B&W Ilford HPS5 Plus + Plustek Scan, then PL4

[mikemyers]

@Wolfgang

Best is to compare pics and settings within PL

Back to grade school…
I right-clicked on my image, so I now have a virtual image, and a (M)aster image.
Naturally, in Finder I only see the “real” one, not the virtual version.
So now I would like to copy your "22-09-0003.tif.dop file into my folder, so it will open with the changes you listed below.

If I simply copy your file into my folder, it will replace my file. I am speculating that your .dop file will contain details for both my original settings, and for you newer settings.

The safest way for me to test this is to add “.old” to my .dop filename, and then copy your .dop to my folder.

(Between what you wrote, and this link:
https://www.dxo.com/project/working-with-virtual-copies-in-dxo-opticspro/
…I think this all makes sense.)

I’m going to do more reading before I try this.

What I did long ago was to replace my .dop file with someone else’s .dop file, to understand what they did. With virtual copies, this sounds much better. …if I’m right about how this works.

Hours later. I downloaded your .dop file into my downloads folder, then copied it into my “scans” folder where my .dop was located. Finder asked me what to do with this “duplicate file” and I selected replace mine. I know my current file is the one I downloaded, when I right-clicked on it to get “get info”.

However, my tone curve does not change regardless of which version I select…

I expected to see your new tone curve; What am I missing?
I copied this from your earlier post…

[platypus (Canon & Mac (Intel and M1))]

For the fans of big locomotives: List of largest locomotives - Wikipedia

[mikemyers]

I’ve learned more, but I am still stuck.

I have my original image, with my .dop file
I created a virtual copy, and made it yellow, an obvious change.
I can use the “compare” tool to slide back and forth to compare them.
So far, so good.

BUT

I have replaced my “.dop” file with the one that I downloaded from Wolfgang.
I assume his .dop file will contain the changes he made to my image.
I can’t find a way to open this image, using Wolfgang’s settings.

The good thing about all this is I’m learning more about how all this works, but I can’t find a way to tell PL4 to show me my image using Wolfgang’s edits. It’s probably staring me in my face, but I don’t know how to select what he has done, and compare with what I have done.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

I have replaced my “.dop” file with the one that I downloaded from Wolfgang.
I assume his .dop file will contain the changes he made to my image.
I can’t find a way to open this image, using Wolfgang’s settings.

When you open the image, with Wolfgang’s DOP file in place, you should see a Master and two VCs in the thumbnails strip…

The “M” is the basic version, the “1” is my version and the “2” is Wolfgang’s.

Simply select the “2” thumbnail to see what Wolfgang has done.

@Wolfgang I forgot to say, that is one amazing edit. I really like what you’ve done.

[mikemyers]

Before doing anything, I had my original image (labeled as M for master), and a virtual copy which I think was labeled as “1”.

I just downloaded Wolfgang’s .dop file again, and moved it to my scans folder, replacing the current .dop file.

I then open PL4, and I now see three thumbnails, M, 1, and 2.

---

Thank you, both of you. Now I am seeing things correctly.

I suspect I was making a very dumb mistake yesterday and last night. The only thing I’ve done differently now is to have shut down PL4 before replacing the .dop file, and then re-starting it.

(Once again, things always look better in the morning…)

Oh, and of all the versions I have now seen on my own screen, my favorite is Wolfgang’s.

…and as long as I’m admitting to things I did wrong, until now, I was feeling annoyed by the grain. Following Wolfgang’s advice, and yours, the grain is no longer noticeable. As a B&W image, from Plus-X, I like this as a photograph. I think if I shot it with my digital M10 it would have a very different “feel”. Viewed at 100% size, instead of pixels I see grain.

(Most importantly, for me, is whether I’ll be able to learn from all this, and use what I’ve learned to create better images in the future…)

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

I suspect I was making a very dumb mistake yesterday and last night. The only thing I’ve done differently now is to have shut down PL4 before replacing the .dop file, and then re-starting it .

As a good friend of mine would say “Thars yer prawblem”

@mikemyers

Oh, and of all the versions I have now seen on my own screen, my favorite is Wolfgang’s.

Definitely.

@mikemyers

I think if I shot it with my digital M10 it would have a very different “feel”. Viewed at 100% size, instead of pixels I see grain

Don’t be so sure. Take a look at this image from 2007 and tell me whether it was taken on film or digital.

[stuck (Canon, PL7 on Win 10 + GTX 1050ti)]

@mikemyers

I am still stuck

Sorry to interject here but no, you;re not, I’m stuck.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Don’t be so sure. Take a look at this image from 2007 and tell me whether it was taken on film or digital.

I don’t know what this image is, but I am 99% sure I know what it is NOT. Ain’t no way this came from a 35mm film camera. There is so much detail, I think it is likely from LF. It’s also to perfect to have come out of the camera (file or negative) like that. It looks like someone with the skill of Ansel Adams has adjusted it until it’s perfect. Worded differently, this is what I would like my 35mm film negatives to be able to do (but I don’t think I can ever get “there”). It has the “feel” (or what I think is the feel) of film, not digital. It’s also beautifully composed, but that’s not what we are talking about.

