>>4363793>>4363836okay I think I might have figured out the problem?
half of it was because I was saving as sRGB
other half is the fact I don't have a profile for the 9000
before, I was checking the slide by holding it up to a light with a different white point than any of my monitors
if I hold this slide up to the same screen I'm viewing this scan on, they look more or less identical
so that means the scan is good, even if it doesn't look good (and I can't do that until I make sure my monitor's calibrated which I've been too lazy to do)
>>4363936no I mean the white balance of the scan not the photo
I want to accurately record the film, regardless of how shitty it is
