Film Negative Conversion Software Reccomdentaions
I am currently using Negative Lab Pro and I really like it, the problem is that I am growing to really hate Lightroom my plan was to let my Capture One subscription expire and just use lightroom. But the more I have to use it, the more I do not like it and I am not willing to pay both a C1 and LR subscription. So I am wondering if anyone else uses any other software for film negative conversion that they would recommend?
The only (to me) comparable alternative in terms of ease of use and quality of results is Grain2Pixel which per se it's free (voluntary offers only if you want to support the developer) and a very good little piece of software in my opinion (see here a review: https://www.gregoryowain.co.uk/blog/grain2pixel-a-better-way-to-process-film).
The catch is that it is also a plug-in only and even not for LR but for Photoshop CC (same for ColorPerfect, which was probably the first to come out and it's even not free).
The only other software I'm aware of is Silverfast NegaFix but I think is tied to their scanning software, so not sure how it would work on existing negative scans (looks like it would require the entire Archive Suite with Silverfast HDR, which is pretti expensive ad USD 399).
FilmLab Desktop is a standalone converter, I've heard good things about it, but never tried it myself.
Might be exactly what your after as it works as a standalone, and also has a trial version.
Both DarkTable and RawTherapee are free RAW editors that have their own built-in film negative converters. I've gotten REALLY good results with both and also really hard to work with results. A lot of it depends on the quality of the initial scan and some other playing around. Last time I used either was a few years ago, so hopefully they've only gotten better.
Thanks everyone for the recommendations!
The problem with Grain2Pixel is it requires photoshop. Which is actually a more expensive subscription than Lightroom. So it doesn't really solve my problem, but I appreciate the recommendation all the same!
Oh I didn't know they had film converters built in, I will check them out. Opensource software has a tendancy to feel clunky in my experience, so that does give me pause, but I used RawTherapee when I first started, so I'll start there. Thanks!
Filmlab is exactly what I was looking for! Thank you! I did try to match a photo I had processed in Negative Lab Pro.
Filmlab:
SDIM2615 (Filmlab + C1) by Cory Maben, on Flickr
NLP:
SDIM2615 by Cory Maben, on Flickr
There are a few differences that I will have to weigh. The color from NLP was much cleaner, the FL photo ended up more strongly magenta. But the bigger diffrences I noticed was the way they processed grain. There is a lot more of it in FL than from NLP which I actually like a lot. The FL shot feels more like I expect film to look in terms of grain.
The other big difference was highlight recovery, since there is no highlight tools in FL, I needed to export a TIF into C1 which greatly limits my data. It's something I'm going to have to consider. I will continue to mess around with it and see how I like it and try some of the software James recommended. But this might be the best solution if I wanted to cut ties with Lightroom
Quote from Cory Maben on May 13, 2024, 8:23 pmThanks everyone for the recommendations!
The problem with Grain2Pixel is it requires photoshop. Which is actually a more expensive subscription than Lightroom. So it doesn't really solve my problem, but I appreciate the recommendation all the same!
Oh I didn't know they had film converters built in, I will check them out. Opensource software has a tendancy to feel clunky in my experience, so that does give me pause, but I used RawTherapee when I first started, so I'll start there. Thanks!
Filmlab is exactly what I was looking for! Thank you! I did try to match a photo I had processed in Negative Lab Pro.
Filmlab:
NLP:
There are a few differences that I will have to weigh. The color from NLP was much cleaner, the FL photo ended up more strongly magenta. But the bigger diffrences I noticed was the way they processed grain. There is a lot more of it in FL than from NLP which I actually like a lot. The FL shot feels more like I expect film to look in terms of grain.
The other big difference was highlight recovery, since there is no highlight tools in FL, I needed to export a TIF into C1 which greatly limits my data. It's something I'm going to have to consider. I will continue to mess around with it and see how I like it and try some of the software James recommended. But this might be the best solution if I wanted to cut ties with Lightroom
Unless they've changed, RawTherapee and Darktable's settings for film conversion are pretty minimal. I can't remember which was one more minimal than the other. It was years ago when I was using them. My guess is that Filmlab, being a tool specifically for this, might have more features. But if you do try them, I'm interested what the side-by-sides are! They also have docs on their websites with how to get the best out of the tool.
I'm really glad you recommended RawTherapee, because so far it's my favorite. I tried to match it as best as I could without spending forever on it. It looks very similar to my eye to the NLP image and I'm happy with that. The tool was basic, but really it was all that I needed, along with the normal exposure and color tools it felt very easy to work with. My only hesitation is how bad the spot healing tool is. It feels absolutely archaic, like something out of photoshop 5. I also noticed how processor hungry the program is. I have a 12700k and it struggled at moments to update the image with my edits. But otherwise I think this is the winner and as a bonus it won't cost me anything.
