Color negative poor quality

ferditulum · Jun 23, 2020

Hello everyone! I don't have any experience with color negatives. Mostly i shoot black and white and develop at home. After a couple of rolls of color developed at the local lab, the quality of the images looks like very poor. I am scanning with epsonscan or with dslr. The quality of the images from black and white negatives are always very good and everything looks like fine. I will upload a photo from the color negative. Should it be like that normally? It doesn't matter if i invert the colors or leet the scanner make this, it's the same. The film is fujicolor c200. It isn't expired. I don't expect so much from this film, but definitely it shouldn't be look like that. What you think? Thank you in advance

koraks · Jun 23, 2020

What aspect are you unhappy with?

Looking at the image, I see nothing that's out of order, really. Color balance is quite neutral, contrast looks fairly normal, grain is difficult to judge with scans but doesn't look odd for this film. The image is a bit soft, but if you used a flatbed scanner, that's more of an inherent issue with scanning 35mm film on this type of scanner than that it points to a problem with the negative. Of course, camera equipment and technique play a role here as well; could be a somewhat soft lens combined with diffraction. There's a little bit of dust and a single scratch, so there's a little improvement to be sought in the direction of cleanliness etc, but again, not really a fundamental problem. The only thing that's really not right is the purple vertical band in the right half of the image, but this can be the result of an anomaly in the scanning process (particularly a dirty calibration area of a flatbed scanner).

ferditulum · Jun 23, 2020

koraks said:
What aspect are you unhappy with?

Looking at the image, I see nothing that's out of order, really. Color balance is quite neutral, contrast looks fairly normal, grain is difficult to judge with scans but doesn't look odd for this film. The image is a bit soft, but if you used a flatbed scanner, that's more of an inherent issue with scanning 35mm film on this type of scanner than that it points to a problem with the negative. Of course, camera equipment and technique play a role here as well; could be a somewhat soft lens combined with diffraction. There's a little bit of dust and a single scratch, so there's a little improvement to be sought in the direction of cleanliness etc, but again, not really a fundamental problem. The only thing that's really not right is the purple vertical band in the right half of the image, but this can be the result of an anomaly in the scanning process (particularly a dirty calibration area of a flatbed scanner).

Thank you so much for your reply.
I think that the images from this roll look like very soft and the colors aren't saturated so much. I checked on the web for other images from this film, at the daylight they look completely different for me. So that's why i asked. Can it be some developing problem? I asked the guy on the lab, but he told that everything is okay with the processing. The lens is helios 44 and the camera fujica az-1.

koraks · Jun 23, 2020

Well, the Helios is a nice lens with a pretty unique character, but it's not necessarily the sharpest or most contrasty lens out there, so there's that. More importantly, things like color balance, saturation, contrast and to an extent also (apparent) sharpness are to a large extent the function of printing or digital post processing. RA4 papers are fairly contrasty and saturated (even Fuji paper), so typically, RA4 prints will be more punchy than the example you've shown here. The photos you see online are more often than not scans from negatives in which some form of post processing is applied; typically people fiddle a bit with saturation and contrast until they're happy with the results and apply some unsharp masking to get a nice 'bite' to the image. If you do the same with your image, you'll see you can get pretty close to what you're likely seeing online.

And no, there's no indication whatsoever of off-spec or compromised processing here. Except maybe for the dust and scratches; these can be the result of some contamination or mishandling in the process, but it's not certain or guaranteed at all that the lab is to blame for this.

Adrian Bacon · Jun 23, 2020

ferditulum said:
Thank you so much for your reply.
I think that the images from this roll look like very soft and the colors aren't saturated so much. I checked on the web for other images from this film, at the daylight they look completely different for me. So that's why i asked. Can it be some developing problem? I asked the guy on the lab, but he told that everything is okay with the processing. The lens is helios 44 and the camera fujica az-1.

trying to evaluate negative quality from a scan is fraught with problems because the scan process itself affects what you see to a very large degree. C-41 is a standardized process with standardized chemistry. The lab should be monitoring its C-41 with process control strips. Unless the the labs chemistry is really out of control or the lab is doing very shoddy work, I very much doubt it’s a processing issue.

ferditulum · Jun 23, 2020

Thank you for the replies and the help.

Agulliver · Jun 23, 2020

If you want the colours to "pop" more, you can adjust them when you get your negatives printed or by editing your scanned images.

Though Fuji C200 isn't an especially saturated film. It produces fairly neutral colours that make sunny days look sunny and cloudy days look cloudy. If you're looking for something with more colour saturation and contrast you might prefer Kodak Gold or Kodak Ektar.

Auer · Jun 23, 2020

Looks very much like Fuji 200 to me as well, I use it quite a bit.

Certainly not a "In your Face" type of film.

bernard_L · Jun 23, 2020

ferditulum said:
I checked on the web for other images from this film, at the daylight they look completely different for me.

Some people like to post-process and push the saturation and brillance sliders to the max. In the end their pictures all look the same and are pretty boring.

pentaxuser · Jun 23, 2020

I don't want to worry anyone unnecessarily but when I clicked on the photo, my KIS security suggested that the site on which it is on contains adware. I presume this is the site Postimage. Has anyone else had such a warning?

pentaxuser

peter k. · Jun 23, 2020

pentaxuser said:
Has anyone else had such a warning?

