I think that a lot of people don't realize just how much "editing" went on even with darkroom printing and that the "look of the film" is really just a base for you to build off of.
Yes! Just see how Ansel Adams took manual processes to alter the prints from negatives. Nothing to wrong with it, but people should understand it's just not "SooC"
Great video! I think everyone should do what they want to their images. We’ve gotten too obsessed with what camera/film/scanner were used to create the images we see that we forget to look at the images themselves and tweak them as needed
Absolutely. Tools are important, but at the end of the day, it's using them in a way that best suits you to achieve a final result that you're excited about. Could be saturated, dark, light, contrasty, flat... whatever you enjoy. Cheers, Reimann.
This will forever be the first video i recommend to anyone new to the film community. I think its so important and so many people on the outside seem to think film is just film and you shoot it and develop it and post it and viola. Editing is 1000% my weakest trait and getting that to a spot where i am happier with my images is my film goal for 2022. Cheers Kyle.
I agree, I was really confused at first. I remember thinking I needed to buy a Mamiya 7 or something to get "that look." This video is perfect for the befuddled beginner.
Love the direct comparisons to back up your points, makes them very clear to see. 100% agree that personal interpretation should dictate the look not software interpretation
I agree with what you said about editing but I also wanted to compliment the production value of this video. The colours, transitions and framing of the talking head desk scene all look so high-end.
I've shot film for years but it wasn't until I started editing in LR and PS that I felt I was adding that element of a noticeable style to my images. Ultimately it's up to you if you want to edit or not, I believe you'll get a better outcome if you choose to edit. Great video Kyle, good work.
Thorough exploration of editing. Last image of the tree in the field at twilight shows importance of creative decisions. Options: scene as remembered [your take], colour temp balanced, « hand coloured » … Take away: scan in raw [dng] with border, Invert in software and adjust. In Gimp, average the base layer via sampling [same as darktable, negative lab pro], set base layer on top of neg with mode divide, invert and then tweak [white balance, colour temp, etc.].
I couldn’t agree more with everything you said, this video really sums up a lot I’ve learned about editing and scanning film and I couldn’t have said it better. For a long time I thought editing film scans was cheating but it isn’t at all it’s just an extension of the conversion process.
most labs will NOT ever edit your scans. its a serious NO-NO in labs to do anything with customer images. most all labs just scan the image and thats it, unless you specifically ask them to edit or adjust them.
I am the technician for the whole process. Only HP5+. Epson V800 & Silverfast. No presets.Individually with each photo I adjust or check contrast and brightness. I use Auto Sharpness and sometimes Less Auto Sharpness. More Auto Sharpness I tend to avoid as it looks too much like digital. I use PS Elements to get rid of dust and the odd imperfection. Never use the auto dust removal on Silverfast as it sees grain as dust .Mac iPhotos to adjust horizon levels and crop to size and that is it. This gives me a body of work that has a sameness and each photo has a continuity with the others. I just love this film look. Cheers and regards.
Thanks for making this! I’ve personally never understood the question either-I work in DI color for film and TV so with that background I’ve made a custom flat scan preset and then custom curves that work similarly to DI luts to shift contrast and hues to what I like. I think a lot of people might say that defeats the purpose of shooting film but to me I just enjoy the film process and also the base that films like portra 800 give me, especially how skin tones work in that medium.
Thanks for another thoughtful and insightful video Kyle. I particularly enjoy your videos when you discuss the less common but more important subjects, this one and one earlier in the year about projects and inspiration for them for example were great. Having been a film photographer and then come back to photography in the digital age, and now experimenting with film, this explains a lot about the frustrations I had in the pure film age when pictures didn’t come out as expected.
Good video. What you say about scanning is true for wet printing with a enlarger too - slight tweaks to the filtration on the colour head can make considerable changes to the look and feel of the print. There's no "objective" way of getting from film to print.
Wonderful Kyle :) That's why I prefer shooting on slide film, especially in medium format when I shoot in color. I can immediately see which slides are interesting, and worth scanning, and then I just try to match the scan to the slide as much as possible. I embrace the limited latitude. I miss doing Cibachrome prints though.
Once I knew how the scanning process worked and that the lab tech might have tweaked the images already I was fine with doing edits of my own. Most of my images did need some editing to get them where I wanted.
Thanks for this video. I just started shooting some 35mm to have a different shooting experience than I have with my digital setup. This clears up a lot of misconceptions I had about the results I've seen other people, including yourself, get with film. I've been getting scans from the same lab and noticing these differences in rolls and even shot to shot on the same roll. I knew it wasn't anything I was doing wrong but just didn't quite understand it. I've only shot a few rolls so far and have been ok with getting JPG files back from the lab. I just adjust contrast and get rid of any odd color shifts that don't belong there. I almost felt bad about that until I watched this 😂. Like I wasn't letting the film look like film. I think the "film look" is pretty misunderstood. I think people should talk about the shooting experience you have with an old film camera when comparing to digital. That's really the attraction for me. I have an awesome and heavy DSLR setup so it's a nice change of pace to take out a light weight 35mm setup that is the opposite end of the technology spectrum when it comes to cameras.
Cheers, Matthew. And yes, for me there's a lot of other things that come with working with film, other than just the look of the images. The process is a big one, I also enjoy the gear. Photography should be first and foremost exciting and fun, and you should use whichever tools and process work the best for you.
Great subject and you did an honest assessment. Thank you. I hate saying this because I am going to sound like an old man telling you how it was before fire was invented. But these differences in scanners and software are no different than the differences we had with labs back in the day. One lab always ran hot so there color shift was “X” another ran cool so their shift was “Y”. But you were there. You saw the photograph before you snapped the shutter. Your final on the Land Rover and lone tree were adjusted to what you saw and good thing. The Land Rover wasn’t much more than a snapshot until you took the image back to what you saw and then it became a very good photograph.
I shot film back when woolly mammoths. I could not afford anything but drug store discount developing. In 2000 I got a good digital camera of the day and never looked back. I could finally edit properly with PS Elements 1.0. I have spent years trying to get “film look” with presets, adjustment formulas, different raw developers, you name it. I also color match to old film pics and paintings to start the editing process. That includes doing wet plate, tintype, and lythographic emulations in digital overlayed with different patterns of things like old paper, wet paper, and rusted metal. Having scanned some of my old slides and negs I also edit them digitatally all kinds of ways, although B&W blown highlights and high contrast works best to my eye many times. I hope everybody trusts their own vision, whatever that is and follows it wherever it leads. There is no right or wrong way to do photography and editing of image files, in any format.
