Colour Negative film

[MattKing]

Just don't expect your scanning software "presets" to respond the same way to an ECN2 negative as they do to a C-41 negative.

 

[koraks]

But have you tried printing through a digital workflow?

No, for the simple reason that I wasn't interested in that I did play around in PS with the C41-developed ECN2 negatives to get a feeling for whether they would be salvageable that way. I didn't push further than deciding after an hour or so it wasn't straightforward and quite extensive curve manipulation would be necessary.

I would have better hope for the ECN-2 developed negatives; I don't see why they couldn't be made to yield excellent images. After all, that's what a small part of Hollywood still does even today.

But again, I didn't try because the attraction of photography for me is its non-computer driven nature. I have other hobbies that revolve around digital technology so if I want to play with that, I'll just go engineer embedded systems or something.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Just to add a bit about digital conversion of ECN2 films- they were designed to be converted to digital files. Because of this I would think (I don’t do it) that scanning and digital printing would be pretty straightforward for excellent color rendition.

True for Eastman products for quite a few years now. Not so in the old days, of course.

 

[Sirius Glass]

And, glass is probably the least important matter in taking a great image most of the time.

I disagree. Nothing beats a good piece of glass.

 

[MattKing]

Just to add a bit about digital conversion of ECN2 films- they were designed to be converted to digital files. Because of this I would think (I don’t do it) that scanning and digital printing would be pretty straightforward for excellent color rendition.

True for Eastman products for quite a few years now. Not so in the old days, of course.

To be more accurate, current ECN-2 films retain the suitability for direct printing to projection film stock, while also being well suited to digitization.
One could still make Slides from them by contact printing them optically, if one wanted to, provided one set themselves up to do so.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I disagree. Nothing beats a good piece of glass.

{Moderator's edit of argumentative post} As I noted earlier, millions of great photographs taken with uncoated, simple lenses. The most important thing is the skill of the photographer, not how much your lens cost.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Moderator's edit} As I noted earlier, millions of great photographs taken with uncoated, simple lenses. The most important thing is the skill of the photographer, not how much your lens cost.

Even if a lens is not coated, good or great glass well designed and made will always provide a higher quality image which can then be filtered or diffused as the user chooses. However a poor lens cannot be improved by filters or manipulations. If that was not true there would only be pin holes and meniscus lenses and optics would not have advanced the lenses. {Moderator's edit of argumentative post}.

 

[btaylor]

To be more accurate, current ECN-2 films retain the suitability for direct printing to projection film stock, while also being well suited to digitization.
One could still make slides from them by contact printing them optically, if one wanted to, provided one set themselves up to do so.

Absolutely. Thanks for the clarification, of course they work in an analogue workflow as well, though I don’t know if that even exists anymore- a photochemical process from start to finish.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for quoting my post, because I didn't see until then that I had omitted an important word - slides - from the last sentence, rendering it totally nonsensical!
Its now been fixed.

 

[Mr Bill]

So here's one of the more successful portraits; again, this mostly works because of the narrow density range resulting from deliberately flat lighting. There still is a sickly greenish tint to the skin, which additional filtering would only fix at the cost of other problems (I tried),

koraks:
What a great post - the examples are clear, and the explanation even clearer.
And I can feel my teeth hurt when I see the crossover

koraks see a sickly green, you [Matt] see cyan and at worst I see possibly just a hint of the lower face by the chin area having a slightly different look than the rest of the skin but frankly were I to pass this photo in a window of a shop I'd see nothing wrong.

I've spent a lot of years in photography, the great majority in photo lab work, often doing critical color testing and solving color problems out of a studio chain. This print would not have gotten past the first inspection, and in the days of optical printing they would have probably gotten me involved, asking ,"Bill, what is going on here?" (Actually they, the 'production' people, would noticed right away that it was not our film, Portra 160. Since it can't be fixed, conventionally, they'd send it over to be scanned, heavily edited, and digitally printed.)

I think that there are a couple things involved explaining why some people see color problems while others are OK with it. First, koraks is actually making the prints and seeing them first hand. So he sees the real thing, in person, and knows he can't fix it in traditional printing. (Fwiw I lean with Matt here... if the digital image is accurate to the print, the color balance is pretty "cool," meaning blue or cyan, etc. Except I'd put it as more blue than cyan.) And koraks has the advantage of seeing it side-by-side with other prints.

