Different result between scanning in Epson's “color negative film” mode and scanning in positive ->...












1















When scanning a 35mm film, if I let Epson's software doing its thing by choosing the "color negative film" mode, without any other adjustment, the resulting raw scan will be yellowish. However, if I do the other method by scanning in positive(orange) film and then invert the curve in the post in photoshop, the resulting scan will be tealish. Why is the difference?










share|improve this question







New contributor




reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    1















    When scanning a 35mm film, if I let Epson's software doing its thing by choosing the "color negative film" mode, without any other adjustment, the resulting raw scan will be yellowish. However, if I do the other method by scanning in positive(orange) film and then invert the curve in the post in photoshop, the resulting scan will be tealish. Why is the difference?










    share|improve this question







    New contributor




    reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      1












      1








      1








      When scanning a 35mm film, if I let Epson's software doing its thing by choosing the "color negative film" mode, without any other adjustment, the resulting raw scan will be yellowish. However, if I do the other method by scanning in positive(orange) film and then invert the curve in the post in photoshop, the resulting scan will be tealish. Why is the difference?










      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      When scanning a 35mm film, if I let Epson's software doing its thing by choosing the "color negative film" mode, without any other adjustment, the resulting raw scan will be yellowish. However, if I do the other method by scanning in positive(orange) film and then invert the curve in the post in photoshop, the resulting scan will be tealish. Why is the difference?







      scanning negative-film scanner epson






      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question






      New contributor




      reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 3 hours ago









      reddyreddy

      82




      82




      New contributor




      reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      reddy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          Scanning handles removing the overall orange mask in color negative film.



          Scanning as positive, and then postprocessing invert does not remove it, inversion simply turns that orange mask to a deep blue overall. NOT Bluish, but very strongly deep blue. Then additional work to try to remove it.



          This is a difficult job to do in digital postprocessing (not meaning the process but the result), because such extreme color shifts (to remove the strong blue) strongly risks clipping in digital. Clipping can somewhat change the colors and can lose detail.



          Whereas the scanner can do this as analog (no digital clipping) by simply varying the scan time duration for each of the RGB colors (result acting like a corrective filter in the light). Scanning color negatives is a bit slower than positive slides, but it is a very good thing.



          Not saying it is "impossible" in digital, you might achieve an acceptable result, but it is just really not the same. If you have the scanner, I strongly suggest using it. It is designed for the exact purpose.



          The result of a yellowish cast is not inherent at all. It will be tremendously easier to manage than the deep blue otherwise. :) There are various factors however.



          Not every brand of color negative film has the same exact color of orange mask, so some scanners offered a menu of film choices.
          Or the scanner calibration might not be exact.



          Or more commonly likely, the film might just have been shot with an incorrect color white balance (we had very little choice with film, but there was a base choice of film type or flash bulb type or lighting or filters). Often the shot needed better white balance correction itself. So try scanning other different film negatives in their different lighting situations to see how constant the yellowish cast is? Sunshine outdoors is likely more accurate than indoors.



          In digital work, it would have been better if the digital camera white balance had been correct, but usually, it might be fairly mild and easily corrected in postprocessing.



          White balance was the same problem for film as digital is today, however the lab printing the picture from film did a good job back then correcting it for us. But it is NOT yet corrected in the negative itself.



          Remember the blue flashbulbs? Remember that we still got a good result whether we used them or not? The printing lab fixed it for us. But in digital, or in film scans, that is now our job to correct.






          share|improve this answer


























          • Thanks for the clearing up my confusion, I will be scanning in "color negative film" mode from now on. I did notice that the different cast from different type of film after the orange mask removal. My Kodak gold 100-5 is slight yellowish, while Kodak gold 100-6 and GC 400-8 are slight tealish. Anyhow they're all very easy to correct as you said it.

            – reddy
            2 hours ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "61"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          reddy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106213%2fdifferent-result-between-scanning-in-epsons-color-negative-film-mode-and-scan%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3














          Scanning handles removing the overall orange mask in color negative film.



          Scanning as positive, and then postprocessing invert does not remove it, inversion simply turns that orange mask to a deep blue overall. NOT Bluish, but very strongly deep blue. Then additional work to try to remove it.



          This is a difficult job to do in digital postprocessing (not meaning the process but the result), because such extreme color shifts (to remove the strong blue) strongly risks clipping in digital. Clipping can somewhat change the colors and can lose detail.



          Whereas the scanner can do this as analog (no digital clipping) by simply varying the scan time duration for each of the RGB colors (result acting like a corrective filter in the light). Scanning color negatives is a bit slower than positive slides, but it is a very good thing.



