Colors

Photo Engineer · Mar 26, 2009

Scanning is not the best method for comparison. Traditional optical prints are the best method as no electronic manipulation is involved.

However, if you must compare them electronically (scan wise), make exposures to a color chart with a neutral scale and match the neutral scales in the scan for dmin and dmax, then compare color saturation. That would be a quick start.

PE

L Gebhardt · Mar 26, 2009

philipp.leser said:
I had quite a revealing experience after sending an Ektar 100 out to a lab and requesting a photo cd. The scans look great, but are very contrasty and saturated. To find out what happened I scanned a few frames myself using Vuescan and neutral settings. Just correcting for the film base and setting the white and black points yields quite subdued colors that are nowhere as cartoonish as the scans are, although the look is easily achieved by applying a high contrast curve.

It makes me wonder what all the rave about Ekar's ultra high saturation is all about; it seems to me like the settings of the scan software and post-processing have a much greater effect on the colors than the film itself. And as most labs print using a scanned negative today, it seems as if there isn't any way to avoid that.

Unless the exposure hits the shoulder of the film scanning can make any negative film look low contrast. Slides have a toe and shoulder that is hit in almost every exposure.

I am hesitant to try Ektar as I expect it will be very difficult to print on the limit range of papers available. I find Fuji Pro160S almost too contrasty in daylight on Supra or Type C papers. Scanned I can fix that, but then I would rather use positive film.

nickandre · Mar 26, 2009

I have a sneaking suspicion that most minilabs are set to "blow the saturation to hell" on the scanner. This is because the prints I got from Kodak 400 looked like velvia slides. When I printed these optically I do not recall such cartoonish colors. Again, not scientific, but probably applies to many minilabs run by yic yacs.

Ektar printed beautifully on both Crystal and Supra. The colors were much better than what I had been getting with reala. Supra needs much more filtration. It's quite a nice film, when printing at 11x14 the grain was still tight and fine. You can always overexpose to reduce contrast if you find it necessary, but for me I haven't had trouble at box speed.

nickandre · Mar 26, 2009

Alright, here's the list:

Fuji 400
Fuji 100
Kodak 160NC
Fuji Reala 100
Kodak 160VC
Fuji 160S
Fuji 160C
Kodak Gold 100
Sensia 100
Fuji 400X
Fuji Astia
Fuji Provia
Fuji Velvia
Kodak E100GX
Kodak E100VS

Donations appreciated. Really.

Oh almost forgot about ektar.

Photo Engineer · Mar 26, 2009

No Ektar?

PE

Sirius Glass · Mar 26, 2009

In spite of what he said ...

He forgot Ektar.

Steve

2F/2F · Mar 26, 2009

tiberiustibz said:
Alright, here's the list:

Fuji 400
Fuji 100
Kodak 160NC
Fuji Reala 100
Kodak 160VC
Fuji 160S
Fuji 160C
Kodak Gold 100
Sensia 100
Fuji 400X
Fuji Astia
Fuji Provia
Fuji Velvia
Kodak E100GX
Kodak E100VS

Donations appreciated. Really.

Oh almost forgot about ektar.

Why not test some Fuji and Kodak 800 while you are at it? Also, there are three varieties of Velvia, and a Sensia 400. Fuji Pro 400H? Kodak Portra 400 NC and VC?

The list seems a bit wacky. If you are going to do it, why leave certain films out?

Here would be my initial list (from memory, so I may forget a few things too):

Fujicolor:

- Superia X-Tra from Press package 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 - Press pack films are pro versions of the consumer films
- Pro 160S/C, Pro 400H, Pro 800Z
- Reala

Kodacolor:

Their entire consumer line like Superia (with which I am not really familiar)
Portra 100T filtered to match light source, Portra 160NC/VC, Portra 400NC/VC, Portra 800
Ektar 100
400UC

Fujichrome:

T64 filtered to match light source
Velvia 50, 100, 100F
Astia 100F
Provia 100F and 400X (and 400F if I could find any in stock)
Sensia 100, 200, 400

Ektachrome:

64T filtered to match light source
E100G/GX/VS/SW, E200, EPP

Elite Chrome:

100, 200, 100 ultra color

I would not do it all at once, and might eliminate some films, but I would definitely include the entire pro color neg line from each company, including the fast films. For the first batch, I would start with all the pro neg films, plus Reala, Ektar, and 400UC. Then I would move on to consumer neg films. Then pro transparencies, then consumer transparencies.

Photo Engineer · Mar 26, 2009

Thinking this over, I guess I would include some mixed lighting such as tungsten/sodium/mercury arc/fluorescent/daylight combos. This would give a lot of information on the tolerance of any given film to fluctuations in color temperature.

PE

Removed Account · Mar 26, 2009

Speaking from experience in my day job at a drugstore minilab, the scanners ARE set to saturate the heck out of films. With colour negative film I frequently have to tone down the saturation to prevent the dreaded Lobster Face Syndrome (LFS). This seems to be especially true with film from single-use cameras, and especially the generic (not Kodak or Fuji) cameras with names like "Super Happy Fun Snap". Those are the ones held together with electrical tape.

Surprisingly, when printing slides I usually find myself increasing the saturation to match the slide. I think this is just a quirk of how head office has our machines set up.

nickandre · Mar 26, 2009

I was thinking of lighting this with tungsten and using an 80A filter.