Something that is well known in the business is that the human eye (color vision) is very adaptable to lighting conditions, and along with that very easily "corrupted." When seeing only a single image, one that is isolated on a video screen, the eye quickly adapts. Very quickly the image looks not-too-bad, and before long it becomes "pretty good." Until the eye gets re-centered by looking around the room or comparing with "good" images. People who have worked in the business know how this happens so don't easily fall into this trap.

When one gets away from the video image and sees actual prints the situation changes drastically. Instead of an isolated video image, where the eye adapts, the physical prints are seen in a real-world environment, under the same light as the surroundings. There are often white references in these surroundings, perhaps a scrap of paper or white clothing, and the human eye picks these up unconsciously. If the print colors don't "conform" the eye knows that things are "out of kilter." And dark things in the field of view will help one notice if a print is lacking "good blacks." These references tend to disappear when looking at an isolated video image.

Back to comparing prints... another thing is to be aware of what quality levels are available. Had koraks' print been seen in the 1950s, for example, people would have likely been thrilled at how "good" it looked. But today we have much better color quality available, and such prints can be seen alongside it, so that old level of color quality is now seen as very poor. So in a way, this sense of quality is learned - once you have seen "better," it's hard to go back to the old quality level. (People have often experienced this with restaurant food, or perhaps audio equipment, or even the clothes they wear.)

One last thing is worth pointing out - the possibility of color deficiencies in one's vision. Something like 5 to 10% of males have such a situation - essentially they are not able to see a difference between certain colors which most other people do. (Almost NO females have this issue; it's a genetic thing.) So if a male photographer doesn't "see" color deficiencies that others DO, they might consider taking a color vision test. Note that there is nothing they can do about this; it's just that it may be useful to understand these limitations so they will know to consult with others on critical color decisions.

As an aside, let me make a few comments about what we used to see in critical color testing with Portra 160. We'd use a handful of models, different complexions and hair colors. We'd have a variety of colored clothing in the scene, along with color reference targets. We included some of our own clothing as well as strongly colored fabric samples - these were for long-term/future references. (We deliberately did not include fruit/vegetables, as the color reference would soon be gone.) Photograph these under studio lighting - electronic flash - with the daylight quality that Portra is designed for. Then we made optical prints, which were color-balanced critically, based on skin tones. When these prints were layed out in a color booth - essentially a neutral surface and background, with full-spectrum light sources - there was a surprisingly good match between our fabric samples and the prints. Our assortment of fabric samples (picked up from a local fabric store) included strongly colored red, green, and blue samples, along with some pastels. When these actual fabrics were placed on top of their respective colors on the print, the matches were close enough that one could almost believe it's the same thing. Except that the actual fabric had shadows from being draped over the top. Had we included vegetables in the scene I'd expect most would be close to a dead match, although the only way to know for sure would be to actually do it.

 

[koraks]

@Mr Bill, that was a really good post. I think you did an excellent job explaining why it's so hard to tell what's wrong (and if something's wrong) to the untrained eye - or even the trained, but somehow impaired eye.

 

[MattKing]

One last thing is worth pointing out - the possibility of color deficiencies in one's vision.

I have a very good friend who began the journey of experimenting with printing Ilfochrome just before the materials were discontinued. He had no end of trouble, because he is "colour blind".
Sometimes life is unfair!
I always qualify my observations about colour fidelity on computer screens, because so far I've been too cheap to invest in screen calibration hardware.

EDIT: For those who have been following this thread closely, you will note some editing has been done.
The posts that discussed colour fidelity on computer screens have been moved to a new thread in the Digital part of the site - the Digital Calibration sub-forum, to be precise. I have also copied to that thread koraks' post showing how ECN-2 film prints on RA-4 paper, plus a couple of other posts here, because without that context the moved posts don't make much sense.
To read the new thread, you will need to have clicked "Digital" on Photrio. Here is the link: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...cularly-for-those-from-the-film-world.193099/

 

[Mr Bill]

@Mr Bill, that was a really good post. I think you did an excellent job explaining why it's so hard to tell what's wrong (and if something's wrong) to the untrained eye - or even the trained, but somehow impaired eye.

Thanks. Something I generally recommend to new color printers (using enlargers, not digital) is to print a color ringaround of something representative of what they typically shoot. That is, all main color offsets in say, three increments of strength (3 × 6 = 18 variations). This makes a good reference for their future print corrections - no mistaking what a certain filter adjustment looks like.

I have a very good friend who began the journey of experimenting with printing Ilfochrome just before the materials were discontinued. He had no end of trouble, because he is "colour blind".
Sometimes life is unfair!
I always qualify my observations about colour fidelity on computer screens, because so far I've been too cheap to invest in screen calibration hardware.