          Not saying it is "impossible" in digital, you might achieve an acceptable result, but it is just really not the same. If you have the scanner, I strongly suggest using it. It is designed for the exact purpose.



          The result of a yellowish cast is not inherent at all. It will be tremendously easier to manage than the deep blue otherwise. :) There are various factors however.



          Not every brand of color negative film has the same exact color of orange mask, so some scanners offered a menu of film choices.
          Or the scanner calibration might not be exact.



          Or more commonly likely, the film might just have been shot with an incorrect color white balance (we had very little choice with film, but there was a base choice of film type or flash bulb type or lighting or filters). Often the shot needed better white balance correction itself. So try scanning other different film negatives in their different lighting situations to see how constant the yellowish cast is? Sunshine outdoors is likely more accurate than indoors.



          In digital work, it would have been better if the digital camera white balance had been correct, but usually, it might be fairly mild and easily corrected in postprocessing.



          White balance was the same problem for film as digital is today, however the lab printing the picture from film did a good job back then correcting it for us. But it is NOT yet corrected in the negative itself.



          Remember the blue flashbulbs? Remember that we still got a good result whether we used them or not? The printing lab fixed it for us. But in digital, or in film scans, that is now our job to correct.






          share|improve this answer


























          • Thanks for the clearing up my confusion, I will be scanning in "color negative film" mode from now on. I did notice that the different cast from different type of film after the orange mask removal. My Kodak gold 100-5 is slight yellowish, while Kodak gold 100-6 and GC 400-8 are slight tealish. Anyhow they're all very easy to correct as you said it.

            – reddy
            2 hours ago
















          3














          Scanning handles removing the overall orange mask in color negative film.



          Scanning as positive, and then postprocessing invert does not remove it, inversion simply turns that orange mask to a deep blue overall. NOT Bluish, but very strongly deep blue. Then additional work to try to remove it.



          This is a difficult job to do in digital postprocessing (not meaning the process but the result), because such extreme color shifts (to remove the strong blue) strongly risks clipping in digital. Clipping can somewhat change the colors and can lose detail.



          Whereas the scanner can do this as analog (no digital clipping) by simply varying the scan time duration for each of the RGB colors (result acting like a corrective filter in the light). Scanning color negatives is a bit slower than positive slides, but it is a very good thing.



          Not saying it is "impossible" in digital, you might achieve an acceptable result, but it is just really not the same. If you have the scanner, I strongly suggest using it. It is designed for the exact purpose.



          The result of a yellowish cast is not inherent at all. It will be tremendously easier to manage than the deep blue otherwise. :) There are various factors however.



          Not every brand of color negative film has the same exact color of orange mask, so some scanners offered a menu of film choices.
          Or the scanner calibration might not be exact.



          Or more commonly likely, the film might just have been shot with an incorrect color white balance (we had very little choice with film, but there was a base choice of film type or flash bulb type or lighting or filters). Often the shot needed better white balance correction itself. So try scanning other different film negatives in their different lighting situations to see how constant the yellowish cast is? Sunshine outdoors is likely more accurate than indoors.



          In digital work, it would have been better if the digital camera white balance had been correct, but usually, it might be fairly mild and easily corrected in postprocessing.



          White balance was the same problem for film as digital is today, however the lab printing the picture from film did a good job back then correcting it for us. But it is NOT yet corrected in the negative itself.



          Remember the blue flashbulbs? Remember that we still got a good result whether we used them or not? The printing lab fixed it for us. But in digital, or in film scans, that is now our job to correct.






          share|improve this answer


























          • Thanks for the clearing up my confusion, I will be scanning in "color negative film" mode from now on. I did notice that the different cast from different type of film after the orange mask removal. My Kodak gold 100-5 is slight yellowish, while Kodak gold 100-6 and GC 400-8 are slight tealish. Anyhow they're all very easy to correct as you said it.

            – reddy
            2 hours ago














          3












          3








          3







          Scanning handles removing the overall orange mask in color negative film.



          Scanning as positive, and then postprocessing invert does not remove it, inversion simply turns that orange mask to a deep blue overall. NOT Bluish, but very strongly deep blue. Then additional work to try to remove it.



          This is a difficult job to do in digital postprocessing (not meaning the process but the result), because such extreme color shifts (to remove the strong blue) strongly risks clipping in digital. Clipping can somewhat change the colors and can lose detail.



          Whereas the scanner can do this as analog (no digital clipping) by simply varying the scan time duration for each of the RGB colors (result acting like a corrective filter in the light). Scanning color negatives is a bit slower than positive slides, but it is a very good thing.



          Not saying it is "impossible" in digital, you might achieve an acceptable result, but it is just really not the same. If you have the scanner, I strongly suggest using it. It is designed for the exact purpose.



