Do you also notice this in C-41 film scans shared online?

[loccdor]

I think what you're describing is the effect of grain-reduction algorithms in software. They are common in lab scanning. They can really remove a lot of the detail from an image.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I stopped shooting and scanning negatives and switched to chromes because of the difficulty of reversing the film and getting the colors right during scanning and editing. Another advantage of chromes is that you can see immediately if you got the shot exposed right, just by looking at it. I often bracket when shooting medium-format 120 roll film. So it's easy to select the right one without even bothering to scan. I also like the color palettes of Velvia 50 chromes. Of course, chromes have their own issues like fewer stops, more contrast, and blowing the sky.

 

[Evildad]

Of course, chromes have their own issues like fewer stops, more contrast, and blowing the sky.

And price. Sheesh!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

And price. Sheesh!

I've got two unopened boxes of Velvia 50 in 4x5 in my freezer, plus one opened. Since they stopped making it in large format, the resale value on eBay is $400-600 a box. Insane!

 

[brbo]

When I read the opening post I thought, finally a guy that's fussy about colour. I know I am, but obviously not nearly as much as OP.

Eagerly clicked on the blog and there were not many pictures, even less colour ones and then those few were... O.M.G. Seriously, and with all due respect, posting "observations" about general state of C-41 scans floating on the internets, erm... you are not there yet.

 

[Mesabound]

Yes I agree ... let's say, in the first example, the model's long hair was thrown over her shoulder instead of hanging down as it is, then there would be no orange "blotch", because her neck in that part would be lit with white light, but as it is, her hair is hanging down and is causing a shadow, but that shadow has an "orange" hue because light is shining through, and also reflecting off her brown hair. It seems the combination of brown, her slightly suntanned skin, and color temperature of the light source, has created the orange hue.

I think that first example is correct, trying to change anything, would probably ruin it.

The main thing is that you evidently have a keen and critical eye for color and that this likely results in certain expectations of how you want your own work to look. I'd focus on that side of the matter and optimize in your own work for what you want to achieve.[/QUOTE]

I echo these sentiments exactly. Also, OP, I understand your intent is not ill, and that at the end of the day this is the internet and the photographer put it out there, but I do not think it is really useful (or perhaps I mean kind) practice to take a photo that is literally titled "First ever self-portrait" and cross-post it to another forum as demonstration of an extremely granular gripe that is anything but definitive, clear, or obvious. Truly, I have no idea what I'm supposed to be seeing in these images, and as the photographer is clearly in an indoor space w/ likely mixed lighting sources and at least two mirrors, all sorts of funky things could be happening that would lead to weird small shifts. If you have examples of what you're trying to illustrate in your own work, as you have said you do, IMO you should always start there.

Nothing in any of the posted examples meets the threshold of what I would deem an "artifact" and instead read merely as creative choices, or rather, simply the reality of photographing in uncontrolled lighting environments.

 

[Certain Exposures]

When I read the opening post I thought, finally a guy that's fussy about colour. I know I am, but obviously not nearly as much as OP.

Eagerly clicked on the blog and there were not many pictures, even less colour ones and then those few were... O.M.G. Seriously, and with all due respect, posting "observations" about general state of C-41 scans floating on the internets, erm... you are not there yet.

You (or anyone here) are welcome to judge my photographs.

I will note that you made a common mistake I have noticed over the years. You missed the entire point of my blog. I made it to share helpful information and what I was tinkering with or learning. It was never about sharing impressive photographs.

My most popular blog posts were a review of the Cameradactyl Homonculus and tips on using autoknips mechanical shutter release timers for self portraits on 4x5 and medium format. There were no more than 5 films scans between them.

I placed my blog under construction for unrelated reasons over the weekend. My channel is still up.

I echo these sentiments exactly. Also, OP, I understand your intent is not ill, and that at the end of the day this is the internet and the photographer put it out there, but I do not think it is really useful (or perhaps I mean kind) practice to take a photo that is literally titled "First ever self-portrait" and cross-post it to another forum as demonstration of an extremely granular gripe that is anything but definitive, clear, or obvious. Truly, I have no idea what I'm supposed to be seeing in these images, and as the photographer is clearly in an indoor space w/ likely mixed lighting sources and at least two mirrors, all sorts of funky things could be happening that would lead to weird small shifts. If you have examples of what you're trying to illustrate in your own work, as you have said you do, IMO you should always start there.

Nothing in any of the posted examples meets the threshold of what I would deem an "artifact" and instead read merely as creative choices, or rather, simply the reality of photographing in uncontrolled lighting environments.

I fail to see how it was unkind to share that example the way I did.

I wonder if everyone here is familiar with the What Color Is This Dress controversy that popped up online in 2015?

 

[Radost]

The image below is not mine. It is an example of nice, lab scanned portrait I saw online with at least one of the flaws I mentioned. I mean no harm to the original photographer.

The photographer wrote in the comments that the film was scanned with a Fuji Frontier by the lab. Since it's an ECN-2 film I am unsure if the lab did the development. I only know of one lab (Silbersalz) developing and scanning ECN-2.

This is not c41 film. . I shoot ECN2 film exclusively and it looks fine.