me about this is that both my flat bed scanners
instantly display a color corrected image through "preview", no fuss,
no muss, truly instantly.     But then, at a minimum of 600dpi, the
scan itself takes an eternity.   And even then, I end up with a
minimum image of about 500 x 350.    To get a larger image, I would
need to possibly go as high as 1200dpi, and take 2-3 times longer to
make the scan.

What I don't understanf is if the scanner manufacturers have got it
figured out and know how to quickly display a color corrected image,
how come the major players in graphics editing (like Photoshop and
PSP) don't have this feature built in?

It takes forever to acquire an image from a flat bed scanner, but mere
seconds through a digital camera.     Would not the same conversion
process apply to either method of image acquisition?     What's
preventing the major players from implementing this feature eons ago?

Thoughts of others?

Regards,

Terry Smythe

On 10/11/05 10:54 PM, Terry Smythe uttered:

> What I don't understanf is if the scanner manufacturers have got it
> figured out and know how to quickly display a color corrected image,
> how come the major players in graphics editing (like Photoshop and
> PSP) don't have this feature built in?

I'm missing something. To get a negative into Photoshop, don't you first
have to scan it anyway? Why would they build a redundant feature into the
program when the scanning process is needed to acquire the image/negative?

Is it the conversion process from negative to positive that takes the scan
so long, or just the size/resolution?

My flatbed (now old PowerLook III) does negatives, but I've never used the
feature; just can't seem to get around to selecting negs to scan:\ I wish I
could tryout the SilverFast scan software. It seems to me though that what
you really desire is a flatbed scanner that works with the same technology
that a digital camera does, speedily. For all I know they exist.

What happening with the dedicated negative scanners these days?

inez

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 04:34:05 GMT, iehsmith
<inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I'm missing something. To get a negative into Photoshop, don't you first
>have to scan it anyway? 

Not necessarily.    

On both of my transmissive flat bed scanners, the "preview" function
instantly converts the negative into a color cofrrected image.    It's
the actual scanning that takes eons for a single image.    At 800dpi,
a single image may take about 2 minutes to do a single scan.   The
scanned image en ds up in Photoshop or PSP as a color corrected
positive image.     Neither of these graphics editors need to do the
conversion.

>Is it the conversion process from negative to positive that takes the scan
>so long, or just the size/resolution?

Has to be the resolution necessary to acquire a decent sized image.
Since the conversion has already taken place, the image needs to be
scanned at a very high dpi, which dramatically increases the scan
time.

I do not dispute at all that this conversion can be done quite readily
and accuratefy on a transmissive flat bed scanner.    While the
corrected positive image appears magically in seconds in "preview",
it's just that the use of a flat bed scanner is incredibly slow in the
actual scanning.

Through my digital camera, set to highest resolution, and a light box,
I can acquire a negative image in seconds, but it is still a negative.
Conversion has not taken place.     

Then dropping that negative image into Photoshop or PSP presents a
very time consuming adventure trying to correct the color balance and
convert it into a positive image, something that the scanner drivers
can do virtually instantly.

It would appear that the major graphics editors have no interest in
recognizing that a color negative can be instantly captured through a
digital camera, forcing the time consuming flat bed scanner approach
to convert color negatives into positives.

Wonder why..........?

Regards,

Terry Smythe

From: "Terry Smythe" <smythe@shaw.ca>

....
> Then dropping that negative image into Photoshop or PSP presents a
> very time consuming adventure trying to correct the color balance and
> convert it into a positive image, something that the scanner drivers
> can do virtually instantly.

If you bundle the curve operation into an action, you can do it all with one 
function key.  There is very little, if any, manual adjustment once you have 
your curve set up for a particular emulsion.

> It would appear that the major graphics editors have no interest in
> recognizing that a color negative can be instantly captured through a
> digital camera, forcing the time consuming flat bed scanner approach
> to convert color negatives into positives.
>
> Wonder why..........?

As useful as this feature is for some, by and large there is not that much 
demand for it.  Even if there were substantial demand, why should Adobe 
spend development effort, and code bloat, on a feature that is easily made 
into an action?
---
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

"Terry Smythe" <smythe@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:hedok1dm7g1cur8v71rg7mv83ut61hsdm8@4ax.com...
> Sorry to keep bringing this topic up, but frustration reigns supreme.
> Yes, I do have a flat bed scanner with an illuminated lid (HP 3570c),
> capable of handling two 35mm color negatives at a time.   The process
> is incredibly slow, takes about 15 minutes per 2 images.
>
> I can use a light box with my digital camera and acquire hi-resolution
> images in seconds, but I can't easily. reliably convert these images
> to corrected colors in Photoshop 7.
>
> So, if the scanner manufacturers know how to deal with color negatives
> simply through their drivers, why can't graphic editors do the same?
> Surely this is not rocket science!
>
> Thoughts of others......?
>
> Regards,
>
> Terry Smythe

Hi there.

It seems to me that your complaint is being pointed in the wrong direction.

Before any image, other than a digicam file, gets into a graphics program it 
has to be scannned.

You are not complaining about anything Ps does, your complaint is about how 
long your scanner takes.  It is not the Graphic Program writers problem if 
your scanner is dead slow, and 7 mins per neg is dead slow.

