Burning in Wedding dress

[srs5694]

I know I'm stepping into a minefield, but....

David- no I'm not. He's not printing wet-process. He's saying that digital printing is superior to wet-process printing.

I think it's important to first point out that there have been two people posting about the limitations of analog techniques in this thread so far: Heinz_Anderle and FilmIs4Ever. They're saying somewhat different things, with my reading being that Heinz is taking a more pro-digital viewpoint in this case.

That said, I believe that your claim that either Heinz or FilmIs4Ever is "saying that digital printing is superior to wet-process printing" is an oversimplification, since my reading of their posts is that neither is stating such a position in the absolute way you imply. That's critically important, since if we don't recognize the limitations of analog photography, we're no better than the digital zealots on other forums.

I'm asking him politely to stick to the topic at hand in this thread - how to deal with the problem the OP is experiencing within the context of wet-process printing.

Although I respect the APUG ideal of sticking to traditional analog materials and processes, there comes a point beyond which that ideal becomes ridiculous, and I think this is an instance of such a point. If the thread had degenerated into a discussion of scanning techniques, asking it to be taken elsewhere would probably have been reasonable; however, your post asking that the topic not be discussed here came immediately after the very first mention of digital technology. Although I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, this quick response to a single mention of digital technology gives the impression of overzealousness.

One final point: Heinz's personal information indicates that he's posting from Austria and has only posted 16 times so far. Although Heinz's English is very good, he's not writing like a native speaker of English. My experience in Internet forums is that people with Heinz's level of English proficiency often write rather tersely and frequently come off as more gruff than they intend. This may be contributing to a misapprehension of his views by some in this thread. I just hope the negative reaction hasn't driven a new poster away from APUG.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I think Matt5791 has settled the digital alternative solution completly and quite well:

Heinz - well this would be an obvious alternative solution, however I want to keep printing optically because I only have a cheap scanner, fine for scanning for the web or other electronic use, but not for printing from. Also I think optical printing deliveres, most of the time, more beautiful prints than those created with a "digital intermediate".

To belabour it any longer is completely off topic and amounts to simple trolling.

 

[Nick Zentena]

This may have been mentioned but my net connection is too flakey to make reading all the posts possible.

Why are you burning in the bride? I'm going to bet in 99.9999% of the wedding photos the bride is the most import thing. Set the exposure for the bride. Let that set your filters. Then if need be dodge the rest. If the background colours go to hell the only person who'll notice is you.

 

[lee]

filmis4ever said this, "you are taking things way to far, in my opinion,"

it is not your opinion that matters here. This site has very strict set of guide lines that everyone is asked to follow. The reason the hybrid site was founded was so that discussions like this can be discussed. Please follow the rules.

lee\c

 

[Richard Harris]

Nick has it here I think. If the negative is developed well and evenly then setting the exposure and filtration to balance out the white dress will give the best colour for the rest of the scene. Different films will give a slightly different rendition of the colour palette but that's a bigger discussion. This thread seems to confirm my view that many printers seem to think a constant filter pack is normal for all negatives. I simply do not believe this. If you have a colour cast on grey or white then your filtration is wrong or some other part of the picture is of more importance and you are filtering to obtain a particular colour there and are prepared to ignore a false grey/white.

 

[Mick Fagan]

On the point of burning in or dodging, in the RA4 process, I have found no real problem with doing this.

Quite a few times I have burnt in some areas up to 3 stops, a colour shift is sometimes just detectable, if you are looking for it.

I very rarely have to dodge anything less than a stop, so almost all dodging I can remember, has never shown up a colour shift.

On a few 12x16" colour prints I did, which was of a library ceiling in an Austrian school, which was in it's first life a monastery, I had a complete exposure range of 5 stops between dodging and burning in. There is no change in colour across the print, anywhere.

As an interesting aside, I went back to my original printing notes for this particular negative. It was exposed on a trip in June 1994. Film used was 135 Fuji Reala.

The first test print was a straight print, with a guestimate on exposure from the contact sheet. I then decided to do some thinking on this one, as to whether or not it was worth it.