Very informative video. It brought up things I hadn’t considered like differences if film scans from lab to lab as well as scanner to scanner, etc. Towards the end, you discuss editing an image to reflect “how you saw it” at the time when you shot it. I wasn’t sure if you meant literally, or figuratively. I watch another photographers videos (Ted Vera) who shoots a lot of B&W film. His images inspired me to rethink some of my edits. He has a dark look surrounding the focal point in many of his shots. So, when I shoot my B&W in natural or available light, I am thinking of how it “will look” vs the actual scene. So, I am seeing it that way, but in my minds eye. Anyway, excellent video. Definitely has me thinking.
I think when you're editing and deciding on a look, you need to take into account many things, not just 'how it looked' while you were there. How did it make you feel? That's important as well.
Wathcing this video seems to change my perspecive on film photography. In my case, I don't edit my pictures so as to give it the classic and raw result. But, I guess ity is high time for me to revisit my view and style for the end result of the pictures. But, as much as I can, I will refrain from editing my photographs! But, if there is a need to do otherwise, I will tweak them! Thanks.
I don't scan my color negatives, but print them instead on C-type in my darkroom. I still do many things I would call editing. I do alter color balance as neutral colors are not always the best for a particular image. Often they are, but not always. I also dodge and burn my prints. I don't use computer for this, but I am still editing.
I used to scan color negative film a lot. Then I started doing optical printing, and I was blown away. That "analog look" just went away. Turns out, that "analog look" is not inherent to film; rather, it is due to the scanning process.
Really nice vidéo, it can take a lot of time to figure all of this out when you begin film photography. It personaly took me month and i wish i had some clear informations like you did this vidéo at my disposition at that time. This one will for sure help a lot of people! I was wondering, are you not using your coolscan 9000 ed anymore? I got one some month ago and this is really a great pice of equipement, i'm really loving it!
Cheers, Paul. Yeah, I think this is something that is just naturally easy for a lot of people to interpret the wrong way when they're first starting out. And yes, still using the 9000. I love it.
When i first heard of film editing i tough it was the most stupid thing ever. Then i shot a couple of rolls and realized exacly that you said. And as Reimann Pembroke said, at the end of the day its about the picture.
A few weeks back I saw someone post a film photo on Instagram and the caption said, “no tweaks, no edits, just how film should be treated.” I think people forget that editing film use to be done in a darkroom. Now we have computers. Same concept, different tools and work flow.
For sure. Same concept. I just think this is something that is easily misinterpreted for people who are new to this medium and don’t have much knowledge of the history of it all.
the reason why I take photos on film is because of the colors that the film produces, if I wanted to over-edit it is better to use a digital camera and some film look presets, I don't know, maybe I'm too purist about film
there are other reasons why people shoot film, like the grain and better highlight retention, or even the experience of shooting it and having to be precise and more careful with what you are shooting
Huh, I didn't know there was a "I don't edit my film scans" thing...I don't even know what that means, hahah...I treat my scans as "raw" files and don't do any real tweaking from the scanning software. I just go to the histogram in the scanning software and make sure I have all the information on the negative and then take it into Photoshop to bring it back to what I was seeing in the viewfinder. Now, one thing that you might want to touch on a bit more is that if you do just scan in flat, the film stock you choose will come through. And that's the beauty of shooting film, in my opinion. You have a great starting point to a final image based on a film stock and then you edit that base to get it close to what you saw, but you'd never shoot Portra to edit it to an Ektar look. If you want that kind of flexibility, it's a good time to shoot digital. And to be honest, I've tried a bunch of scanning software that supposedly "does it better automatically" but in the end, my process is the base Epson scanning software on "Pro" and then, like I said, just adjusting histogram to capture all the recorded data and edit in software of choice in a consistent manner with mainly adjustment layers (for consistency across the film roll). Love the video and need to watch the one on 645 v 35mm!
Cheers, Patrick. And yeah, google the question and you'll find a number of discussions. But I agree with you, it's important to figure out a process that works for you and roll with that.
In my view, it depends on what camera you use, and how "authentic" you wanna be to that style of camera/shooting.. Meaning, most people using a point and shoot style camera back when it was new, wouldn't have access to a darkroom, or have an option to edit themself. While those using a more "pro camera/SLR", would more likely have those option. Also, even for those that had access to a darkroom, more complex editing, would take a lot more skills than what it does today, in order to get the same results. So, maybe keep that in mind, so you don't "overdo it", if you choose to edit 🙂
Sadly it looks like labs are not referencing “ Shirley”. The Kodak supplied preexposed neg and print that standardised colour and exposure. Operator bias is the problem.
Do whatever you feel the need to do. Film also varies according to the chemical development technique. There's no such thing as a universal "film look" for any given film stock. The closest thing to a universal look was Kodachrome because all Kodachrome film had to be developed by Kodak using their unique in house processes. Which is why back in the day most printing/ publication houses would only accept Kodachrome. It made their life a lot easier.
Editing is not my cup of coffee (I don't fancy tea either), but I'm very aware of that as soon as you scan your film, you have a digitalized version of your image and no longer the analog film. If you order prints, it's, as said in this video, up to a machine what settings you will get. This can often ruin your images. What you can do, is use positive film, and not digitalize your slides. Then you get the straight out of camera, no editing look.
Yep, if you truly want "analog color" with NO digital editing at all, that is exactly what slide film is for. Shoot, process, mount, and project. Negative film HAS to be interpreted to get from a negative to a positive image, either in an analog darkroom or a digital scanning method.
Never understood the modern dogma of not processing film images. Back before digital we spent hours in the darkroom tweaking the look of each image. Our enlargers had colour heads for adjusting colours and the papers came in different contrast grades for changing that. In addition, nearly every tool in Photoshop originates in the film world. I started my career as a darkroom technicians assistant in the local newspaper. One of my first jobs was feathering the cardboard masks for an exposure blend of 2 negatives. All the big film names edited extensively. Every newspaper had a darkroom team. The important thing is visualizing the look you want before taking the shot and knowing how to get it - choice of film, settings, film processing(chemistry, times and temperatures) and then printing it(paper settings technique) It's really no different to digital, it just takes a lot longer...
I started out using a lab, then using software to convert my negatives. Now I convert manually. Once you understand how to do it manually, you can never go back.
thanks film dad! we need more people to encourage just doing what you want with your own photos. they're yours, if someone tells you you're doing your hobby wrong then they're being a dick
This is tremendously helpful. I've been shooting film less than a year and I've tangled internally with how I feel about editing my scans. I felt it to be cheating, but couldn't help doing it in half the shots I took. What you've discussed here is very important for someone like myself to hear, as trying to communicate my vision or what I see in the world is my objective, so I shouldn't fear bringing my work closer to that. A scan is technically already edited! Helpful to hear. Thanks!
Edit! And why not? Most of the digital tools in lightroom are just based off of their analog versions. Dodging, burning, masking, cropping, etc. Not to mention cross-processing one's film, changing the temp of your chemistry, or using different chemistry altogether. The time your paper is left in chemistry...throwing color filters on lens...on and on. And that's just if you were in the physical darkroom.
Hi Kyle, I also use the 4990 and Vuescan, and recently NLP, for 35, 120 and 4x5. I was wondering if you do a raw scan and use NLP for your black and white images too? This triples the file size (which is significant in 4x5) but gives you the option of toning in LR. Are there any other advantages by doing this rather than just a greyscale scan in Vuescan? Thanks for mentioning making a positive from NLP; otherwise those reversed sliders get confusing. Cheers
Yep, I use the same process for B&W. I usually end up deleting the DNG and just keeping the converted TIFF once I'm happy with it. I figure worst case I can always re-scan.
Totally agree! I know scan everything myself and the results with negative lab pro can be way off sometimes, but overall it’s a good piece of software to start off with. I always make a tiff and then further adjustments as necessary.
Whatever people choose to do which pleases them and fits in their process, I think its inexcusable to shoot film and not properly correct colour casts, wrong white balance etc. Just comes off as sloppy - especially if you want your work to be taken seriously!
Hi Kyle, thanks for the video. I've got a follow up question - if there's so much editing that goes into the process after developing the film, what point is there in seeking out certain rolls vs. others? E.g. Kodak Gold 200 vs. Kodak Portra 400?
Hey Sam, different film stocks still will have different characteristics, as well as capabilities. For example, Portra 400 is probably going to be more flexible with over-exposure compared to Gold 200. It will also render colours and tones differently. Also may scan better. This video isn't to say that every film is the same and it doesn't matter what you use, more just saying that the differences may not be as drastic as you think, and you really need to nail your scanning/conversion process regardless of the film you use.
I love shooting film but I ask myself what does film really look like? After scanning and processing through 3 types of software what exactly do I end up with, and why not just shoot digital were I only use lightroom to edit, it has a tremendous amount more latitude for editing. Don't get me wrong I am still going to shoot film but I just don't know why.
I really think that's why it's so important to invest the time to figure out a consistent workflow so you know what to expect. That includes proper exposure, developing, and scanning. For me, as well, there's inherent traits that film has that digital doesn't. A big one is the way that detail is rendered, especially with larger formats, yet still doesn't feel overly clinical. Of course this will be different for everyone. But if I could recommend one thing to any film photographer, it would be to develop a consistent workflow.
Absolutely yes, for at least one reason: color. With scanning methods from DSLR to lab to drum to scanbed you really can’t be too sure the white balance is perfectly calibrated. Plus reciprocity artifacts might creep in. I find it’s necessary to start with all color tracks set at -100 saturation. Then I bring them up and tune them to achieve the natural colors I want to see. Sometimes it’s to enhance, but usually it’s to ensure color accuracy based on what I remember seeing when I shot it.
If it's tweaked this much, why not go digital? Is it more the "feel"using film, slowing down etc. Seems costly just to do the same thing almost with a digital camera and a preset. Just a thought.
A valid question, but something that will surely be different for everyone. To me there are differences visually with the way film looks and how it renders colours and tones. I also enjoy the process quite a bit. That being said, I have worked some digital into my projects and been able to get it to a place that I'm happy with. It's a different experience though, from the process to the approach with editing.
Is there a reason you do the majority of your editing on the converted positive TIFF rather than in NLP? I've been doing as much as I can on the RAW within NLP and only converting to positive TIFF if I want to do edits that aren't possible within NLP (mainly selective dodging/burning)
It's odd to me that some folks think there should be rules that apply to certain types of photography. Even photojournalism has a perspective / style that can be open to interpretation, straight out of camera or not. It would be like telling a painter they can't use certain brush strokes on a particular kind of canvas - such a suggestion would be laughed at and disregarded, but in photography there are continual attempts to set boundaries that more than anything feel like people attempting to compensate for their own creative weaknesses by declaring universal "rules". I edit all my photos, digital or film, to best render the subject or convey the story. Sometimes that means one or two tweaks made in mere seconds, sometimes that means dodging and burning for 20 minutes.
Yep, I agree. Everyone should just do whatever they want. Super saturated, HDR, low contrast, dark, bright, warm, cool. Whatever looks and feels right.
They usually cost more, but yes, if you can afford it, then go with a tiff. Tiff files are lossless, so you won't lost quality after editing and saving.
Honest question. What’s the point of film if you’re just going to scan them, edit it and reprint them? I don’t know anything about photography I thought what made film special was that you get the raws and that’s that. If you’re going to edit why not just stick to digital and then make your edits?
The solution is easy. Invest into a good scanner, good scanning software and scan yourself in DNG RAW. The investment will pay for itself after a ridiculous small amount of rolls as lab scanning is expensive AF.
I just bought film camera about last month ago, it’s because i want to get the film look and i dont really like to edit my pictures… I thought film will reduce the editing process, oh I’m so wrong about this… if we have to edit every single process (scanning and post processing), then it’s more complicated than digital camera… I like shooting with film camera, it’s something more enjoyable than digital camera, because we think more with film camera from every aspect… but i don’t like the editing process… Do you have some advice for me? To minimize the editing process? Actually i can accept the images from lab scan, but some pictures will need to be edited, especially the white balance
Digital or film, you'll always need to do some sort of editing to your images, imo. Beyond the technical, it's incredibly important from a creative standpoint, as I touched on later in this video. I responded to a similar question below, but my suggestion if you're working with film, is to develop a consistent workflow so you always know what to expect. For example, learning how to expose properly, getting your work developed by a high quality lab, and scanning yourself, if possible.
