Do I blame this on myself or on the film (extar 100)

[srmcnamara]

So I'm super super new to color, and I've been making some prints from Ektar 100 and this print didn't go over so well at the class critique.

So that's ice at the bottom there; it is super blue. I don't know how I would control that during printing or shooting or if I just chalk it up to "Hey, ektar's a landscape film. super saturated"

anyways, this is just a snap of the print. the film was shot at box speed and I don't really know what color film is supposed to look like on the light table but it looks fine.



Any insight is appreciated. other than that I'm greatly enjoying color. I think I'll be buying a box of 4x5 film soon enough. Thanks!

 

[BobNewYork]

If the ice is super blue - it is! What was the specific critique? Seems like the rest of the image is well balanced and, that being the case - the ice IS #$@**&^% blue!

Bob H

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Is that a lab scan? Beware of colours coming from a scan. I always get turquoise cast from Kodak films, so I rely instead on good old real proof prints to see the colour rendering of films.

So far Ektar is only available in 35mm; in April it will be available in 120.

 

[srmcnamara]

thanks. this is a digital photo of the optical print and while not the most accurate thing it's close (on my monitor in my lighting of course).

Anyways, I don't really recall the ice being that blue but it was several weeks ago. I'm curious as to whether the saturation picked up and exaggerated any sort of reflection from the sky that isn't so noticeable in reality. The only real problem is that it doesn't LOOK real and if there's nothing I can do about it then that's perfectly fine. Learning experience and all. I still like the print anyways.

 

[Neal]

Dear srmcnamara,

If I were to guess this print was made by a one-hour lab. I had similar color issues with a one-hour lab but found that my scanner did a much better job. See if you can get the negative scanned at your class facility.

As for the photo itself, you need to think in terms of a subject, or at least a focal point.

Good luck!

Neal Wydra

 

[removed account4]

maybe a red filter might help filter out some of the cyan
and make your ice less-funky ( so to speak ).
it is a good practice to shoot a test roll and see what
filtration is needed to neutralize any sort of cast.

good luck!
john

 

[nickandre]

Are you printing in a darkroom? If you're printing in a real darkroom you can get your values from another print made from a picture taken in similar conditions. If you use those to print this negative you'll know what's what. You can try that with digital (good luck.)

It's not an in camera error.

 

[srmcnamara]

the problem is that when I filter out the cyan the rest of the image looks funky. I still have plenty of ektar to use up so I'm not changing as far as 35mm goes, maybe I'll tame it. but now I'm curious if anyone has any nature-type samples of the less saturated 160 speed films.

 

[kevs]

Judging from your print, the blue is being reflected from the sky. It was obviously a fine, clear day and you have that big, blue light source above the ice and because ice is (normally!) white, it'll pick that up strongly. Looking at the buildings, trees and grass, I'd say the colour balance on your print is pretty good.

The human eye and brain adapt wonderfully to strong colour casts and we don't even notice. Did you ever make photos on colour film under tungsten lights and wonder why they're orange?

Good luck with it and enjoy the colour printing.

 

[2F/2F]

That thar is some blue ice!

 

[Sirius Glass]

And I thought that blue ice fell from airplanes when the holding tanks overflow!

Do not chew on blue ice or eat yellow snow!
​

Steve

 

[GeorgeDexter]

Color films, especially slide films like Fuji Velvia, can be formulated to produce over-saturated colors. I haven't shot the new Kodak Ektar yet, so I don't know how it is specifically. Therefore colors in your print, while properly exposed and printed, can appear not true-to-life. This can be exacerbated by trying to compensate for another color cast.

This particular photo reminds me of a series I did quite a few years ago. I was asked to take some impromptu photos of a neighbor's grandson on a sunny summer day at the lake. I had Agfa Ultra 50 (an oversaturated film that exagerates reds and yellows, sadly discontinued) in my camera, so that's what I shot. The kid was fair skinned, and when I printed my film, he looked like he had jaundice! I had to add so much cyan to knock the reds down that when I was done the green grass, blue water and sky were so vivid it looked outrageous. Luckily, my neighbor loved it. In my experience, Kodak films tend to print warmer, so this could be what happened.

 

[FilmLives!]

I don't have any experience with the Ektar 100 (yet), but I've read many comments on its tendency to "go blue" in the shadows, so it would appear this film may have a bit stronger sensitivity to blue and ultraviolet light than most films. That tendency and its extreme saturation may well have caused this effect when the sky reflected off the ice. I've pretty much decided from what I've read that this film screams for the use of a Skylight 1A filter or even a slightly stronger 2A filter (and in fact I've already purchased a 2A for the camera I will be shooting the Ektar in). Try a Skylight 1A or 2A (note - these are NOT "UV" or "ultraviolet" filters, which are clear or slightly yellow - the 1A/2A color is slightly pink). You might find it helps tame the extreme blue sensitivity.

jZ

 

[bob100684]

What did they say in the critique? The blue doesn't bug me so much, but something does that I can't put my finger on.

 

[benveniste]

So I'm super super new to color, and I've been making some prints from Ektar 100 and this print didn't go over so well at the class critique.

When I did an abbreviated test of Ektar 100, I found that it was vulnerable to the dreaded "C-41 cyan sky," which occurs when you fall into that narrow range of overexposure where you blow out the blue channel without blowing out green or red.

My guess is that's what happened here, only with the ice instead of the sky. Unlike many C-41 films, Ektar 100 seems to only have about 2 stop of overexposure latitude.

 

[accozzaglia]

What did they say in the critique? The blue doesn't bug me so much, but something does that I can't put my finger on.

It might be the "deadness" of detail in the mid-ground and background. It almost looks 110 film-ish, which for a fine-grained new stock seems out of place. Also, if the sky was so blue, then why is it white? The rest of the shot doesn't look overexposed, which might render the sky white. But I concur: something itches here, and it's not the photographer.

 

[srmcnamara]

It might be the "deadness" of detail in the mid-ground and background. It almost looks 110 film-ish, which for a fine-grained new stock seems out of place. Also, if the sky was so blue, then why is it white? The rest of the shot doesn't look overexposed, which might render the sky white. But I concur: something itches here, and it's not the photographer.

Thanks for that last bit but to be fair it's an absolutely terrrrrrible reproduction so that explains the deadness around the middle, it's just blurry from the photo of the photo. Also in Maryland, we don't really get blue horizons. Anyways, I made some prints from some poorly stored Fuji 160s that I'm really really liking, so it might all be a moot point.