Yep, there is a wide variation in color vision deficiencies - it's not as cut-and-dried as many people think. A lot if people don't realize it without being tested.

We used to screen people with the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 hue test (or whatever the exact name is). This is about the best test for someone being considered for a photo color correction job. It's essentially a bunch of small color test samples with only small color differences. They consist of a complete hue circle (starting and ending with the same color), in a sorta pastel kind of strength. The person being tested tries to arrange all of the color samples in the correct order. If they have any specific color "blindness" they won't be able do this in a certain color range (the colors look the same). And... they will have similar problems on the opposite side of the hue circle.

The test is especially good to see how well the person can discriminate between slight color differences. Some people are really bad at this, even if they don't have a specific color blindness. I used to think they were just being sloppy, but on repeat tests, being very careful, they really just could not do much better. On the other hand some people are very good at this - they're like that person many people know who can taste a certain restaurant dish and instantly know everything that's in it

Fwiw the color ringaround I mentioned could help someone "discover" a significant color vision issue. If they observe that one specific color, for example, doesn't change as much as the others this might suggest a color vision deficiency. (This assumes, of course, that the enlarger's filter dials are consistent.) It could also be pointing out a deficiency in the viewing light source.

I'm with you on the computer monitor issue. I would not want to fully trust the monitor until it has been proven to be fully adequate, for the purposes of making critical evaluations on an image to be printed. It's kind of a tricky situation. Now, for ballpark work, no problem, but for critical print work... I'd keep my skepticism.

 

[AgX]

Thanks. Something I generally recommend to new color printers (using enlargers, not digital) is to print a color ringaround of something representative of what they typically shoot. That is, all main color offsets in say, three increments of strength (3 × 6 = 18 variations). This makes a good reference for their future print corrections - no mistaking what a certain filter adjustment looks like.

Based on this approach (reference to what one photographs) is also the idea not to use a grey card for colour correction but a skin-tone card.
Basically one can make such colour reference-card for any colour range that one finds more important to correctly be reproduced than the commonly used grey.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Thanks. Something I generally recommend to new color printers (using enlargers, not digital) is to print a color ringaround of something representative of what they typically shoot. That is, all main color offsets in say, three increments of strength (3 × 6 = 18 variations). This makes a good reference for their future print corrections - no mistaking what a certain filter adjustment looks like.


Yep, there is a wide variation in color vision deficiencies - it's not as cut-and-dried as many people think. A lot if people don't realize it without being tested.

We used to screen people with the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 hue test (or whatever the exact name is). This is about the best test for someone being considered for a photo color correction job. It's essentially a bunch of small color test samples with only small color differences. They consist of a complete hue circle (starting and ending with the same color), in a sorta pastel kind of strength. The person being tested tries to arrange all of the color samples in the correct order. If they have any specific color "blindness" they won't be able do this in a certain color range (the colors look the same). And... they will have similar problems on the opposite side of the hue circle.

The test is especially good to see how well the person can discriminate between slight color differences. Some people are really bad at this, even if they don't have a specific color blindness. I used to think they were just being sloppy, but on repeat tests, being very careful, they really just could not do much better. On the other hand some people are very good at this - they're like that person many people know who can taste a certain restaurant dish and instantly know everything that's in it

Fwiw the color ringaround I mentioned could help someone "discover" a significant color vision issue. If they observe that one specific color, for example, doesn't change as much as the others this might suggest a color vision deficiency. (This assumes, of course, that the enlarger's filter dials are consistent.) It could also be pointing out a deficiency in the viewing light source.

I'm with you on the computer monitor issue. I would not want to fully trust the monitor until it has been proven to be fully adequate, for the purposes of making critical evaluations on an image to be printed. It's kind of a tricky situation. Now, for ballpark work, no problem, but for critical print work... I'd keep my skepticism.

There were color tests like that on the web that I tried and scored very well. Are those accurate enough to see whether you have problems or not?

I work with a calibratable monitor set for sRGB knowing I'll be putting the image on the web. I don't print much. I usually shoot chromes. After I scan them, I adjust the colors until they look correct and are acceptable to me. I assume they'll be acceptable to others. I don't compare back to the actual chrome film to see if the colors match. This is my picture. If I'm happy with the colors, then that's what counts. I don't have to match a color palette made for the film by some film manufacturer. That was their designer's interpretation.