I then tackled it the following weekend and I took two more test prints from one sheet to determine density, colour wasn't a problem as I had balance. I then proceeded to print and my notes tell me that I used 7 sheets in total, to produce 4 excellent prints and one not so good print.

Good to excellent colour printing, is not easy. I don't believe that I am smarter than anyone else, but having a reasonably methodical approach has helped me quite a lot.

Mick.

 

[Heinz_Anderle]

Heinz - well this would be an obvious alternative solution, however I want to keep printing optically because I only have a cheap scanner, fine for scanning for the web or other electronic use, but not for printing from. Also I think optical printing deliveres, most of the time, more beautiful prints than those created with a "digital intermediate"

Get a better one ;-) - but, to be honest, negatives aren't that much a challenge since their maximum density rarely exceed the dynamic range of a consumer film scanner. For "digital contact sheets", I get acceptable results with a 10-year old Epson GT 9600, and for prints up to 12 × 16, with a seven year-old Acer 2740s. But even with VueScan, I sometimes need to adjust the color balance and contrast afterwards.

Despite of its extreme dynamic range, negative film isn't as forgiving as one may think. Upon scanning, I notice all the optical flaws of my lenses: low contrast, flare, or color shifts, or the influence by ambient lighting. Today's minilabs try to correct or filter all that out as far as possible.

If you need to print directly, I would suggest to mask the negative by a directly copied thin b & w positive, with a correctly filtered light source. From reading about how printed book illustrations from color slides were optimized before the computer era to retain at least some shadow detail, I know about this technique to flatten contrast; the challenge of print paper is that its gradation even exceeds that of slide film.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There is a good description of making contrast masks that Heinz describes in Ctein's book, _Post-Exposure_.

While there are often digital solutions for questions posed on APUG, they are off topic for this forum, which is meant to be a forum for discussion of traditional, non-digital photographic techniques and a repository of information about traditional methods. Someone who wants information about contrast masking using film, for instance, shouldn't have to wade through posts about contrast control in PhotoShop, which are well covered on other sites. It's not a question of what is the "best" or "easiest" or "most efficient" method for any particular purpose, but rather what is on topic for APUG.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

The only point that I was trying to make is that there are some modifications so difficult to make in a color darkroom (or a B&W one for that matter) that the only practical solution is to make the correction using non-optical means, i.e. digitally, or slave away for years trying to do something that is practically impossible optically (painful), or pay someone a generous amount of money to print it for you.

I am saying that, without seeing scanned samples, I cannot make a specific recommendation, but a general recommendation is that what the original poster is trying to do may not be possible with his particular situation.

~KB

 

[Matt5791]

Thanks for all the further input everyone.

Ok, Filmis4ever makes a good point so I have attached a scan of the print and a scan directly from the neg, whihc I have not manipulated in any way post scan.

I had to crop the print because it is 12X16 and it wont fit on the bed of the scanner - so I cropped the neg similarly.

I have to say they do look quite a bit different.........Think I like the "excessively cyan" print now.

 

[Heinz_Anderle]

... I have attached a scan of the print and a scan directly from the neg, whihc I have not manipulated in any way post scan.

I have to say they do look quite a bit different.........Think I like the "excessively cyan" print now.

Next time, use Astia 100F, especially at such a flat ambient lighting, or Provia 400F or 400X for medium format (if the light is very dim, 400X will also be the better choice for 35 mm film). The bride's dress won't burn out since Astia 100F is a softer slide film, and flesh tones are rendered absolutely natural.

You will still get less contrast with those slide films than with today's RA-4 papers.

 

[Matt5791]

Next time, use Astia 100F, especially at such a flat ambient lighting, or Provia 400F or 400X for medium format (if the light is very dim, 400X will also be the better choice for 35 mm film). The bride's dress won't burn out since Astia 100F is a softer slide film, and flesh tones are rendered absolutely natural.

You will still get less contrast with those slide films than with today's RA-4 papers.

Interesting - sounds odd though. I've never heard this before.

Also I have to think about the "fail safe" aspect of colour neg. Wedding photography is portraiture at 100mph and it is inevitable that sometimes you will incorrectly expose film - for example I once accidentally exposed some Portra 400NC at 160 - it was a critical shot. I was able to get a perfectly acceptable print. Somehow I don't think I would have been granted the same sort of luxury with Astia or any other reversal film.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Interesting - sounds odd though. I've never heard this before.