I think a Leica M10, in your hands, could accomplish this… but the on-screen image looks almost “too perfect”. Verticals are exactly vertical, even when my eye fools me into thinking they’re not. The end posts of the structure seem to be angled inwards at the bottom, but when I check, they are perfectly vertical. You would’ve needed a lot of precision in setting up the M10.

To answer your question, it “feels” like film, but it has the detailed perfection of digital, as I look at it. If I was more used to LF, I’d probably say that’s what kind of camera made it, on film. I don’t think it was 4x5 or larger - maybe 2 1/4 x 2 1/4?

Also, the “darkest part” of the structure appears to me to be darker than the darkest part of anything else in the photo, almost so much as to look “un-natural” to me. It is almost “too perfect”.

I can easily picture you standing behind a camera on a tripod, with the large black cloth covering you and the camera. And even then, the processing is too good to have just “happened”. I think you saw this in your mind, and made the image appear the way you had imagined.

(Hmm, maybe I should post this in that thread, not here…?)

[mikemyers]

Follow-up on this discussion.

One year ago, PL4 looked like it had a zillion tools, and I had no idea which was which. From the advice here, I now know a lot more about them, including which to use most, and which to be cautious of. So, I’ve taken my “Right Dock” and re-ordered things in the order in which I seem to be using them.

1 - Crop - as that’s the first thing I usually do.
2 - Exposure Compensation
3 - Denoising (as I almost always turn this on to HQ if I don’t forget to do so)
4 - Tone Curve
5 - Selective Tone
6 - Contrast
7 - Instant Watermarking (usually the last thing I do)
8 - Local Adjustments
9 - Perspective
Everything else follows.

No big deal I guess, but it simplifies “hunting” for things.

My “Left Dock” is just the way it came in the “All-in-DPL4” Workspace I downloaded.
(I renamed it “BW-neg-mike3”, which will be saved now as BW-neg-mike4.)

I guess it will likely change once I go back to working with color images.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

In fact, it’s a digital file from a Nikon D200, taken hand-held

Here’s a low-res export of the un-retouched file

How about this one?

Screenshot of crop at 100%

[mikemyers]

@stuck

Sorry to interject here but no, you;re not, I’m stuck.

Oops!!! Am I guilty of copyright infringement or something?
Your (you’re) stuck is better than mine!!!
( Big Grin!!! )

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

How about this one?

Gee, when I look at that, I imagine a painting, not a photograph. The rear engine is as sharp as the first, while other things appear blurry. I don’t know enough about foreign (to me) locomotives, but this looked strange - until I saw your 100% screenshot. That looks like a photograph.

I am lost. It still looks to me more like film than digital, but all that smoke is so perfect, I dunno. If the rear engine and the farms in the background are so sharp, the cars in the middle of the train should appear more detailed. I know you’ll tell me I’m wrong, but it looks more like a painting, and certainly not a digital image… I see the trainmen looking out the windows… I’m lost.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

Gee, when I look at that, I imagine a painting, not a photograph.

It’s a photograph - I couldn’t draw a curved banana without a tee square and compasses.

@mikemyers

The rear engine is as sharp as the first, while other things appear blurry.

Just controlled depth of field almost at hyperfocal distance.

@mikemyers

It still looks to me more like film than digital, but all that smoke is so perfect

Maybe I just over processed it. Here’s a version with less accentuation

100% crop

[Aearenda]

I just want to say how helpful this and similar threads are to relatively new users of PL. I’m not stuck now, though there have been times…

PL is different to other image editors, rather quirky at times, and so good once you start to get the hang of it. Thank you to @Joanna and others for sharing your workflows and wisdom; and thank you to @mikemyers for being so open about your learning struggles and progress. I greatly appreciate it all!

[mikemyers]

I’m thankful that there are so many people in this forum who jumped in to try to teach me, and I’m also thankful that these discussions have helped others.

Every time I thought I “understood”, it just led to so many more things I had yet to understand.

I’m very stubborn, and I know my problems are “me”, not the software, but Joanna, Platypus, Wolfgang, and so many others have pushed me in the right direction.

I guess others (like you) have been following along, learning for yourself what so many people are teaching me.

I think they were maybe smiling at me, as if I was trying to use a micrometer as a glue clamp, but I really was that ignorant.

I used to watch videos and recorded webinars, but none of them went into as much detail as we have here. …and there’s that famous line “Anything is easy to do, once you know how to do it!!”

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Maybe I just over processed it. Here’s a version with less accentuation

Yes, looking like this, it now looks like a photograph.
You mostly had me fooled, but I never considered “over processing”.

Maybe your goal was to get it to look the way it did, in which case it wasn’t over processed at all.

I prefer the way it looks now, as it “feels” real, even the freight cars in the middle of the train, which looked painted to me. Now they, and the tracks look and “feel” real.

…I wonder what other people think?

[platypus (Canon & Mac (Intel and M1))]

@mikemyers

I wonder what other people think

I’d go with a mix. Emphasize the structure of the front smoke and the gravel of the tracks in front of the head locomotive and leave the rest of the image untouched…

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik6 (+3) ])]

@Joanna – an old photo

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@Wolfgang

– an old photo

Ah, but is it scanned from film or is it a digital original?

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik6 (+3) ])]

must be from the pre-metadata era