@@KyleMcDougall thanks for your reply… i think I haven’t found my workflow for editing pictures, so i don’t really enjoy it… most of the time i don’t really know what to do in front of my PC, I can’t see what my final image will be, i only give very minor adjustment… it’s the process that i need to improve.
I'd also recommend taking a moment while making images to be mindful, about the location, the light, how you feel, etc. Either mental notes or written. It can help later on in the editing process.
When scanning negatives and processing digitally from that point on, it is 100% certain that the scanner spectral response is not the same as a silver/dye color print material. And then, the printer inks are definitely not the same as a silver/dye color print material. So, unless you are going to make a science project about profiling the result with a silver/dye print material, and profiling your scanner and inkjet printer to match that, the whole idea of "I did this without modification, just like film" is nonsense. The only step that is "just like film" is the negative.
I think some of what your blaming on the scanning isn't quite correct. For instance, the photo of the old Land Rover. Looking at the scan, I see a lot of detail that has to be in the negative, yet your final result loses all of that detail - so was the scan bad, or was your exposure off? The misty morning image of the road is similar - more detail is captured in the scan than you want or how you remember it (really I think it's more how you envision it more than you likely remember it), but the scanner didn't create that detail. The scanner didn't create detail that doesn't exist in the film ( it can lose detail but can't create it). There's only so much the scanner or the operator can do to interpret the highlights, mid-tones and shadows and as a process, there's only so much you can do to record it (e.g. shoot a color target in the image) - but even then, some interpretation has to take place because neither film nor digital can nail color to perfection - both mediums suffer from color shifts and density limits both in range of white to black but also range of each color - not all color can be reproduced faithfully.
Think of the negative as your raw file you imported from the camera. It is just the basepoint and all the things you mentioned are just part of the process of developing that raw file into a final image.
I try to keep editing to a minimum. Cropping, straightening, removing dust, sharpening, and sometimes brightness/contrast adjustments. It depends on each photo. But I always want them to look like film and as close as possible to the original. For the record, I mostly do B&W photography.
Ansel said the negative is the score. Just playing the notes can be boring and lack feeling. The print is the performance and a skill ed musician will inject his interpretation, like he did in the darkroom. What was Ansel's job in Yosemite before someone in DC suggested him as a photographer for national parks because he was cheap? He was as a pianist. His piano is in the dining room at the Ahwahnee lodge.
Calling this "Editing" is kind of flawed as it would infer you are changing something from the original product. The way I see it, negatives are not the product, final photos are; be it physical or digital. Even if you never scan your photos, you sort of "edit" them in enlarger anyway. Just like there is nothing wrong with using a polarizing filter on camera to get desired effect, there is nothing wrong with using a contrast altering filter on an enlarger. Scanning the negatives and doing them on lightroom is just a time/money/convinience issue. My red line about editing film photos is I don't do ANY edits that can't be (easily) replicated with an enlarger or with other film-era analogue equipment. Color correction, white balance, pushing blacks, clipping highlights, different exposures for different areas or increasing contrast are all OK in my opinion. But I don't edit to remove something from a picture, or remove skin imperfections or make fat people thinner, for example. -Some slight noise reduction is fine, as that could be achieved by using a higher quality film, but heavy noise reduction which would destroy that "film look"? No. -Adding Blur is fine, even selective blur is fine. Using advanced algorithms to remove camera shake/motion blur? No.
Back in the day, editing your photos meant going through all the photos that you shot and picking your selects that you may or may not use. It was a distinctly a separate process from printing the photos, especially for assignment work. Often times this was the case because photographers would shoot 2-3 (or more) rolls for a given assignment and then they’d get submitted to the editor who “edited” it down to a handful of frames to be used. These days editing your photos means going in and doing “post processing” to your photos. Not quite the same meaning. There’s still a fair amount of “editing” that happens in the old sense for some types of photography like sports, etc, but it doesn’t mean the same thing for amateurs.
"Should you edit your film photos"...Yes. Literally every photo, color and black and white in existence has been manipulated. This hipster wave of BS that editing your photos is bad is just wrong. I edit the HELL out of my black and white photos in the darkroom. If I scan color or do a RA4, I edit the hell out of the colors, I'll even often cut parts of the negative out and blend the cut out part with a mask onto the paper.
Believe it or not, not everything is the fault of 'hipsters', which is so often referenced. I think it has more to do with people who are new to film misunderstanding the process.
I think that a lot of people don't realize just how much "editing" went on even with darkroom printing and that the "look of the film" is really just a base for you to build off of.
Yes! Just see how Ansel Adams took manual processes to alter the prints from negatives. Nothing to wrong with it, but people should understand it's just not "SooC"
20 yrs ago my darkroom teacher opened my eyes to the fact that we are editing as soon as we select a camera, lens &/or film.
Great video! I think everyone should do what they want to their images. We’ve gotten too obsessed with what camera/film/scanner were used to create the images we see that we forget to look at the images themselves and tweak them as needed
Absolutely. Tools are important, but at the end of the day, it's using them in a way that best suits you to achieve a final result that you're excited about. Could be saturated, dark, light, contrasty, flat... whatever you enjoy. Cheers, Reimann.
This will forever be the first video i recommend to anyone new to the film community. I think its so important and so many people on the outside seem to think film is just film and you shoot it and develop it and post it and viola. Editing is 1000% my weakest trait and getting that to a spot where i am happier with my images is my film goal for 2022. Cheers Kyle.
I agree, I was really confused at first. I remember thinking I needed to buy a Mamiya 7 or something to get "that look." This video is perfect for the befuddled beginner.
Cheers, Dylan. I appreciate that!
This one went out a bit early. A few of you may have caught a sneak peak. It’s back now. Enjoy.
You're such a brilliant photographer, Kyle. It's insane. Thanks for always being one step ahead of me, so I can look to you for guidance!
Very kind of you, Stephan. Thank you.
Love the direct comparisons to back up your points, makes them very clear to see. 100% agree that personal interpretation should dictate the look not software interpretation
Cheers, Samuel.
I agree with what you said about editing but I also wanted to compliment the production value of this video. The colours, transitions and framing of the talking head desk scene all look so high-end.
Thank you.
Awesome take and I agree, I always answer this question by clarifying that I'm editing the scans, not the film
I've shot film for years but it wasn't until I started editing in LR and PS that I felt I was adding that element of a noticeable style to my images.
Ultimately it's up to you if you want to edit or not, I believe you'll get a better outcome if you choose to edit.
Great video Kyle, good work.
Thanks, Max.
Thorough exploration of editing. Last image of the tree in the field at twilight shows importance of creative decisions. Options: scene as remembered [your take], colour temp balanced, « hand coloured » … Take away: scan in raw [dng] with border, Invert in software and adjust. In Gimp, average the base layer via sampling [same as darktable, negative lab pro], set base layer on top of neg with mode divide, invert and then tweak [white balance, colour temp, etc.].
I couldn’t agree more with everything you said, this video really sums up a lot I’ve learned about editing and scanning film and I couldn’t have said it better. For a long time I thought editing film scans was cheating but it isn’t at all it’s just an extension of the conversion process.
Cheers, Zach. Glad you connected with this one.
Thanks for pointing these important things out! ...I wish more labs would be aware of that who claim their scans to be the original look.
Yes. When you get your scans back, the lab tech edits them in some way or another. Add your creative element to them
most labs will NOT ever edit your scans. its a serious NO-NO in labs to do anything with customer images. most all labs just scan the image and thats it, unless you specifically ask them to edit or adjust them.
I am the technician for the whole process. Only HP5+. Epson V800 & Silverfast. No presets.Individually with each photo I adjust or check contrast and brightness. I use Auto Sharpness and sometimes Less Auto Sharpness. More Auto Sharpness I tend to avoid as it looks too much like digital. I use PS Elements to get rid of dust and the odd imperfection. Never use the auto dust removal on Silverfast as it sees grain as dust .Mac iPhotos to adjust horizon levels and crop to size and that is it. This gives me a body of work that has a sameness and each photo has a continuity with the others. I just love this film look. Cheers and regards.
Thanks for making this! I’ve personally never understood the question either-I work in DI color for film and TV so with that background I’ve made a custom flat scan preset and then custom curves that work similarly to DI luts to shift contrast and hues to what I like. I think a lot of people might say that defeats the purpose of shooting film but to me I just enjoy the film process and also the base that films like portra 800 give me, especially how skin tones work in that medium.
Holy shit. This is a must watch for all film photographers. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thanks for another thoughtful and insightful video Kyle. I particularly enjoy your videos when you discuss the less common but more important subjects, this one and one earlier in the year about projects and inspiration for them for example were great. Having been a film photographer and then come back to photography in the digital age, and now experimenting with film, this explains a lot about the frustrations I had in the pure film age when pictures didn’t come out as expected.
I appreciate that, David. Thank you. 🙏
Very good explanation. Offered a lot of clarity. Thank you for sharing
Good video. What you say about scanning is true for wet printing with a enlarger too - slight tweaks to the filtration on the colour head can make considerable changes to the look and feel of the print. There's no "objective" way of getting from film to print.
Wonderful Kyle :) That's why I prefer shooting on slide film, especially in medium format when I shoot in color. I can immediately see which slides are interesting, and worth scanning, and then I just try to match the scan to the slide as much as possible. I embrace the limited latitude. I miss doing Cibachrome prints though.
For sure. Slide film is definitely a way different experience than colour neg. You have a nice reference to work from.
That’s a great point
you made some amazing points that I hadn't even realized
Once I knew how the scanning process worked and that the lab tech might have tweaked the images already I was fine with doing edits of my own. Most of my images did need some editing to get them where I wanted.
Same! I started scanning (via dslm) my own film and realized I could create hugely different results just from the camera settings
Thanks for this video. I just started shooting some 35mm to have a different shooting experience than I have with my digital setup. This clears up a lot of misconceptions I had about the results I've seen other people, including yourself, get with film. I've been getting scans from the same lab and noticing these differences in rolls and even shot to shot on the same roll. I knew it wasn't anything I was doing wrong but just didn't quite understand it. I've only shot a few rolls so far and have been ok with getting JPG files back from the lab. I just adjust contrast and get rid of any odd color shifts that don't belong there. I almost felt bad about that until I watched this 😂. Like I wasn't letting the film look like film. I think the "film look" is pretty misunderstood. I think people should talk about the shooting experience you have with an old film camera when comparing to digital. That's really the attraction for me. I have an awesome and heavy DSLR setup so it's a nice change of pace to take out a light weight 35mm setup that is the opposite end of the technology spectrum when it comes to cameras.
Cheers, Matthew. And yes, for me there's a lot of other things that come with working with film, other than just the look of the images. The process is a big one, I also enjoy the gear. Photography should be first and foremost exciting and fun, and you should use whichever tools and process work the best for you.
Great subject and you did an honest assessment. Thank you.
I hate saying this because I am going to sound like an old man telling you how it was before fire was invented. But these differences in scanners and software are no different than the differences we had with labs back in the day. One lab always ran hot so there color shift was “X” another ran cool so their shift was “Y”.
But you were there. You saw the photograph before you snapped the shutter. Your final on the Land Rover and lone tree were adjusted to what you saw and good thing. The Land Rover wasn’t much more than a snapshot until you took the image back to what you saw and then it became a very good photograph.
Cheers, Greg. And yes, so important to be present and even make notes on location so you have a clear idea of what to do while editing.
Excellent Kyle, thank you. I've been struggling with the question of how much editing is 'legal'. Great post
Cheers, Ron.
I shot film back when woolly mammoths. I could not afford anything but drug store discount developing. In 2000 I got a good digital camera of the day and never looked back. I could finally edit properly with PS Elements 1.0. I have spent years trying to get “film look” with presets, adjustment formulas, different raw developers, you name it. I also color match to old film pics and paintings to start the editing process. That includes doing wet plate, tintype, and lythographic emulations in digital overlayed with different patterns of things like old paper, wet paper, and rusted metal. Having scanned some of my old slides and negs I also edit them digitatally all kinds of ways, although B&W blown highlights and high contrast works best to my eye many times. I hope everybody trusts their own vision, whatever that is and follows it wherever it leads. There is no right or wrong way to do photography and editing of image files, in any format.
Very informative video. It brought up things I hadn’t considered like differences if film scans from lab to lab as well as scanner to scanner, etc. Towards the end, you discuss editing an image to reflect “how you saw it” at the time when you shot it. I wasn’t sure if you meant literally, or figuratively. I watch another photographers videos (Ted Vera) who shoots a lot of B&W film. His images inspired me to rethink some of my edits. He has a dark look surrounding the focal point in many of his shots. So, when I shoot my B&W in natural or available light, I am thinking of how it “will look” vs the actual scene. So, I am seeing it that way, but in my minds eye. Anyway, excellent video. Definitely has me thinking.
