Negative Lab Pro creator tells his SECRETS for making great negative scan conversions

[@BryanBirks]

This was good and everyone needs to hear this regardless of how they scan or if they scan at all. Social media has everyone thinking that photographers just get their film back from a lab and it’s done. All they received is the lab’s interpretation. Then they edit. Then new film photographers are bummed when they get their scans back because it doesn’t look like their favorite photographer’s stuff. The quotes about the lab tech being hungover or tired is absolutely hilarious to think about as well. So many small steps in the process to get an image.

[@ribsy]

Hahaha totally. Editing is all part of the fun, Altho I understand when people rather do less of it as part of their workflow. Lab techs need to stop drinking lol

[@justinthompson5718]

I can’t tell you how long I’ve waited for a video with this type of info. Thank you Ribsy!

[@ribsy]

glad it was useful 😊

[@tokkkkkk]

I was just searching how to get better scans from NOB and this came right up! Thank you!

[@ribsy]

Dope! Welcome 😀

[@graysonippolito1848]

This video made me rethink how I look at colors in my photography based on the the first 5min. Love it ribsy!

[@ribsy]

glad it was helpful!

[@ZoneFocused]

Needed this to start my day bro! Happy scanning everybody!

[@ribsy]

dope! glad it was useful

[@stefan_becker]

My main issue with Negative Lab Pro is that it's not a Photoshop Plugin. I either user Phase One Capture One or Photoshop Camera RAW. I simply don't use and need Lightroom.

[@ribsy]

Yea makes sense

[@thethirdcontrast870]

I would love this to be available for C1. Currently I have to export to Tiff and import into lightroom.

[@JHurrenPhotography]

I have a mountain of neg and slide shots that I just started in on three days ago. What good timing - thank you Ribsey!! Turns out I have most everything correct. I just need to mask of the stray light more completely. It was my first time using this residue free gaff tape. Now I trust it, I'll be using it more liberally. Highly recommend.

[@ribsy]

Great! Good luck

[@SinaFarhat]

Interesting interview! I am one of those people that do get good results from extension tubes. Can it be even better via a dedicated macro lens, yes! However, I am financially not there at the moment that I can invest in a macro lens, and also when I get a macro lens I want one that also would work for daily photowalk kind of photos!

[@ribsy]

yea for sure - you can make it work however you can 😊

[@Pierceb2]

I presume you are using a Digital SLR so for example Nikon makes a 55mm Micro and their new ones have a 1 to 1 reproduction ratio but they also made older micros at 105mm that had 1 to 1 reproduction ratio. Most other top of the line camer brands has similar. And all micros and macro lenses also work just fine as a walk around every day lens they cost more because of the extra more complicated optical elements that allow them to also close focus 1 to 1. A company called sunset books use to print nice softcover books on The Nikon Camera System that showed all the lenses and parts and different ways you could use them like reversing lenses, copy bellows F Stop Changes with different extensions etc, Most camera system books were published. If your on a budget there are excellent deals on ebay to get top of the line stuff much more cheaply than what it originally cost. My point here is especially if you do the research you can upgrade your equipment use good techniques and better output incrementally.

[@FotoCreatives]

Here's another guy that uses extension tubes om my Nikon D850 (with my Nikon NIKKOR AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 lens @ 70mm) and I get really good results!!

[@Nitidus]

​@@FotoCreatives Oh hey, I actually have that lens for my D800! Would you mind telling me which tubes you used?

