Ektar 100 too yellow in golden light

[ericdan]

Most color films I shot are amazing when shot during golden hour.
Most notably Provia films. I find them a little boring during the day, but at sunrise or sunset it's magic.

I really love Ektar during mid-day and even in shade, but I am a little disappointed by it in golden light.
I've shot Ektar exclusively for a few weeks now and noticed consistently that it turns very yellow when shot during golden hour.

Has anybody else noticed that too?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Most color films I shot are amazing when shot during golden hour.
Most notably Provia films. I find them a little boring during the day, but at sunrise or sunset it's magic.

I really love Ektar during mid-day and even in shade, but I am a little disappointed by it in golden light.
I've shot Ektar exclusively for a few weeks now and noticed consistently that it turns very yellow when shot during golden hour.

Has anybody else noticed that too?

Can you post some examples? I've shot it in the evening and early morning and not found it to be too yellow.

 

[ericdan]

Only have this right now. Would have to look in my archive for more.
https://flic.kr/p/zrva6X


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[skorpiius]

Is it possible, and this is something I'm sometimes worried about, that the lab operator tried to compensate for the two very different colours of light in that shot and went too warm?

 

[ericdan]

I scanned this and I did try to compensate. Auto settings gave me this on a frontier. Trying to compensate made it look awkward in another way. Maybe the chemicals were bad? But then all shots on the roll would've been bad.


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Color neg films cannot be judged by the prints or scans you get from a minilab machine. The filtration used in the machine when printing or scanning can be changed over a wide range of settings to adjust the color balance of the prints. These machines are usually operated on a full-auto mode that often gives crap results. Ask the lab to redo them.

 

[mrred]

Ektar is a colour saturated film. You would probably get the same kind of results shooting with Velvia.

The shot you provided would be difficult to correct with any film....my opinion. The light is not favourable for anything looking well. I don't think it's really a fault of any stage except the shot itself.

 

[markbarendt]

Maybe the chemicals were bad?

There is a small, very small, chance that chemicals might give someone a problem at a mini-lab. It is a risk so small that IMO until all other issues are dealt with it's not worth considering.

The film and developing system is incredibly robust.

Color neg films cannot be judged by the prints or scans you get from a minilab machine. The filtration used in the machine when printing or scanning can be changed over a wide range of settings to adjust the color balance of the prints. These machines are usually operated on a full-auto mode that often gives crap results. Ask the lab to redo them.

Exactly.

It is important to understand that negatives of any type, B&W or color, are just data carriers to be used in the next step of the process and that adjustments are absolutely required. That fact is often ignored, forgotten even, but it should be fully obvious when anyone looks at a negative that it's not a "positive" that looks like the scene.

The first prints from any negative should IMO be considered nothing more than "proofs". The purpose of proofs is to allow the client and or photographer decide if the image is usable, and if so, which direction to go to "finish" the image for the print.

The choices made, by the machine or a human, in the printing process control the result and make or break the result.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I scanned this and I did try to compensate. Auto settings gave me this on a frontier. Trying to compensate made it look awkward in another way. Maybe the chemicals were bad? But then all shots on the roll would've been bad.


Sent from Tapatalk

As someone else mentioned, the last place I'd look for diagnosis on this image is the chemistry. There's nothing wrong with it. You're just dealing with really tough lighting conditions, where half is lit by very warm evening light and the other half is in strong, cool shadows. If you knock the yellow of the foreground back a bit with filtration, you'll end up driving your shadows profoundly blue. To be honest, the foreground is a bit light - I'd try printing it down a bit. It won't cool it off but it will put some darker tones in the girls' hair, which will help it seem less bright and yellow.

 

[ericdan]

Thanks. That's good advise. I'll give that a try.
I usually use scans as a preview and then decide which ones to print.


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[Athiril]

It doesn't look too yellow on my monitor, which is calibrated.

Anyway, if you want to correct those skin tones etc, it needs to be rescanned with more density (which density is a setting on a frontier scanner) the tones are too light to correct well, which of course will make the background even darker.


The 'problem' with minilab scanners is they print very similar to printing in a dark room with a colour enlarger and paper, so you will have a fixed contrast (paper grade) and not capture the broad range of tones on the neg.


This is the range of corrections available:

[/IMG]


The density adjustments are the same as increasing or decreasing exposure on the paper, they don't open up the contrast to let you capture the whole neg and adjust it later.

 

[ericdan]

I actually corrected it based on Ian's instructions and re uploaded. So you're looking at the corrected version now. I'll try to print it and see if I get the same.


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[DREW WILEY]

Learn about correcting for significant color temperature imbalances by appropriate filtration over the lens at the time of the shot. This is the
best way to do it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Correcting after the photograph has been taken is not the best time to correct the color balance.

 

[ericdan]

That idea works well for landscape and studio photography.


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[ericdan]

Maybe a film like Portra is better suited for the different light conditions when walking around in the city.


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

Portra is a lower contrast film so a good bet.

 

[onnect17]

Maybe a film like Portra is better suited for the different light conditions when walking around in the city.


Sent from Tapatalk

Eric, allow me to suggest purchasing a Colorchecker Passport or similar. Take at least one shot per roll and then create an adjustment curve in wherever app you are using to correct the image.
Good luck!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Both speeds of Portra are more forgiving than Ektar, but lack its punch when that is what you actually need.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Both speeds of Portra are more forgiving than Ektar, but lack its punch when that is what you actually need.

When one wants extra punch [saturation] use Kodak Ultra Color if you can still find it.

 

[trondsi]

I agree that Provia is a bit better in that kind of light, but Provia will be too blueish in some other kinds of light. Ektar is warmer in general (but surprisingly amazing at catching reflected blueish light on trees etc) so it sometimes turns a tad too warm in warm light. This is why I like to have both films around

 

[ericdan]

Yup, Provia is pure magic in golden light. Never fails to surprise me.
I've shot Provia in daylight and even with a warming filter I still find it very plain and boring.
Ektar is a much better choice for that kind of light, but it's a lot more tricky to shoot in golden light.

 

[Les Sarile]

I suspect it is the Fuji Frontier's fault first before Kodak Ektar. Below is an example of how Fuji Frontier will burn out and apply too much contrast on an otherwise perfectly good shot. Unfortunately, the only way you will know it is by comparing to another such as the Coolscan.

 

[ericdan]

I live in Tokyo and the only RA4 paper I can buy pre cut here is Fuji Pro in 8x10.
I have to say that my frontier scans of all films look damn close to what I get when I enlarge on RA4 Fuji paper. Coolscan scans don't look like prints.


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[Les Sarile]

I live in Tokyo and the only RA4 paper I can buy pre cut here is Fuji Pro in 8x10.
I have to say that my frontier scans of all films look damn close to what I get when I enlarge on RA4 Fuji paper. Coolscan scans don't look like prints.

Good that you like your Frontier scans.