I think when you're editing and deciding on a look, you need to take into account many things, not just 'how it looked' while you were there. How did it make you feel? That's important as well.
Wathcing this video seems to change my perspecive on film photography. In my case, I don't edit my pictures so as to give it the classic and raw result. But, I guess ity is high time for me to revisit my view and style for the end result of the pictures. But, as much as I can, I will refrain from editing my photographs! But, if there is a need to do otherwise, I will tweak them! Thanks.
Great video, looking forward to the 139 video as its my go to 35mm
Cheers, Ali. Was just out shooting with the 139 yesterday. :)
I don't scan my color negatives, but print them instead on C-type in my darkroom. I still do many things I would call editing. I do alter color balance as neutral colors are not always the best for a particular image. Often they are, but not always. I also dodge and burn my prints. I don't use computer for this, but I am still editing.
I used to scan color negative film a lot. Then I started doing optical printing, and I was blown away. That "analog look" just went away. Turns out, that "analog look" is not inherent to film; rather, it is due to the scanning process.
Really nice vidéo, it can take a lot of time to figure all of this out when you begin film photography. It personaly took me month and i wish i had some clear informations like you did this vidéo at my disposition at that time. This one will for sure help a lot of people! I was wondering, are you not using your coolscan 9000 ed anymore? I got one some month ago and this is really a great pice of equipement, i'm really loving it!
Cheers, Paul. Yeah, I think this is something that is just naturally easy for a lot of people to interpret the wrong way when they're first starting out. And yes, still using the 9000. I love it.
well said my friend
When i first heard of film editing i tough it was the most stupid thing ever.
Then i shot a couple of rolls and realized exacly that you said.
And as Reimann Pembroke said, at the end of the day its about the picture.
Absolutely. You should do what excited you most!
A few weeks back I saw someone post a film photo on Instagram and the caption said, “no tweaks, no edits, just how film should be treated.” I think people forget that editing film use to be done in a darkroom. Now we have computers. Same concept, different tools and work flow.
For sure. Same concept. I just think this is something that is easily misinterpreted for people who are new to this medium and don’t have much knowledge of the history of it all.
Can you imagine someone saying “no tweaks, no edits… just how digital should be treated”? 😂
Excellent stuff Kyle.
I've just got my self a Epson v300 and Vue scan on my laptop for black and white shots so be quite interested to see what I get
the reason why I take photos on film is because of the colors that the film produces, if I wanted to over-edit it is better to use a digital camera and some film look presets, I don't know, maybe I'm too purist about film
Exactly my thought also. Or at least edit the photos to as close as possible to the colors that the film produces.
there are other reasons why people shoot film, like the grain and better highlight retention, or even the experience of shooting it and having to be precise and more careful with what you are shooting
Huh, I didn't know there was a "I don't edit my film scans" thing...I don't even know what that means, hahah...I treat my scans as "raw" files and don't do any real tweaking from the scanning software. I just go to the histogram in the scanning software and make sure I have all the information on the negative and then take it into Photoshop to bring it back to what I was seeing in the viewfinder. Now, one thing that you might want to touch on a bit more is that if you do just scan in flat, the film stock you choose will come through. And that's the beauty of shooting film, in my opinion. You have a great starting point to a final image based on a film stock and then you edit that base to get it close to what you saw, but you'd never shoot Portra to edit it to an Ektar look. If you want that kind of flexibility, it's a good time to shoot digital.
And to be honest, I've tried a bunch of scanning software that supposedly "does it better automatically" but in the end, my process is the base Epson scanning software on "Pro" and then, like I said, just adjusting histogram to capture all the recorded data and edit in software of choice in a consistent manner with mainly adjustment layers (for consistency across the film roll).
Love the video and need to watch the one on 645 v 35mm!
Cheers, Patrick. And yeah, google the question and you'll find a number of discussions. But I agree with you, it's important to figure out a process that works for you and roll with that.
Great video!!! Thank you so much for your insights. This was very helpful!!!!
Cheers, Danny. Glad you found it helpful.
In my view, it depends on what camera you use, and how "authentic" you wanna be to that style of camera/shooting.. Meaning, most people using a point and shoot style camera back when it was new, wouldn't have access to a darkroom, or have an option to edit themself. While those using a more "pro camera/SLR", would more likely have those option. Also, even for those that had access to a darkroom, more complex editing, would take a lot more skills than what it does today, in order to get the same results. So, maybe keep that in mind, so you don't "overdo it", if you choose to edit 🙂
Thanks for speaking the truth ! Amazing video !
Cheers.
very nice interesting deep inside ... thanks!
You're welcome. Cheers.
Sadly it looks like labs are not referencing “ Shirley”. The Kodak supplied preexposed neg and print that standardised colour and exposure. Operator bias is the problem.
Do whatever you feel the need to do. Film also varies according to the chemical development technique. There's no such thing as a universal "film look" for any given film stock. The closest thing to a universal look was Kodachrome because all Kodachrome film had to be developed by Kodak using their unique in house processes. Which is why back in the day most printing/ publication houses would only accept Kodachrome. It made their life a lot easier.
Editing is not my cup of coffee (I don't fancy tea either), but I'm very aware of that as soon as you scan your film, you have a digitalized version of your image and no longer the analog film. If you order prints, it's, as said in this video, up to a machine what settings you will get. This can often ruin your images. What you can do, is use positive film, and not digitalize your slides. Then you get the straight out of camera, no editing look.
Yep, if you truly want "analog color" with NO digital editing at all, that is exactly what slide film is for. Shoot, process, mount, and project.
Negative film HAS to be interpreted to get from a negative to a positive image, either in an analog darkroom or a digital scanning method.
Never understood the modern dogma of not processing film images. Back before digital we spent hours in the darkroom tweaking the look of each image. Our enlargers had colour heads for adjusting colours and the papers came in different contrast grades for changing that. In addition, nearly every tool in Photoshop originates in the film world. I started my career as a darkroom technicians assistant in the local newspaper. One of my first jobs was feathering the cardboard masks for an exposure blend of 2 negatives. All the big film names edited extensively. Every newspaper had a darkroom team. The important thing is visualizing the look you want before taking the shot and knowing how to get it - choice of film, settings, film processing(chemistry, times and temperatures) and then printing it(paper settings technique) It's really no different to digital, it just takes a lot longer...