 

[Mr Bill]

There were color tests like that on the web that I tried and scored very well. Are those accurate enough to see whether you have problems or not?

No, not with much certainty. However, I would make an unverified opinion... if you score very good then I suspect you likely do NOT have a severe color deficiency. But there is no guarantee; I also suspect that if you have a high contrast or high saturation set on your monitor you might score much better than you properly should.

I was gonna post more but it gets more complicated, and possibly misleading, so I decided not to.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No, not with much certainty. However, I would make an unverified opinion... if you score very good then I suspect you likely do NOT have a severe color deficiency. But there is no guarantee; I also suspect that if you have a high contrast or high saturation set on your monitor you might score much better than you properly should.

I was gonna post more but it gets more complicated, and possibly misleading, so I decided not to.

I suppose the ultimate test is the final pictures. I think mine are colored pretty well. Nothing weird. You can see them by clicking on the Flickr link below. What do you think? Do any look particularly off?

 

[Mr Bill]

I suppose the ultimate test is the final pictures. I think mine are colored pretty well. Nothing weird. You can see them by clicking on the Flickr link below. What do you think? Do any look particularly off?

Hi, I don't generally do Flickr. Is there a way I can d/l something or can you point to an image or two that IS downloadable? Preferably skin tones in daylight. (I should warn you that I can get pretty finicky on this, one might say analysis, along the lines of what a pro lab would wanna do.) Initially I note that skin tones are bouncing all around, so it might just irritate you if I make any color judgments. (Fwiw I'm really from the world of prints, and that's what I'd judge against.)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Hi, I don't generally do Flickr. Is there a way I can d/l something or can you point to an image or two that IS downloadable? Preferably skin tones in daylight. (I should warn you that I can get pretty finicky on this, one might say analysis, along the lines of what a pro lab would wanna do.) Initially I note that skin tones are bouncing all around, so it might just irritate you if I make any color judgments. (Fwiw I'm really from the world of prints, and that's what I'd judge against.)

I shoot mainly landscape. The few portrait shots I have were shot with different emulsions and had difficult skin tones to begin with because of that. They were not shot with Portra film which provides good flesh tone renditions. In any case, here are portrait shots/ Do they look OK colorwise.

MF Film - Portraits

Mamiya RB67 medium format film Velvia 50 chromes and Ektar 25, Agfa Optima and Fujicolor SHG negatives all scanned with Epson V600 flat bed scanner. Post processed with Phtooshop Elements 8.

www.flickr.com

My landscape shots give me more flexibility to adjust colors to my liking without going over the top. Obviously, because of different emulsions such as Velvia, vs Ektachrome, vs Provia, the color renditions are different, to begin with. You can't match the original colors. But that's OK. I was hoping if you or others could check to see if they look generally OK color-wise? By the way, all my Flickr pictures are downloadable by others from the Flickr site. But you shouldn't need to do that. Just look at the pictures there on your sRGB calibratable monitor. If you don't have one,. that's OK. Do they look OK anyway?
Here are samples of landscape shots from various films mainly Velvia.

MF Film - Recent Landscape

Baby Pink Dogwood

www.flickr.com

 

[Mr Bill]

In any case, here are portrait shots/ Do they look OK colorwise.

Hi, I'm not on a color-controlled display which is why I wanna be able to download. So I can look at pixel values as well as the color space the images are in.

Before I say anything about color, let me first say that the usage of the images is what's important here - they're apparently shots in various family events where everyone is enjoying time together. And just about any color/density variation is OK, as long as you can see who it is. The main value is in the memories that these represent or recall. Not unlike the baking of bread or cookies or a family dinner when you were having a good time with your family or friends. The outfit where I worked once owned a minilab chain... these would have all been perfectly acceptable there.

Now, to put on my finicky color-guy photo lab hat... get ready, you're probably not gonna like it. In the portrait studio chain lab where I'm from, printing to paper, almost all of the images would have been rebalanced before printing. For example, the top two images (on right side, "janet fence") compare the skin tones in the faces. The right hand image has much stronger color, you might say an orangish or reddish-orange tone. Whereas the left-hand image, the face doesn't seem to have enough color - it seems lacking in "redness." It's probably a bit greenish/yellowish. (Remember I'm going from a poorly controlled display). In our lab operation they'd probably both be kicked back for a reprint; color correctors would call out a color correction then reprint. Now, I realize that you're probably fine with them as is. But... if you had two 8x10" prints (of each) side by side, and had to choose between them, you'd almost certainly pick the reprints, and might keep talking how nice, maybe lifelike, the skin tones are.