Also I have to think about the "fail safe" aspect of colour neg. Wedding photography is portraiture at 100mph and it is inevitable that sometimes you will incorrectly expose film - for example I once accidentally exposed some Portra 400NC at 160 - it was a critical shot. I was able to get a perfectly acceptable print. Somehow I don't think I would have been granted the same sort of luxury with Astia or any other reversal film.

Just out of interest - do you usually expose color neg at the box speed? I have always found that 2/3 to 1 stop extra exposure gives better saturation and shadow detail and also means that any slight processing marks do not show up.

Regards,

David

 

[Akki14]

The neg scan looks a lot more blue-green than your print does. I'd prefer the dress to look washed out to a truly white than whatever is going on in the neg scan.

 

[Matt5791]

Just out of interest - do you usually expose color neg at the box speed? I have always found that 2/3 to 1 stop extra exposure gives better saturation and shadow detail and also means that any slight processing marks do not show up.

Regards,

David

I need the maximum speed I can get a lot of the time so, whilst I could get a better negative by giving a little more exposure, I expose at box speed.

I like to avoid the use of flash unless absolutely necessary.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

This might well have been a case where a touch of fill-flash would have done wonders for you, since it would have exposed the main scene at 5500K, guaranteeing you a neutral color balance.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Accepting the fact that your print scan has high(ish) contrast, due to how scanners usually work with no or minimal fiddling, there could be another technical problem.

I'm assuming the cropped image is the print scan here. This, if it is a reasonable facsimile, colour wise, of the print, could be developer exhaustion.

I have found that when the developer is going off, or is exhausted, then you get blue blacks, no matter what filtration you try.

Do you know if your developer is reasonably fresh, either time wise from when it was first used, or the amount of paper it has developed?

This is the first thought I had when I saw the two images.

Looking at the other image that is greenish and has more of the picture and assuming it is the negative scan, I see basically nothing wrong with it, except a colour cast.

It looks quite good exposure wise, there is detail in the dress, the grey tie is looking correctly exposed, subtle detail is there in the waist coat and you have very good background detail.

All in all, I would suggest this would be a very easy negative to print as the contrast is nice and low. The difference between the highlights you wish to retain (dress) and the shadows you wish to "just" retain (trousers) would be about 3 stops or 3 1/2 stops. This range is virtually perfect for printing, regardless of whether it is colour neg, colour transparency, or B&W negative film.

Somehow I think your printing technique may be giving you some troubles. Would you be able to ascertain that your chemicals are reasonably fresh?

Looking at the greenish image I'm guessing that at 400 ASA (box speed) you would have used f8 at around 1/125 of a second, looks like a 35mm lens or at the most a 50mm lens has been used. Perfect depth of field, by the way!

With C41 colour negatives I have generally found that 1/3 of a stop more exposure from box speed and correct developing of the film, results in near perfect grain structure. Slight over exposure of C41 film, seems to reduce ever so slightly, the apparent grain size.

I would be tempted to seek physical help from a genuine colour printer. There should be someone within a days drive who may be able to tell more from looking at your negatives on a light box, and your actual print(s) than we can ascertain from scans on a web page.

I would be very surprised if you find a colour printer who wouldn't help you by just looking and possibly giving you pointers as well!

When I worked in the commercial lab, we had the odd commercial photographer sometimes walk in off the street seeking a bit of help with all things film. I cannot ever remember any of us not attempting to help, either directly or pointing them towards someone who could.

Mick.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

This might well have been a case where a touch of fill-flash would have done wonders for you, since it would have exposed the main scene at 5500K, guaranteeing you a neutral color balance.

Agreed. Here are two, wait three cardinal wedding rules I have learned, which apply regardless of what you use (I use Portra 400NC 6x7cm and 6cm sq. BTW, so I am not trying to insinuate anything about digital):

1. ALWAYS use fill flash outdoors. Always have a flash on the camera and have it fire for every shot, unless you are shooting INDOORS, where you can get very nice tungsten-lit shots at 1/30 @ F/2.8 with 400 film.