          The result of a yellowish cast is not inherent at all. It will be tremendously easier to manage than the deep blue otherwise. :) There are various factors however.



          Not every brand of color negative film has the same exact color of orange mask, so some scanners offered a menu of film choices.
          Or the scanner calibration might not be exact.



          Or more commonly likely, the film might just have been shot with an incorrect color white balance (we had very little choice with film, but there was a base choice of film type or flash bulb type or lighting or filters). Often the shot needed better white balance correction itself. So try scanning other different film negatives in their different lighting situations to see how constant the yellowish cast is? Sunshine outdoors is likely more accurate than indoors.



          In digital work, it would have been better if the digital camera white balance had been correct, but usually, it might be fairly mild and easily corrected in postprocessing.



          White balance was the same problem for film as digital is today, however the lab printing the picture from film did a good job back then correcting it for us. But it is NOT yet corrected in the negative itself.



          Remember the blue flashbulbs? Remember that we still got a good result whether we used them or not? The printing lab fixed it for us. But in digital, or in film scans, that is now our job to correct.






          share|improve this answer















          Scanning handles removing the overall orange mask in color negative film.



          Scanning as positive, and then postprocessing invert does not remove it, inversion simply turns that orange mask to a deep blue overall. NOT Bluish, but very strongly deep blue. Then additional work to try to remove it.



          This is a difficult job to do in digital postprocessing (not meaning the process but the result), because such extreme color shifts (to remove the strong blue) strongly risks clipping in digital. Clipping can somewhat change the colors and can lose detail.



          Whereas the scanner can do this as analog (no digital clipping) by simply varying the scan time duration for each of the RGB colors (result acting like a corrective filter in the light). Scanning color negatives is a bit slower than positive slides, but it is a very good thing.



          Not saying it is "impossible" in digital, you might achieve an acceptable result, but it is just really not the same. If you have the scanner, I strongly suggest using it. It is designed for the exact purpose.



          The result of a yellowish cast is not inherent at all. It will be tremendously easier to manage than the deep blue otherwise. :) There are various factors however.



          Not every brand of color negative film has the same exact color of orange mask, so some scanners offered a menu of film choices.
          Or the scanner calibration might not be exact.



          Or more commonly likely, the film might just have been shot with an incorrect color white balance (we had very little choice with film, but there was a base choice of film type or flash bulb type or lighting or filters). Often the shot needed better white balance correction itself. So try scanning other different film negatives in their different lighting situations to see how constant the yellowish cast is? Sunshine outdoors is likely more accurate than indoors.



          In digital work, it would have been better if the digital camera white balance had been correct, but usually, it might be fairly mild and easily corrected in postprocessing.



          White balance was the same problem for film as digital is today, however the lab printing the picture from film did a good job back then correcting it for us. But it is NOT yet corrected in the negative itself.



          Remember the blue flashbulbs? Remember that we still got a good result whether we used them or not? The printing lab fixed it for us. But in digital, or in film scans, that is now our job to correct.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 2 hours ago

























          answered 3 hours ago









          WayneFWayneF

          10k1924




          10k1924













          • Thanks for the clearing up my confusion, I will be scanning in "color negative film" mode from now on. I did notice that the different cast from different type of film after the orange mask removal. My Kodak gold 100-5 is slight yellowish, while Kodak gold 100-6 and GC 400-8 are slight tealish. Anyhow they're all very easy to correct as you said it.

            – reddy
            2 hours ago



















          • Thanks for the clearing up my confusion, I will be scanning in "color negative film" mode from now on. I did notice that the different cast from different type of film after the orange mask removal. My Kodak gold 100-5 is slight yellowish, while Kodak gold 100-6 and GC 400-8 are slight tealish. Anyhow they're all very easy to correct as you said it.

            – reddy
            2 hours ago

















          Thanks for the clearing up my confusion, I will be scanning in "color negative film" mode from now on. I did notice that the different cast from different type of film after the orange mask removal. My Kodak gold 100-5 is slight yellowish, while Kodak gold 100-6 and GC 400-8 are slight tealish. Anyhow they're all very easy to correct as you said it.

          – reddy
          2 hours ago





          Thanks for the clearing up my confusion, I will be scanning in "color negative film" mode from now on. I did notice that the different cast from different type of film after the orange mask removal. My Kodak gold 100-5 is slight yellowish, while Kodak gold 100-6 and GC 400-8 are slight tealish. Anyhow they're all very easy to correct as you said it.

          – reddy
          2 hours ago










          reddy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          reddy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













          reddy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          reddy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















          Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106213%2fdifferent-result-between-scanning-in-epsons-color-negative-film-mode-and-scan%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

          He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

          Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029