[@mathewjschwartz4984]

Fantastic overview and introduction - thank you so much

[@ribsy]

you are welcome

[@thethirdcontrast870]

Here is the answer for how to set exposure, using Capture One Pro. The most import thing is to change your colour readouts from RGB to Lab colour (LAB). This will allow you to measure exposure in luminance, which is a exact measure of the brightness of your light box. Here is the method: 1. I usually set my camera to 50 iso @ F8. Adjust your shutter speed and make some captures of your light source until your LAB value is between 55 and 65. Make sure your light source fills the entirety of your capture window. 2. Once at LAB value 55 to 65 create a LCC from your capture. This will use C1's LCC tool to even out your light source and compensate for any uneven lighting. 3. Next, adjust your shutter speed and make additional captures, until you get a LAB value that is as close as possible to100. I usually get it to around 98 or 99. Remember any value over 100 is past pure white, and if you add any additional exposure in your camera the LAB value will still read 100 regardless. 4. Now set your white balance using the WB tool. This will remove any colour cast from your light source. This will also make a small change to your LAB value, pushing it closer to 100 5. Adjust your final exposure using C1's exposure tool. Micro adjust to get your LAB value closest to 100. I usually like to sit around 99.3 This method should work in Lightroom as well

[@ribsy]

interesting!

[@jeremyrowlettmedia]

100% fact. Everything was designed from the film down to the camera and the software used to scan. I've always thought of a film negative as somewhat of a canvas to emulate the look I want. Once you've realized the look you lean more towards, then figure out what stock gets you there. This is coming from someone who doesn't use NLP but I plan to. Great interview!

[@ribsy]

For sure! There is a lot more agency in the output of film than we assume. You can control alot

[@jeremyrowlettmedia]

@@ribsy Also, I use extension tubs and an older lens on a DSLR and I haven't had bad results. I also haven't picked up NLP yet but plan to. @jerowjpgs

[@slothsarecool]

I guess there is technically a “film look”, if you could avoid scanner artifacts and just remove the color cast, but it may not be something people would enjoy 😅

[@Nitidus]

​@@slothsarecool That's not the film look, though. The film itself is designed to be edited, whether that be by putting a scan into Lightroom or enlarging your negatives onto specific papers in the darkroom. If you did what you said you wouldn't get a finished image, instead you'd have a RAW file there. For example, look at how incredibly flat motion picture film is after scanning and basic converting. That's by design because you're _supposed_ to add the amount of contrast you prefer, and the ultra flat original image is not the inherent "look" of the film. Film reproduce colors differently, that's probably the main thing you're referring to. Even if you edit a negative, you can change the weighting of red to cyan to one side or the other, but in comparison the two colors look different on another film edited the same way. Yet there's no definitive answer as to what point of the scale can be seen as the actual "real" look of the film. Fuji Velvia is a color reversal film - so it directly shows you what the right colors are. Velvia also has a significant tendency to magenta casts as the complementary color to its signature green. So of course one would consider it part of the actual look. Many color negative films also have significant color casts, sometimes depending on exposure, sometimes because of other things. But these ones people suddenly want to "correct for" and they're not part of the desired look. (Which I agree with!) That's objectively arbitrary. Why is it? Because an actual, factual signature look does not exist. The only thing that exists is a signature style of _editing_ a film which is determined by how a film is perceived and remembered in the public consciousness. Someone invented it and at some point it was adopted because a lot of people liked it, but there's nothing physically in the emulsion that determines this one exact style to be "correct."

[@seventeendegree]

Great interview! I wish NLP would be available as a standalone software. For final touches on colors and looks, I'd like to try Photon but there is rarely coverage on that new software. Maybe that's something you'd like to review at some point in the future. :)

[@ribsy]

never heard of it. will check it out 😊

[@theangrymonkey]

Really helpful video. Thanks

[@PhotoBug3042]

Thanks Nate!

[@Siillky]

Thanks for this. Definitely learned a lot

[@ribsy]

Glad you did

[@slothsarecool]

My problem is definitely consistency, I get great results consistently with Silverfast, I couldn’t achieve that with NLP / camera scanning

[@ribsy]

yea i see what you mean

[@DonatoRondinelli]

Nice. I was on the fence about selling my Canon 100mm because I only use it for scanning now and getting something vintage like an enlarger lens for scanning. Sounds like I need to keep it.

[@ribsy]

Yea definitely!