2. ALWAYS take multiple coverage of important group shots: the bigger the group, the more shots you take. It is veritably impossible to open someone's eyes analog-optically; you'll have to pay a master painter a lot of money. Digitally it is still a PITA, and it's a real bummer having a laser-printed RA-4 included in amongst 39 other analog-optically printed 8x10s in an album. That print will stick out like a sore thumb.

3. Always take people's pictures in the shade, or at the very least with their backs to the sun. Direct sunlight makes for harsh shadows and "raccoon eyes", even with fill flash. Again, you can make direct-sun pictures work, but not without pain and anguish, ESPECIALLY if you don't like spending 10-hour days without anything to show for it because you can't get the damned filter pack right because it pin-balls around so much from print to print (Don't ask me where I got that last example from )

Digital lets you "get away" with that stuff much more easily, but you have to remeber that any time you don't observe these two rules, we'll call them commandments, you will have to pay money, period.

I really can't say from what I see if it is hopeless or not. I have found that it is a good idea to scan all negatives from a wedding because it will give you a good color reference without having to pound through 20 sheets of paper (unless you have a video analyser), and it allows for digital retouching (which would be impossibly/prohibitively expensive to do analog optically) as well as easier communication with the wedding when you need to show them prints (just don't send full res files :rolleyes: ).
Matt, could you please email me the scans you have? I am not a paid subscriber here, and as such can only view two very small thumbnails. . .

kab38 ATcase DOT edu

 

[Richard Harris]

Where of where is this thread going?
Matt, sort your filtration out. The print scan, assuming my monitor and yours are the same has a blue/cyan cast over the complete image. Just dial out some yellow and possibly a touch of magenta. The negative scan is way out too, scanners find a pretty good balance normally, but yours is way too green and yellow? It is not one or the other; print it again. I have an epson flat bed which has colour sliders on the preview scan, great for finding the colour balance you wish to achieve; then go and make it in the darkroom.
Only an idiot would recommend someone to shoot a wedding in slide film (sorry that poster) Why on earth would you shoot chrome when you have a contrast nightmare in the average wedding and the couple want prints?
Why do people post this rubbish?

 

[Heinz_Anderle]

Only an idiot would recommend someone to shoot a wedding in slide film (sorry that poster) Why on earth would you shoot chrome when you have a contrast nightmare in the average wedding and the couple want prints?
Why do people post this rubbish?

Despite the rudeness I have to answer that, at an overcast day with flat contrast, I deliberately took both the bride's and goom's portrait (without fill flash) as well as the group photo on Fujichrome Sensia 100 (the amateur's equivalent to Astia 100F). This type of film has been optimized for portraits and fashion with a very fine grain. Of course the slides were finally scanned at 5400 dpi nominal resolution (and that's exactly what is done today not only for silver halide, but also for high-quality offset printing). At that wedding, I had print film in my other camera bodies most of the time.

[Moderator's note: Off topic remarks deleted]

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Don't forget that, back in the days before color became affordable, pro photographers used to shoot just color slides at the wedding as an add-on. It's more difficult but not impossible, and certainly not without precedent.

Heinz, you really don't need a damned scanner and photoshop for every problem photographic. Photoshopping the bride's dress and the groom's tux from two different slide exposures is not, I hope, your idea of the efficiency of the digital workflow :rolleyes: There are plenty of slides I'm sure where the photographer has done a good enough job to get it right IN CAMERA, with a spot meter or a carefully-aimed light meter and a good understanding of the latitude of slide film. Using a reflector and fill-flash are also excellent, time-saving methods for avoiding wedding printing hastles.

 

[Heinz_Anderle]

Heinz, you really don't need a damned scanner and photoshop for every problem photographic. Photoshopping the bride's dress and the groom's tux from two different slide exposures is not, I hope, your idea of the efficiency of the digital workflow

No, one slide with cautious metering (F801s with spot metering on an 18 % grey surface) was enough. To be honest, I am in general sceptic about image editing software, because the image acquisition/conversion (analog camera, scanner, etc.) and processing equipment (minilab, large-scale printer, software, enlarger, etc.) has to do the job right. But for that reason I am also not satisfied any more with the prints I would get from "direct" commercial processing of my films.