Why this list? Because those are the films I want to test. I know there are other films, I just didn't feel like it. Plus money is money, and at $5 a roll I don't have many options.

Right, almost forgot 64T too.

Oh you look at the pictures before you print them? Good, we must be moving in the right direction!

Q.G. · Mar 26, 2009

Tungsten and 80A will never be perfect.
And what is tungsten anyway? Colour differs from lamp to lamp.

Flash is more consistent. Noon direct sunlight too.
And can be filtered perfectly to suit tungsten balanced films.

nworth · Mar 26, 2009

It is possible to evaluate the color tone of films from pictures of color charts taken under various, but controlled, lighting, but this interpretation is difficult. It is generally better to look at a variety of pictures from two or three films and to make a judgment by comparison. Even this isn't foolproof, but it can be useful. Different films can be subtly different in different lights and for different subjects, and the differences don't always make sense. To me, Gold 100 tends to be warm, Kodachrome is very neutral, E100G is bluish (but still has vivid warm tones), E100VS is also bluish but also seems to lack green to some extent (although it gives excellent reds and greens), Fuji films tend toward green, but Astia is quite neutral. As you can see from these opinions, it's hard to pin down the color character, and that character does not mean that the film will or will not reproduce all colors well.

Q.G. · Mar 26, 2009

However, what remains hidden is how film responds to light that just isn't there.
Filtering tungsten light can redress the balance towards the blue a bit, but will not bring back what isn't there to begin with.

You will then know how a film responds to, and compare how different films respond to, that controlled lighting.
But tell the full story it will not be able to.

And since the tungsten-with-80A controlled lighting is not able to do anything but very roughly approximate the typical lighting most films on the list will be used for, not a good idea.

Photo Engineer · Mar 26, 2009

I would have to say that Tungsten alone, even with the right filter, is not a good idea!

As for the test chart, of course you don't take pictures of charts, you take pictures of landscapes, people or other items of interest and INCLUDE the chart for a reference.

See below:

Left photo, good test but bad picture to illustrate proper technique. Direct scan of Portra VC 6x7 from Mamiya

Right photo, typical portrait to illustrate correct method. Scan of Endura print of internegative on Portra VC 4x5 pulled, from EPP 4x5 original.

PE

nickandre · Mar 26, 2009

Fine. I'll do it outside.

In the past I have thrown objects of different colors into the scene.

Photo Engineer · Mar 26, 2009

BTW, my last post shows the Kodak chart included in the Kodak Color Dataguide as well as the MacBeth chart.

PE

nickandre · Mar 26, 2009

Wait, is the color dataguide a large red bound notebook with info on color processes inside? Our school has a few of those detailing the C22 and E4 processes and a basic guide to color photography for people who lived in the early 70s. Would those have charts in them?

GeorgeDexter · Mar 26, 2009

Don't lenses add another variable? I've heard that lenses can have different color casts. too.

markbarendt · Mar 26, 2009

If you are going outside don't forget to shoot every roll in the test within a few minutes so that the light and shadows don't change. :rolleyes:

Photo Engineer · Mar 26, 2009

tiberiustibz said:
Wait, is the color dataguide a large red bound notebook with info on color processes inside? Our school has a few of those detailing the C22 and E4 processes and a basic guide to color photography for people who lived in the early 70s. Would those have charts in them?

This is a brown covered spiral bound book, about 5x7 inches in size that Kodak updated in about 2002. They make a B&W and a color version, but the color version is the only one with the test chart.

Older versions of this book contain a control negative as well. This is similar to the photo I posted above with a model next to a color chart.

And yes, I did in fact live in the early 70s. In fact, I lived in the early 60s, 50s, etc..... The books did not exist until the consent decree.

PE

Photo Engineer · Mar 26, 2009

Been thinking this over.

I ran more of these tests than I ever wanted to, but the one thing I learned was that the most repeatable lighting was electronic flash. That is probably the way to go to eliminate every lighting variable.

If I can help, let me know. E-mail is best as I get so many PMs that my in-basket is filling up.

I have boxes of slides and negatives from this type of test at EK. My choice was to toss them at the end of a project or save them. I saved some!

PE

nickandre · Mar 26, 2009

The best are the "you're not testing every film!" comments.

Excalibur2 · Mar 29, 2009

GeorgeDexter said:
Don't lenses add another variable? I've heard that lenses can have different color casts. too.

Well in my experience they do. And I have an non scientific theory that some lenses suit some films better (in general). e.g. I like the results from Konica Hexanon lenses with Fuji superia 200, maybe printing on Fuji paper helps as well? But then the answer maybe that the Konica camera is slightly under/over exposing differently to my Canon, and that makes the difference.

nickandre · Mar 29, 2009

This is comparative, not scientific. I will not be changing lenses.

timparkin · Mar 30, 2009

tiberiustibz said:
This is comparative, not scientific. I will not be changing lenses.

I would highly recommend not taking the photos outside as the light changes more on a second by second basis than you would imagine - unless you have 100% clear weather with no super high clouds. Even if you have clear weather you want to take the pictures within a half hour I would imagine (preferably around solar midday). I only add this as I've been caught out by these differences before myself.

If you want to get really anal, you could run a test of each film at different iso ratings to see what pulling and pushing does to the response

Tim

Colors

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency