Lightroom / Photoshp / Topaz Workflow Advice?

[dr_gn]

All, I've finally got around to scanning my old negatives, with the interntion of making a photobook. I ended up buying a scanner (Plustek Opticfilm 8200i) and am doing it myself. The scanner cost less that the scanning service, and the results look great so far.

I subscribe to the Adobe photography plan, and so have access to PS and LR. I've also got Topaz AI De-noise.

By default I'm using Lightroom Classic, becasue I find the cropping and basic adjustments far easier to do than in Photoshop.

All the negatives I've scanned (from the '80s and '90s) benefit from a run through De-noise - the improvement is huge. Unfortunately, the files that my scanner output are incompatible with LR's De-noise function, so I have to import them into Topaz.

A few images also benefit from the "Camera Shake Reduction" filter, that used to be available in Photoshop. For some reason they deleted it from the later versions of PS, so I'm using an older version. Again, the improvement in some images is massive, to the extent that they become pretty much as good if not better than the original analogue prints in terms of blur.

Typically my images require some, or sometimes all, of the following adjustments:

Cropping
Exposure
Contrast
Saturation
Shadows
Highlights
Sharpening
De-noise

A few require:

Shake reduction

Question:

What should my workflow look like to get the best results?

Cropping - first, or last?

Topaz De-noise first? or last?

Sharpening / Motion Blur - when?

Thanks!

[EmailAddress]

Cropping first will reduce the physical dimensions, making the filesize smaller, and all other actions faster.

If that is consideration.

[Tony1963]

I go:

File into DXO PureRaw > Photoshop Raw converter where I adjust highlights, colour temp etc > Photoshop for cropping, removing sensor spots etc.

[dr_gn]

Thanks both. The output from the scanner is .tiff files, not RAW.

[EmailAddress]

dr_gn said:

Thanks both. The output from the scanner is .tiff files, not RAW.

You don't mention your level of expertise and setup.

Be cautious of actioning permanent alterations to final files based on a single viewing on one monitor.

i.e Will there be a future where you forsee losing the physical originals.

Could you ever see the need to go back to the first digital files and re-action with better software/ skills.

Is the lighting in your environment skewing your perception of your take on a 'finished' edit.

The colour output, grading, and contrast of your monitor. Will you ever be printing etc.

Perhaps you're aware of the above. Some people happily destroy originals though and it's a one-way street!

[EmailAddress]

Regarding workflow efficiency.

As it sounds like the imagery is all different and not a matched sample requiring the same edit time and time again. I don't think it really matters.

You won't be able to automate much as each piece will be subjective.

I'd recommend tagging with metadata as you go though. Dates, People, Locations (you could do this on mass after seperating into folders). It will make it much easier to sort in the future.

[Mr Pointy]

Are you using the Silverfast software that came with your scanner? If you are then have a look at Vuescan:

https://www.hamrick.com/

You can do a lot with this software & I found it better than Silverfast. It describes saving files in RAW format but then also refers to them as TIFFs so I'm not sure if RAW=TIFF. You can also save as DNG format which might be usable by your other programs.

https://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc33.htm#o...

You can try the software for free & it will just overlay a watermark.

[dr_gn]

EmailAddress said:

dr_gn said:

Thanks both. The output from the scanner is .tiff files, not RAW.

You don't mention your level of expertise and setup.

Be cautious of actioning permanent alterations to final files based on a single viewing on one monitor.

i.e Will there be a future where you forsee losing the physical originals.

Could you ever see the need to go back to the first digital files and re-action with better software/ skills.

Is the lighting in your environment skewing your perception of your take on a 'finished' edit.

The colour output, grading, and contrast of your monitor. Will you ever be printing etc.

Perhaps you're aware of the above. Some people happily destroy originals though and it's a one-way street!

Thanks for the replies. I'm not sure I understand what you mean on a few points. The background to what I'm doing is:

I have several hundred negatives of F1 and WSC cars and drivers, mainly taken at Grands Prix and test sessions in the '80's & '90s. These negatives have been carefully stored in a negative binder for up to 40 years now. I have the prints of all of them in albums or in their original folders. The main reasons I wanted to scan the negatives are:

1) To duplicate them as a back-up in case they get lost or damaged, or deteriorate with time (as the earliest film from 1985 has begun to do). So yes, I do forsee a time when the physical negatives and prints will be gone.

2) To be able to edit the images, and in many cases to enhance them to be better than the original prints. For a long time I have wanted to compile them into one huge photo scrapbook for myself.

The scans are stored on my laptop, and as I'm scanning them, I'm backing them up onto two external drives, just in case. There will be copies as-scanned that I won't touch. All edits will be done on copies.

So to answer some of your questions:

Yes, I definitely envisage being able to make further improvements to my edits in future (who knows, this may be in 10 years time, or longer), but I want to do my photo book now, otherwise I'll probably never do it.

Workflow: Editing time isn't an issue. I just want the best quality I can get, for when they're subsequently printed in the book.

Setup: Basically a decent laptop, the scanner, Adobe software and Topaz De-noise.

Lighting / evaluating images etc: I'm judging the results only on-screen. I have done two previous photo books (using digital images) and what I saw on screen was replicated to what I thought was excellent quality on the pages. So I'm reasonably confident this aspect of things is OK. It's pretty subjectinve anyway I guess.

My skill level: I'm an enthusiastic amateur. I know the basics of editing, and I know some of the theory of what many of the settings do. I evaluate an image based on my perception of what it needs, I try to achive it - mainly by knowing which functions to use and how to use them, sometimes by playing about and seeing what happens by trial and error.

That's about all I can tell you. Thanks!