No,, but then were using ESET antivirus.

Auer · Jun 23, 2020

pentaxuser said:
I don't want to worry anyone unnecessarily but when I clicked on the photo, my KIS security suggested that the site on which it is on contains adware. I presume this is the site Postimage. Has anyone else had such a warning?

pentaxuser

No warnings, using Malwarebytes and Ublock Origin

Wallendo · Jun 23, 2020

At first glance, this appears to be an exposure issue. The image is well saturated in the background. The woman in the foreground, who I assume is the target, is underexposed. Sometimes these issues can be corrected by boosting the shadows with imaging software or manipulating the curves with scanner software.

Fill flash may also have been helpful.

This is a difficult scene to properly expose.

pentaxuser · Jun 23, 2020

Fine but I thought it useful to flag up the warning of adware. My KIS blocked it as well as did Malwarebytes, Ublock and ESET but it still warns me about the site

pentaxuser

jtk · Jun 23, 2020

Wallendo is obviously right...

AgX · Jun 23, 2020

Agulliver said:
If you want the colours to "pop" more, you can adjust them ....by editing your scanned images.

bernard_L said:
Some people like to post-process and push the saturation and brillance sliders to the max.

Wallendo said:
Sometimes these issues can be corrected by boosting the shadows with imaging software or manipulating the curves with scanner software.

You overlook that this is an analogue-only thread.

MattKing · Jun 23, 2020

It seems to me that the posted results look like the standard problem when trying to scan (or even optically print on automated machinery) a scene with a shadowed foreground and sunlit background.
Inevitably, any automatic settings need to be adjusted.
The negatives may also be under-exposed if you are evaluating them based on the foreground - that background sun tends to fool meters.

pentaxuser · Jun 23, 2020

AgX said:
You overlook that this is an analogue-only thread.

Really? I feel we have been clearly drifting into hybrid for a while now. A lot of users are hybrid only with no intention of ever doing darkroom printing for a whole variety of reasons and this creates problems when it comes to working out what an apparently negative problem really consists of.

pentaxuser

MattKing · Jun 23, 2020

pentaxuser said:
Really? I feel we have been clearly drifting into hybrid for a while now. A lot of users are hybrid only with no intention of ever doing darkroom printing for a whole variety of reasons and this creates problems when it comes to working out what an apparently negative problem really consists of.

pentaxuser

AgX is right - if the solutions or the problems arise from the scanning part of a workflow, the thread should be moved.

bernard_L · Jun 24, 2020

AgX said:
You overlook that this is an analogue-only thread.

You overlook that we (except maybe the OP) are not staring at a physical RA4 print. Or maybe that should be a new rule. Or maybe we should comment along the lines: "could be underexposure, could also be another problem that Shall Not Be Mentioned Here".

foc · Jun 24, 2020

I would agree with

Wallendo said:
At first glance, this appears to be an exposure issue. The image is well saturated in the background. The woman in the foreground, who I assume is the target, is underexposed. Sometimes these issues can be corrected by boosting the shadows with imaging software or manipulating the curves with scanner software.

Fill flash may also have been helpful.

This is a difficult scene to properly expose.

Can you post a photo of that neg please, as in the neg strip, looking something like this?

Agulliver · Jun 24, 2020

AgX said:
You overlook that this is an analogue-only thread.

You edited out the bit where I mentioned darkroom prints.

ferditulum · Jun 24, 2020

Thank you again for all your replies again. This helps me so much. I am sorry for postimage. It is popular here in Bulgaria. I can't upload directly to the forum. I tried it again with some other professional scanner, but the result is almost same.

Here is the negative file: I uploaded it on google drive. I think it is safe.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t0nfi7mrNMVI8rpyyszV8Gp7BD9ch4jL/view?usp=drivesdk

Auer · Jun 24, 2020

ferditulum said:
Thank you again for all your replies again. This helps me so much. I am sorry for postimage. It is popular here in Bulgaria. I can't upload directly to the forum. I tried it again with some other professional scanner, but the result is almost same.

Here is the negative file: I uploaded it on google drive. I think it is safe.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t0nfi7mrNMVI8rpyyszV8Gp7BD9ch4jL/view?usp=sharing

You need to assign "Everybody with this link can view" access in Google drive to share it and then copy paste the link here again

https://support.google.com/drive/thread/10801124?hl=en

ferditulum · Jun 24, 2020

Yes here it is ready the scanned negative film.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t0nfi7mrNMVI8rpyyszV8Gp7BD9ch4jL/view?usp=drivesdk

I upload here also the negative strip for the member "foc". Shooted with my phones and there are pixels noticeable,but the strip is clear

Color negative poor quality

ferditulum

koraks

Moderator

ferditulum

koraks

Moderator

Adrian Bacon

ferditulum

Agulliver

Auer

bernard_L

pentaxuser

peter k.

Auer

Wallendo

pentaxuser

jtk

AgX

MattKing

Moderator

pentaxuser

MattKing

Moderator

bernard_L

foc

Agulliver

ferditulum

Auer

ferditulum

Color negative poor quality

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency