Lightroom/Camera Raw: Ability to invert negative scans to positives (color and black-and-white)

Adobe didn't push you into buying apps. YOU did.  But none of you are getting all of the tools you are looking for because you have never seen the full Photoshop.  If you had, you would NOT complain about ANYTHING and you would have ALL of the tools to do EVERYTHING.

And using the Invert command in an external editor does not make a usable, quality conversion of a color film negative.

You only export the converted file to a TIFF if you want to make further edits in Photoshop or other external editor.

This thread is being merged into an authoritative thread for better tracking and response. 

@carlos_cardona I own it and like it and it is a good solution, but it is not the "right" solution. Earlier inversion so the lightroom sliders function correctly would be a solution truly integrated with lightroom rather than tacked on.  I like the plugin in that it allows me to keep raw, and not convert to TIFF, but it's still a kludge.   A very nice kludge worth the money; but Adobe should tackle this need.  They really missed the boat while so many people are home, often digitizing.

Linwood is right.  If it can work as a plugin, why not add it as a Lightroom feature?  I'd like the integrated catalog, the non-destructive RAW editing, the ability to make virtual copies for different edits, etc.  

This is a feature request - a feature that is useful enough that people pay $99 for a third party solution.

Incidentally, I forgot -- Using tools like Negative Lab Pro do not allow Face Recognition (and probably lots of useful tools) to work properly.  Again, not knocking NLP, it's a fundamental issue in Lightroom that needs an improvement.

My Nikon D850 has negative inversion built-in. Converts to jpgs in camera.

Bob frost

True, but no use for a raw, non-destructive workflow.

If we have LRC we have Photoshop, which is easy to invert also. But it's debayered, not raw.

@steve_lehman 

Obviously you don't use or like Lightroom.  Most of your comments refer to Lightroom as it existed 6-8 years ago - not the current version of Lightroom Classic.  It's a pretty good editor - far better suited for most people than Photoshop Elements or Photoshop.

Is certainly viable for photographers to choose the editing tools they prefer.  Photoshop is a good editor for some workflows.  Elements can be used for some things, but that's still another piece of software.   

The entire reason for this discussion is for a group of us to propose a reasonable enhancement in a program we use regularly - Lightroom.  

The big advantage of negative processing as a Lightroom enhancement is it fits into existing workflows.  That means it supports non-destructive editing and eliminates duplicate files or making copies in different formats most of the time.  Lightroom also has a very good catalog functions with collections and other tools to support organization.

I have Light Room. I own it. I don't subscribe to it. No need for me.  It came FREE with Elements, an add-on. 

"True, but no use for a raw, non-destructive workflow."

But the quality of the Kodak negative films I've inverted either with my D850 or using LR is so poor that its not worth doing any serious editing on them. Converting to jpgs is about all they are worth - holiday snaps!!

Bob Frost

I'm getting very good results with color negative film as far back as the early 1970s Kodacolor X). Here's an article on my workflow using LR for orange mask removal and PS with an action for inversion, toning, and color correction. Here's an article Mark Segal and I wrote on scannerless capture with more details.

https://luminous-landscape.com/scannerless-digital-capture-and-processing-of-negative-film-photographs/

Kodacolor II Color negative from 1979 using the above mentioned processing.

Here are Dropbox links to the article and instructional PDF if you can't access them at the LULA.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bd72zya8okdzk5c/Scannerless%20Digital%20Capture%20and%20Processing%20of%20Negative%20Film%20Photographs%20-%20Article.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6y9q6jw0umx9qr9/Scannerless%20Digital%20Capture%20and%20Processing%20of%20Negative%20Film%20Photographs.pdf?dl=0

I can't argue with "make it work right".  But the latter argument, to me, does not feel right -- why would an alternative path through the "develop" steps necessarily be a significant resource hog.  But I think more to the point - EVERY new feature comes with some resource cost, that has been true since DOS and 8 bit machines. Software companies do not survive by being feature stagnant as a way to protect existing hardware, they survive by providing features people love and want, who then when needed add memory, disk, etc.  I now have two 24mpix and one 62mpix cameras, unthinkable 15 years ago.  I also have 256gb SD cards and a PC filled with 1TB SSD's. I don't want the status quo, I want continual functional improvement -- that's what we were promised for our subscription.

It's a good sign that there is a market need when a plugin is developed that is commercially viable even after 4-5 years at a price of $100.  

I agree - I don't need a resource hog.  But software companies generally support more features in spite of the overhead required. 

This is an update to image processing that is meaningful enough that Nikon built it into their cameras, sells an adapter and lenses to facilitate the process, and still has a scanner that is widely used to scan negatives into a digital format.  

Let me just say, a little birdie told me that Adobe is aware of this need and maybe, we'll see something to address it in the future. In the meantime, any other workarounds or recommendations above and beyond "Adobe please do this" would be constructive.