Let me clarify or rather correct something here. The above scans were done at exactly the same settings on the scanner with no correction.
Here are some others. They are scans of prints of the above negatives which were scanned. The prints had a constant filtration and exposure time but varied only in f stop. Do you see a significant shift in color or any color error? Color neg maintains its balance from the toe to the shoulder. at the extremes, some shadow or highlight detail is lost. But the good range is pretty broad. I've done the same with Portra 400.
PE
I don't think those are tests of the film.
I think they are tests of how your scanner and your software interact with the film.
You adjusted exposure or brightness, no?Mine had no adjustment at all. They were all scanned in one strip. No post process.
Interesting results.
PE
Mine had no adjustment at all. They were all scanned in one strip. No post process.
Interesting results.
PE
I'm trying to understand your results. It may help me as a film photographer. Please clearly spell out your conclusion. Thanks.Alan, you are correct, but look at the print examples I posted.
PE
For clarity, I have no problem with those who use a hybrid approach, although I am unhappy when discussions about that approach make their way into APUG, in conflict with APUG's focus and rules.As opposed to tests of how a wet darkroom interacts with the film. Either way, the film was exposed over an 8 stop range.
PE,Bill, I made no adjustments with the scanner, just scanned one strip of 120 film. I used an RZ for this with 120 Portra. The prints did not vary except for f stop.
PE
For clarity, I have no problem with those who use a hybrid approach, although I am unhappy when discussions about that approach make their way into APUG, in conflict with APUG's focus and rules.
What I was attempting to indicate with my earlier approach is that the film will give very consistent results - both respect to colour and contrast - over a wide range of exposures. If you print optically, you can realize that consistency with nothing more than changes in printing exposure time.
If you use a scanning process to evaluate your results, that process tends to add an additional set of variables that relate to how the scanner and scanning software respond to the negative. If your system is evaluating each scan separately, the consistency of the results will almost entirely result from how that scanner and your software are calibrated to deal with the variation in your negatives.
We are in analog land Adrian this is Analog Photography User Group, hybrid photography should be in D.P.U.G. land http://www.dpug.org/forums/home.phpIn hybrid land there's a million and one ways to post process. Some ways are better than others. I care about the mids more than anything else, so my post is geared to making acceptable mids over a fairly wide range of exposure.
Bill, try what I did. Expose a B&W film at -2, -1, N, +1 and +2 and process it at the recommended times in a given developer. Scan them and print them with 1 stop increments as I did and then compare them. That is a real-world test. It is the best I can suggest and I have done it for years, but with color.
PE
I think what you are expressing Bill is an equipment centric POV, and you are very much right in that sense.PE,
I still think your set of individual frames were adjusted for brightness. Scanner is trying to make each frame look good.
Your contact prints reveal what a prints made with "no adjustment" would really look like.
If the individual shots were not adjusted the set would vary in brightness, like this... View attachment 166266 View attachment 166267 View attachment 166268
But... Your contact prints are great, they show what you get when you...
Vary negative exposures on a roll (so you have different densities on each negative), and you make several contact prints under an enlarger and varying the f/stop on that enlarger lens (so you have different print exposures)...
The result is proof of the idea of latitude. You can make a good print from a wide variety color negative exposures... as long as you are leaning towards overexposure.
No disagreement from me. I've purposely attempted to not get too DPUG here, and kept it talking about the film as much as I could.
For clarification, I always scan a given film type with the same scanner settings (for a given scanner, I have multiple scanners). It doesn't matter if it's over or under exposed, every frame of Ektar I scan is always scanned as a positive gamma 1.0 image with the same scanner exposure settings in vuescan. The second set of images I supplied was also processed the same way (with the same adjustments) to arrive at what I call a baseline density correction. This is why the second set of images go from dark to bright over the exposure range. The second set of images has the least amount of variation in the scanning/post process, which is why I included them.
With all that being said, looking at the second set of images, the color checker chart is pretty telling as to what Ektar can do over the exposure range. I've also done this exercise with Portra 160, Portra 400, TMAX 100, and TMAX 400 with similar results.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?