My scanner scans a 35mm neg at 5400 Ppi in 45 secs. Some people would say 
that is slow, but even if I thought so, I would not expect Adobe to solve my 
scanner problem.

Using your camera to photograph the negs is a work-around, (to solve your 
scanner problem), you might as well complain to your camera company that 
they should have a facility in the menus for converting Col Neg to positive.

Roy G 

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 01:10:56 GMT, "Roy"
<royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:

>your complaint is about how 
>long your scanner takes.  It is not the Graphic Program writers problem if 
>your scanner is dead slow, and 7 mins per neg is dead slow.

Agreed.  Not only is the actual scan dead slow, but also both have a
full one minute lamp warm-up time betweeb each scan.

>My scanner scans a 35mm neg at 5400 Ppi in 45 secs.

Most interesting.    My 2 scanners are an HP 3570c and a Umax e3470.
Both have transmissive lids, both are painfully slow.    But both on
"preview" instantly convert a negative into a color corrected positive
image for insertion into my graphics editor.   It's the scan and
recycle time that is a huge time consumer.    What kind of scanner do
you have that is so quick?

I've been checking out dedicated film scanners and am finding there
are several out there that can be acquired reasonably priced off eBay.
Their manufacturers are claiming 15 to 30secs scan time at 2,750dpi.

>Using your camera to photograph the negs is a work-around, (to solve your 
>scanner problem), 

Agreed.     Perhaps I'm a little niaive in perceiving that with the
proliferation of digital cameras and light boxes for duping slides,
that the graphics editors would have gotten around to including
negative conversion in their toolbox.

Thank you for your perspective, appreciated.

Regards,

Terry Smythe

"Terry Smythe" <smythe@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:ob9tk1p9509ua0bkpuvlm1mlr1g99ofrn3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 01:10:56 GMT, "Roy"
> <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>your complaint is about how
>>long your scanner takes.  It is not the Graphic Program writers problem if
>>your scanner is dead slow, and 7 mins per neg is dead slow.
>
> Agreed.  Not only is the actual scan dead slow, but also both have a
> full one minute lamp warm-up time betweeb each scan.
>
>>My scanner scans a 35mm neg at 5400 Ppi in 45 secs.
>
> Most interesting.    My 2 scanners are an HP 3570c and a Umax e3470.
> Both have transmissive lids, both are painfully slow.    But both on
> "preview" instantly convert a negative into a color corrected positive
> image for insertion into my graphics editor.   It's the scan and
> recycle time that is a huge time consumer.    What kind of scanner do
> you have that is so quick?
>
> I've been checking out dedicated film scanners and am finding there
> are several out there that can be acquired reasonably priced off eBay.
> Their manufacturers are claiming 15 to 30secs scan time at 2,750dpi.
>
>>Using your camera to photograph the negs is a work-around, (to solve your
>>scanner problem),
>
> Agreed.     Perhaps I'm a little niaive in perceiving that with the
> proliferation of digital cameras and light boxes for duping slides,
> that the graphics editors would have gotten around to including
> negative conversion in their toolbox.
>
> Thank you for your perspective, appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Terry Smythe

My scanner is the Minolta Elite 5400,  the original version not the current 
one.

If scanning at 5400 & 16bit colour the file sizes are a bit on the big size 
at 230Mbs.

It does have quite a long "warm up and set up" time before it starts 
working, and is a bit slow at producing the 6 previews from the film strip.

But once it is told to start the scan then it completes within 45 sec, and 
perhaps takes another 20 sec to transfer across.
Smaller files would of course take less time to transfer, but the actual 
scan time is pretty constant irrespective of the resolution.

Dedicated scanners have certainly dropped in price, but do remember they 
have moving parts, are not all that robust and the lamps do wear out, so be 
careful about Ebaying.

Roy G 

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:44:02 GMT, "Roy"
<royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:

>My scanner scans a 35mm neg at 5400 Ppi in 45 secs.
>My scanner is the Minolta Elite 5400,  

Ah Ha!   A dedicated film scanner!    No wonder you are getting such
swift response times.     It's beginning to become very clearer to me
that if I want to achieve any kind of faster scan speed, then I too
must migrate myself from a transmissive flat bed scanner over to a
dedicated film scanner.

Many thanks to all who responded, appreciated.

Regards,

Terry

Terry Smythe wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:44:02 GMT, "Roy"
> <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
>>My scanner scans a 35mm neg at 5400 Ppi in 45 secs.
>>My scanner is the Minolta Elite 5400,  
> 
> 
> Ah Ha!   A dedicated film scanner!    No wonder you are getting such
> swift response times.     It's beginning to become very clearer to me
> that if I want to achieve any kind of faster scan speed, then I too
> must migrate myself from a transmissive flat bed scanner over to a
> dedicated film scanner.
> 
> Many thanks to all who responded, appreciated.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Terry
> 
I have just got a scanner that scans 60mm square negs (to scan my 
wedding photos) and it seemed to take an age, Over 25 mins per 2 negs, 
however I find if I turn off Digital ICE the time is reduced to less 
than a minute. Just thought this might be worth a try.