SDIM2615 (RawTherapee) by Cory Maben, on Flickr
So I decided to compare the K-1 and the SD Quattro H in terms of film scanning quality. My gut instinct was that the Foveon would outperform the K-1 drastically due to it's lack of bayer filter. For both cameras I used their respective high resolution modes (Pixel Shift and Super Fine Detail). Both cameras set to aperture priority mode and shot at f/8. On the K-1 I'm using the 100mm f/2.8 Macro DFA and for the SDQH I used the 70mm (91mm eqv) f/2.8 Maco Art. I used the same settings on all photos in the negative conversion software (rawtherapee). Here are the results:
K1:
MFP_0078-2 by Cory Maben, on Flickr
SDQH:
SDIM2857 by Cory Maben, on Flickr
K1:
MFP_0077-2 by Cory Maben, on Flickr
SDQH:
SDIM2859 by Cory Maben, on Flickr
K1:
MFP_0076-2 by Cory Maben, on Flickr
SDQH:
SDIM2862 by Cory Maben, on Flickr
And I edited both photos to taste, trying to make them as similar as possible:
K1:
MFP_0077-2 (edited) by Cory Maben, on Flickr
SDQH:
SDIM2859 (edited) by Cory Maben, on Flickr
My thoughts are that the K1 has better colors SOOC, but the SDQH has better colors once edited particularly in the reds, and a greater amount of gradation in the blue/cyan in the sky. Where the red on the K1 is more magenta and the sky is more uniformly blue. The SDQH is noticeably sharper and more detailed when viewed at 100% (and beyond) but at viewing distance I think the subtle softness is an advantage for the k1. The edges of the image on the SDQH is much sharper, but I believe this is due to the lens differences as the sharpness in the center of frame appears to be less drastically different. The SDQH had far more contrast SOOC, which is a disadvantage in terms of editing latitude. Overall I'd say it's very close. The SDQH is better, but it's not by as wide of a margin as I initially thought going in given the differences in sensor design.
I will add that the K1 has a big advantage in terms of workflow. I can simply drop the raw files into RawTherapee and invert them. Whereas with the SDQH I must
- import the files into sigma photo pro
- wait for the super fine detail images to be constructed
- output them as tif files
- then import then into RawTherapee
Making the K1 more attractive in terms of a streamlined workflow with less file management.
What do you guys think? Is there anything you notice in the files?
Because I cannot sleep and I got curious, because in my recent experiment with macro photos I noticed a significant amount more detail on my SD1 compared to my SDQH, I started to wonder how this would affect it's performance as a scanning camera. Here is a comparison between all my cameras. in their SOOC form. All shot at f/8, base ISO same as before except I am not using any multi-shot mode, these are just regular single exposures:
K-1:
MFP_0079 (K-1) by Cory Maben, on Flickr
SDQH:
SDIM2863 (SDQH) by Cory Maben, on Flickr
SD1:
SDIM3895 (SD1) by Cory Maben, on Flickr
As before the base color is much better on the K-1 and the Foveons are more detailed and contrasty. But between the two Foveons, the SD1 has even better color performance, the SDQH has a green wash to it. I also notice in the skies even more fine gradation of color in the blues, this does come at the cost of much more pronounced noise, due to the smaller sensor and fewer megapixels, which I actually find attractive. Overall I find the SD1 much more appealing as a scanning camera than the SDQH at this point.
K1-SD1 by Cory Maben, on Flickr
Here is a comparison of the K-1 on the left and the SD1 on the right. While there was a discernible difference in detail and sharpness in the high-res modes between the SDQH and the K-1, it wasn't a huge difference. However, without the pixel shift the K-1 really falls behind. Which I find immensely impressive considering that the SD1 is a 15mp APS-C camera, compared to the K-1's 36mp full frame senor. Lending credence to Sigma's 45mp equivalent claims in my mind.
Something else interesting that came up when editing the files from the K1 and SD1:
K1:
MFP_0079-1 (K-1 edit) by Cory Maben, on Flickr
SD1:
SDIM3895-1 (SD1 edit) by Cory Maben, on Flickr
The aesthetic of the two cameras becomes wildly different. To me the K1 image reminds me of 90s TV shows, like 'Hercules' or 'The Lost World'. With it's saturated, warm colors, smooth textures and yellow-greens, it -dare I say, has that 'CCD look'. While the SD1 reminds me of, well film. Something from a 60s or 70s movie, with it's high contrast, natural colors, sharp detail and blue-greens.
Very interesting comparison, I wonder if you manage to remove any color cast from the three samples (purplish the K-1, greenish the SDQ H, a tad greenish the SD-1) the SDQ H may well turn out to be the "better" colors.
In the first K-1/SDQ H comparison I agree with your findings that after a careful processing the two images look pretty similar, with only a very slight edge for the Foveon Quattro one to my eyes.
The SD-1/SDQ H is actually very close in terms of details, I'm curious about your experience of the SD-1 having more details in macro shots, as usually my experience with the two was the opposite (after processing), i.e. the SDQ H at the end was showing more fine details because of the increased resolution, which more than compensate the reduced acutance due to the Quattro vs Merrill sensor structure.
I still have my SD-1 and would love to do a comparison vs my current scanning workhorse, the mighty Nikon Z8, but I don't have a Sigma macro lens unfortunately..