 

[Matt5791]

This might well have been a case where a touch of fill-flash would have done wonders for you, since it would have exposed the main scene at 5500K, guaranteeing you a neutral color balance.

Yes - agreed on this. In fact this was from only the second wedding I ever shot some time ago and I was terrified about over-flashing with fill.

 

[Matt5791]

Accepting the fact that your print scan has high(ish) contrast, due to how scanners usually work with no or minimal fiddling, there could be another technical problem.

I'm assuming the cropped image is the print scan here. This, if it is a reasonable facsimile, colour wise, of the print, could be developer exhaustion.

I have found that when the developer is going off, or is exhausted, then you get blue blacks, no matter what filtration you try.

Do you know if your developer is reasonably fresh, either time wise from when it was first used, or the amount of paper it has developed?

This is the first thought I had when I saw the two images.

Looking at the other image that is greenish and has more of the picture and assuming it is the negative scan, I see basically nothing wrong with it, except a colour cast.

It looks quite good exposure wise, there is detail in the dress, the grey tie is looking correctly exposed, subtle detail is there in the waist coat and you have very good background detail.

All in all, I would suggest this would be a very easy negative to print as the contrast is nice and low. The difference between the highlights you wish to retain (dress) and the shadows you wish to "just" retain (trousers) would be about 3 stops or 3 1/2 stops. This range is virtually perfect for printing, regardless of whether it is colour neg, colour transparency, or B&W negative film.

Somehow I think your printing technique may be giving you some troubles. Would you be able to ascertain that your chemicals are reasonably fresh?

Looking at the greenish image I'm guessing that at 400 ASA (box speed) you would have used f8 at around 1/125 of a second, looks like a 35mm lens or at the most a 50mm lens has been used. Perfect depth of field, by the way!

With C41 colour negatives I have generally found that 1/3 of a stop more exposure from box speed and correct developing of the film, results in near perfect grain structure. Slight over exposure of C41 film, seems to reduce ever so slightly, the apparent grain size.

I would be tempted to seek physical help from a genuine colour printer. There should be someone within a days drive who may be able to tell more from looking at your negatives on a light box, and your actual print(s) than we can ascertain from scans on a web page.

I would be very surprised if you find a colour printer who wouldn't help you by just looking and possibly giving you pointers as well!

When I worked in the commercial lab, we had the odd commercial photographer sometimes walk in off the street seeking a bit of help with all things film. I cannot ever remember any of us not attempting to help, either directly or pointing them towards someone who could.

Mick.

Thanks for the feedback Mick - there is a lab I use actually about 3 miles away who hand print colour! - so could ask them.

Both images are cropped as the print is 12X16 and wont completely fit on the scanner, and so I cropped the neg scan in a similar way.

I don't think I have a developer exhaustion problem - they are quite new and have not processed many sheets. Also the next prints I did were spot on. (see attachment - also cropped as print is 12X12" and wont fully fit on scanner)

The camera was Hasselblad with 80mm lens and I think you're probably spot on with the exposure! Thanks for the compliment on DOF - depth of field is very important to me for these sort of shots, and the focal lenghts at which I am normally using in medium format and typical light are perfect for just dropping the background out of focus, but not excessivly so.

 

[Matt5791]

Don't forget that, back in the days before color became affordable, pro photographers used to shoot just color slides at the wedding as an add-on. It's more difficult but not impossible, and certainly not without precedent.

Heinz, you really don't need a damned scanner and photoshop for every problem photographic. Photoshopping the bride's dress and the groom's tux from two different slide exposures is not, I hope, your idea of the efficiency of the digital workflow :rolleyes: There are plenty of slides I'm sure where the photographer has done a good enough job to get it right IN CAMERA, with a spot meter or a carefully-aimed light meter and a good understanding of the latitude of slide film. Using a reflector and fill-flash are also excellent, time-saving methods for avoiding wedding printing hastles.

I forgot to add - something very iomportant with Weddings - you cant justify taking too long over each shot after the day - infact a lot of the digital advantage is completely academic because you can not justify the time - otherwise you quickly discover you are infact working for less than the national minimum wage!