It's the old thing - once you've seen better it's hard to be completely satisfied with the old one again. Now in the photo business money sorta talks. So if you don't wanna pay pro lab prices for every print, well, the lesser color quality of the mini-lab prints seems to be much more tolerable - good enough for what you want. It's the same reason, more or less, why we don't all eat in gourmet restaurants every night.

Is this making sense? Do you see the differences I'm talking about?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Hi, I'm not on a color-controlled display which is why I wanna be able to download. So I can look at pixel values as well as the color space the images are in.

Before I say anything about color, let me first say that the usage of the images is what's important here - they're apparently shots in various family events where everyone is enjoying time together. And just about any color/density variation is OK, as long as you can see who it is. The main value is in the memories that these represent or recall. Not unlike the baking of bread or cookies or a family dinner when you were having a good time with your family or friends. The outfit where I worked once owned a minilab chain... these would have all been perfectly acceptable there.

Now, to put on my finicky color-guy photo lab hat... get ready, you're probably not gonna like it. In the portrait studio chain lab where I'm from, printing to paper, almost all of the images would have been rebalanced before printing. For example, the top two images (on right side, "janet fence") compare the skin tones in the faces. The right hand image has much stronger color, you might say an orangish or reddish-orange tone. Whereas the left-hand image, the face doesn't seem to have enough color - it seems lacking in "redness." It's probably a bit greenish/yellowish. (Remember I'm going from a poorly controlled display). In our lab operation they'd probably both be kicked back for a reprint; color correctors would call out a color correction then reprint. Now, I realize that you're probably fine with them as is. But... if you had two 8x10" prints (of each) side by side, and had to choose between them, you'd almost certainly pick the reprints, and might keep talking how nice, maybe lifelike, the skin tones are.

It's the old thing - once you've seen better it's hard to be completely satisfied with the old one again. Now in the photo business money sorta talks. So if you don't wanna pay pro lab prices for every print, well, the lesser color quality of the mini-lab prints seems to be much more tolerable - good enough for what you want. It's the same reason, more or less, why we don't all eat in gourmet restaurants every night.

Is this making sense? Do you see the differences I'm talking about?

Well, I'm not sure. But I recall that these scans were very difficult to get the colors "right". They were 30-year-old negative color emulsions no longer manufactured. It's one of the reasons I stopped shooting CN and now just shoot chromes. Just easier to scan. Thanks for taking a look. Now back to the original thread.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ha! Something Matt posted got me laughing. A certain recently divorced gentleman in the sales dept of our company was trying to impress a new girlfriend and decided to become an art collector. Quite a number of people around there had purchased Cibachrome prints from me. But he wanted to see how they were made. I didn't have a real darkroom yet, just a cheap drum processor in a spare bathroom, and the enlarger next door in a blacked-out bedroom. I was working on a particular high country image with a lot of intense blue and green in the scene. But somehow I had stupidly reversed the colorhead settings and came up with a psychedelic off-color version which I instantly threw in the wastebasket. Then I corrected the colorhead settings. That is before the individual in question came over. I showed him a number of prints, and then made a correct version of the print in question with him watching; but he wasn't much interested. Then he glanced over to the wastebasket and excitedly remarked, "That's the one; that's the one!". I was puzzled, but agreed to mount and frame it for him at usual pricing. Later I learned he was seriously color blind. I wonder what his (temporary) girlfriend thought.

Many years later he did remarry, and asked me to take the shots. I made sure it was his bride who reviewed them, and not him.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I have a similar story.

When I was in HS, Class of 1964, a classmate lived a few doors from me. He was an incredible self-taught artist and went on to become the art director of a major ad agency. My parents were both deeply art/esthetic oriented; the house when they died was deemed "This is a museum," by a woman who owned an art museum!

Anyway, my mother was visiting Mike's mother when she spotted an aborted canvas in the trash with with white paint streaks running from side to side. She asked Mike if she could have it, he said, "Well, then, I guess I should sign it."

My parents bought two of Mike's paintings (including one that was deemed to be too improper for a HS art show because the woman had a simple outline of her breast) and they also commissioned him for a portrait of my sister. Those two paintings and the one mentioned in the last paragraph hang on my living room wall. A few years ago a friend came over, an accomplished artist, and art grad from the University of Texas. Of those Mike paintings, she thought the trashed one was the best!

Charles Goodyear solved the problem of making natural rubber tougher by accident. Long live accidents!