[@TheFrishsticks]

would love to see the full conversation

[@ribsy]

i'm going to have another convo with him soon!

[@johngskewes]

Thanks Ribsy - I have found when NLP is not giving you the results you want. STOP. 1) sample the rebate for white balance. 2) crop the rebate/border. 3) right click - edit in Photoshop. 4) in PS, invert. 5) open curves - in the panel - choose options - select, find light and dark areas - click okay, then okay again to exit curves. 6) from here you can make your edits. Camera Raw is convenient. The photo at this has not been molested by NLP color assumptions and there is less backtracking. Roughly 50% of the time NLP is okay - you can edit color (and BW) without exiting LR. The other 50% the tool is burden and we are better off learning how to execute 6 simple steps. And yes, there is still work to do in curves and color mixing - but not so much. Thank you!

[@ribsy]

Thanks for your input 😀

[@johngskewes]

@@ribsy Yeah - NLP is great. But times like this morning I had a river scene and NLP wanted to make color adjustments based on the yellow/orange (in RGB) of the river (which was a great percentage of the overall image) - not the more correct yellow/green/blue of the dense forest along the banks. In cases like this - LR/PS does a simple inversion that is truer. Both great tools. Thank Ribsy.

[@RichardStroffolino]

I love NLP but the DSLR scanning just doesn't work for my setup. It's fast once you're in it, but if you don't have the space for a fixed scanning location, setup and teardown just has too many variables (or at least more than I want to deal with). Getting good raw scans from a PrimeFilmXA that can live on my desk, then process it all in NLP. No more light leaks (from my scanning at least).

[@ribsy]

yea i def understand. for many, a scanner is just better given their space and setup. all good 🤟🏽

[@MINECRAFTandSEB]

how about an early 2000s late 90s Nikon macro? (105mm)

[@ribsy]

yea that should work well

[@fueller1]

nice to see nate spoiler: nothing for someone who follows the NLP forum

[@ribsy]

👍🏽

[@demetriuswolak5125]

Good info

[@ribsy]

thanks 😊

[@NielsKjær-s4s]

Well actually didn´t learn a thing here, a bit too general to my taste, at least some of the time could have been used on substance, fx methodical. So maybe the question side a bit vague. Anyway fun hours to all converting. :)

[@ribsy]

I’ll consult you next time

[@ufukkiblat]

Hate to say this but NLP is overhyped and overrated..and of course it's overpriced. Too bad not many KZbinrs talk about the alternatives and only talk about NLP because they're paid by them. Grain 2 Pixel and Negmaster is way better tool for much less money (G2P is free but you can make donation). Negmaster is way superior tool for conversion and the color is much richer and overall better than NLP. Film photography is already a niche market and with this kind of product, along with other overpriced stuff like Negative Supply, Lab Box etc..it's scared the people away.

[@ribsy]

def understood that many can't spare $100. but i truly disagree with the other points. NLP has actually opened the door to so many new film photogs because of its ease of use. workflow wise too, its suits anyone who already pays for lightroom. we should celebrate all of the options ... also i don't make a dime off NLP (i'd be down if they offered tho, lol)

[@ufukkiblat]

@@ribsy If you ever tried Negsets by Negmaster, it's definitely waay easy to use with LR, it's simpler than NLP and you can use it on LR mobile (which NLP can't). So your workflow would not be bother by this tool, it might even be better. The fact that this option is not being talk about than something expensive like NLP is saying how bias youtubers/influencers are...paid or not. Just look for Negset for LR and how it work, it will blew your mind.

[@megzjr]

I totally agree with @kusanagi , Negmaster & Grain2pixel is way a superior product but unfortunately they are not getting the right attention. As mentioned @Risby you should give em a shot and see the results for yourself

[@mollyanderson449]

Usually love your content and always find something interesting & informative…sadly not this time. Nate’s responses were a bit vague and not helpful at all. I learned more from reading the “how to” on NLP site.

[@ribsy]

sorry to hear that