I started out using a lab, then using software to convert my negatives. Now I convert manually. Once you understand how to do it manually, you can never go back.
Love it.
thanks film dad! we need more people to encourage just doing what you want with your own photos. they're yours, if someone tells you you're doing your hobby wrong then they're being a dick
🙌🙏
photography is art. do whatever the fck you want.
Yes to this as well.
This is tremendously helpful. I've been shooting film less than a year and I've tangled internally with how I feel about editing my scans. I felt it to be cheating, but couldn't help doing it in half the shots I took. What you've discussed here is very important for someone like myself to hear, as trying to communicate my vision or what I see in the world is my objective, so I shouldn't fear bringing my work closer to that. A scan is technically already edited! Helpful to hear. Thanks!
Cheers, Terence. Glad you found this helpful!
Well said 😊
🙏
Edit! And why not? Most of the digital tools in lightroom are just based off of their analog versions. Dodging, burning, masking, cropping, etc. Not to mention cross-processing one's film, changing the temp of your chemistry, or using different chemistry altogether. The time your paper is left in chemistry...throwing color filters on lens...on and on. And that's just if you were in the physical darkroom.
Hi Kyle, I also use the 4990 and Vuescan, and recently NLP, for 35, 120 and 4x5. I was wondering if you do a raw scan and use NLP for your black and white images too? This triples the file size (which is significant in 4x5) but gives you the option of toning in LR. Are there any other advantages by doing this rather than just a greyscale scan in Vuescan? Thanks for mentioning making a positive from NLP; otherwise those reversed sliders get confusing. Cheers
Yep, I use the same process for B&W. I usually end up deleting the DNG and just keeping the converted TIFF once I'm happy with it. I figure worst case I can always re-scan.
Totally agree! I know scan everything myself and the results with negative lab pro can be way off sometimes, but overall it’s a good piece of software to start off with.
I always make a tiff and then further adjustments as necessary.
Often NLP is too blue or green for what’s normal.
Should have used just Nikon Scan for the 9000. It's the best program to use for that scanner.
I've looked at it a couple times. Just haven't invested the time to figure out the process to run it on my mac.
Whatever people choose to do which pleases them and fits in their process, I think its inexcusable to shoot film and not properly correct colour casts, wrong white balance etc. Just comes off as sloppy - especially if you want your work to be taken seriously!
Hi Kyle, thanks for the video. I've got a follow up question - if there's so much editing that goes into the process after developing the film, what point is there in seeking out certain rolls vs. others? E.g. Kodak Gold 200 vs. Kodak Portra 400?
Hey Sam, different film stocks still will have different characteristics, as well as capabilities. For example, Portra 400 is probably going to be more flexible with over-exposure compared to Gold 200. It will also render colours and tones differently. Also may scan better. This video isn't to say that every film is the same and it doesn't matter what you use, more just saying that the differences may not be as drastic as you think, and you really need to nail your scanning/conversion process regardless of the film you use.
I love shooting film but I ask myself what does film really look like? After scanning and processing through 3 types of software what exactly do I end up with, and why not just shoot digital were I only use lightroom to edit, it has a tremendous amount more latitude for editing. Don't get me wrong I am still going to shoot film but I just don't know why.
I really think that's why it's so important to invest the time to figure out a consistent workflow so you know what to expect. That includes proper exposure, developing, and scanning. For me, as well, there's inherent traits that film has that digital doesn't. A big one is the way that detail is rendered, especially with larger formats, yet still doesn't feel overly clinical. Of course this will be different for everyone. But if I could recommend one thing to any film photographer, it would be to develop a consistent workflow.
Every step of the creative process is a form of "editing", you finish working on your piece of art when it looks the way you want.
Yep, agreed.
Absolutely yes, for at least one reason: color. With scanning methods from DSLR to lab to drum to scanbed you really can’t be too sure the white balance is perfectly calibrated. Plus reciprocity artifacts might creep in. I find it’s necessary to start with all color tracks set at -100 saturation. Then I bring them up and tune them to achieve the natural colors I want to see. Sometimes it’s to enhance, but usually it’s to ensure color accuracy based on what I remember seeing when I shot it.
If it's tweaked this much, why not go digital? Is it more the "feel"using film, slowing down etc. Seems costly just to do the same thing almost with a digital camera and a preset. Just a thought.
A valid question, but something that will surely be different for everyone. To me there are differences visually with the way film looks and how it renders colours and tones. I also enjoy the process quite a bit. That being said, I have worked some digital into my projects and been able to get it to a place that I'm happy with. It's a different experience though, from the process to the approach with editing.
Is there a reason you do the majority of your editing on the converted positive TIFF rather than in NLP? I've been doing as much as I can on the RAW within NLP and only converting to positive TIFF if I want to do edits that aren't possible within NLP (mainly selective dodging/burning)
I just like the flexibility of the tools in LR more. Personal preference I guess. I like to get a nice base look in NLP, then do the rest in LR.
It's odd to me that some folks think there should be rules that apply to certain types of photography. Even photojournalism has a perspective / style that can be open to interpretation, straight out of camera or not. It would be like telling a painter they can't use certain brush strokes on a particular kind of canvas - such a suggestion would be laughed at and disregarded, but in photography there are continual attempts to set boundaries that more than anything feel like people attempting to compensate for their own creative weaknesses by declaring universal "rules". I edit all my photos, digital or film, to best render the subject or convey the story. Sometimes that means one or two tweaks made in mere seconds, sometimes that means dodging and burning for 20 minutes.
Yep, I agree. Everyone should just do whatever they want. Super saturated, HDR, low contrast, dark, bright, warm, cool. Whatever looks and feels right.
When getting a lab scan, is it beneficial getting TIFF instead of JPEG if I intend on editing them? If so, how much?
They usually cost more, but yes, if you can afford it, then go with a tiff. Tiff files are lossless, so you won't lost quality after editing and saving.
The answer is yes
Honest question. What’s the point of film if you’re just going to scan them, edit it and reprint them? I don’t know anything about photography
I thought what made film special was that you get the raws and that’s that. If you’re going to edit why not just stick to digital and then make your edits?
The solution is easy. Invest into a good scanner, good scanning software and scan yourself in DNG RAW. The investment will pay for itself after a ridiculous small amount of rolls as lab scanning is expensive AF.
I just bought film camera about last month ago, it’s because i want to get the film look and i dont really like to edit my pictures… I thought film will reduce the editing process, oh I’m so wrong about this… if we have to edit every single process (scanning and post processing), then it’s more complicated than digital camera…
I like shooting with film camera, it’s something more enjoyable than digital camera, because we think more with film camera from every aspect… but i don’t like the editing process…
Do you have some advice for me? To minimize the editing process? Actually i can accept the images from lab scan, but some pictures will need to be edited, especially the white balance
Digital or film, you'll always need to do some sort of editing to your images, imo. Beyond the technical, it's incredibly important from a creative standpoint, as I touched on later in this video. I responded to a similar question below, but my suggestion if you're working with film, is to develop a consistent workflow so you always know what to expect. For example, learning how to expose properly, getting your work developed by a high quality lab, and scanning yourself, if possible.
@@KyleMcDougall thanks for your reply… i think I haven’t found my workflow for editing pictures, so i don’t really enjoy it… most of the time i don’t really know what to do in front of my PC, I can’t see what my final image will be, i only give very minor adjustment… it’s the process that i need to improve.
I'd also recommend taking a moment while making images to be mindful, about the location, the light, how you feel, etc. Either mental notes or written. It can help later on in the editing process.
@@KyleMcDougall thank you.. I’ll try
the question is not yes or no, the question is, does it make sense.?
if the essentials are created through digital processing, shoot digital.
The question that presents itself naturally after this video is: why shoot film in the first place?
That'll be different for everyone. I still find a difference in tones, colour, process, etc.
When scanning negatives and processing digitally from that point on, it is 100% certain that the scanner spectral response is not the same as a silver/dye color print material. And then, the printer inks are definitely not the same as a silver/dye color print material. So, unless you are going to make a science project about profiling the result with a silver/dye print material, and profiling your scanner and inkjet printer to match that, the whole idea of "I did this without modification, just like film" is nonsense. The only step that is "just like film" is the negative.
I get the scan back from the lab in 5mb ish jpg files, is it worth to mess around with such small files?
I think some of what your blaming on the scanning isn't quite correct.
For instance, the photo of the old Land Rover. Looking at the scan, I see a lot of detail that has to be in the negative, yet your final result loses all of that detail - so was the scan bad, or was your exposure off?
The misty morning image of the road is similar - more detail is captured in the scan than you want or how you remember it (really I think it's more how you envision it more than you likely remember it), but the scanner didn't create that detail. The scanner didn't create detail that doesn't exist in the film ( it can lose detail but can't create it).
There's only so much the scanner or the operator can do to interpret the highlights, mid-tones and shadows and as a process, there's only so much you can do to record it (e.g. shoot a color target in the image) - but even then, some interpretation has to take place because neither film nor digital can nail color to perfection - both mediums suffer from color shifts and density limits both in range of white to black but also range of each color - not all color can be reproduced faithfully.
Think of the negative as your raw file you imported from the camera. It is just the basepoint and all the things you mentioned are just part of the process of developing that raw file into a final image.
Yep yep. Good way of looking at it.
I try to keep editing to a minimum. Cropping, straightening, removing dust, sharpening, and sometimes brightness/contrast adjustments. It depends on each photo. But I always want them to look like film and as close as possible to the original. For the record, I mostly do B&W photography.
Ansel said the negative is the score. Just playing the notes can be boring and lack feeling. The print is the performance and a skill ed musician will inject his interpretation, like he did in the darkroom. What was Ansel's job in Yosemite before someone in DC suggested him as a photographer for national parks because he was cheap? He was as a pianist. His piano is in the dining room at the Ahwahnee lodge.
Why not adjust the images in Lightroom to your satisfaction. Works for me.
It’s like when shooting film for a movie, the movie is ALWAYS color graded.
Teo Crawford also did a great video a couple days ago on this topic, recommend that video as well to anyone here !!
Calling this "Editing" is kind of flawed as it would infer you are changing something from the original product. The way I see it, negatives are not the product, final photos are; be it physical or digital. Even if you never scan your photos, you sort of "edit" them in enlarger anyway. Just like there is nothing wrong with using a polarizing filter on camera to get desired effect, there is nothing wrong with using a contrast altering filter on an enlarger. Scanning the negatives and doing them on lightroom is just a time/money/convinience issue.
My red line about editing film photos is I don't do ANY edits that can't be (easily) replicated with an enlarger or with other film-era analogue equipment. Color correction, white balance, pushing blacks, clipping highlights, different exposures for different areas or increasing contrast are all OK in my opinion. But I don't edit to remove something from a picture, or remove skin imperfections or make fat people thinner, for example.
-Some slight noise reduction is fine, as that could be achieved by using a higher quality film, but heavy noise reduction which would destroy that "film look"? No.
-Adding Blur is fine, even selective blur is fine. Using advanced algorithms to remove camera shake/motion blur? No.
Back in the day, editing your photos meant going through all the photos that you shot and picking your selects that you may or may not use. It was a distinctly a separate process from printing the photos, especially for assignment work. Often times this was the case because photographers would shoot 2-3 (or more) rolls for a given assignment and then they’d get submitted to the editor who “edited” it down to a handful of frames to be used. These days editing your photos means going in and doing “post processing” to your photos. Not quite the same meaning. There’s still a fair amount of “editing” that happens in the old sense for some types of photography like sports, etc, but it doesn’t mean the same thing for amateurs.
why don't you shoot digital if that's the look you're going for? Your final images look digital..
"Should you edit your film photos"...Yes.
Literally every photo, color and black and white in existence has been manipulated. This hipster wave of BS that editing your photos is bad is just wrong. I edit the HELL out of my black and white photos in the darkroom. If I scan color or do a RA4, I edit the hell out of the colors, I'll even often cut parts of the negative out and blend the cut out part with a mask onto the paper.
Believe it or not, not everything is the fault of 'hipsters', which is so often referenced. I think it has more to do with people who are new to film misunderstanding the process.
@@KyleMcDougall Well. yeah I agree...And hipsters.
All film scans get edited at some point when converted to digital. It all depends on if you like how your lab's scans look
No different to what people have been doing in darkrooms for for over a hundred years, of course you should
No one can possibly match the level of editing master printers did back in the day. Just look at their contact sheets.
I am sorry but the more I watch your videos the more I think that Film photography is an unnecessary hustle
Fair enough. It'll be different for everyone.
Mid-roll ads are very irritating
I wish you included the word Color in your title. Could have saved me a lot of time.