First Time Using 120 Gold 200, Portra 160, & Ektar 100

[Andrew O'Neill]

 

[BrianShaw]

Interesting yet tedious to watch for people like me who are impatient and/or just want the bottom line without the dramatic build-up. Have you ever considered a BLUF - Bottom Line Up Front introduction? Intended to be constructive criticism, not just criticism. I haven’t adapted very well to video presentation and still prefer written so I can skim and read at my own pace. Nice soothing music!

And how about spelling Phoenix correctly. The way I remember is is it looks wrong, it’s right.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Interesting yet tedious to watch for people like me who are impatient and/or just want the bottom line without the dramatic build-up. Have you ever considered a BLUF - Bottom Line Up Front introduction? Intended to be constructive criticism, not just criticism. I haven’t adapted very well to video presentation and still prefer written so I can skim and read at my own pace. Nice soothing music!

And how about spelling Phoenix correctly. The way I remember is is it looks wrong, it’s right.

No Phoenix, Phoenyx, Fenix, Fenyx was harmed in this production...

 

[loccdor]

I don't recall how you're digitizing these... but one trick for color balance is to digitize some of the area outside of the frame and use that as the "black point". Setting the white point can be a little harder especially in images that don't contain a bright neutral white. You may need to set the max of each R, G, B channel individually by eye through trial and error until it looks right. And be sure to turn off any automatic color correction. Koraks has a bunch of color correction stuff on his blog.

Glad you are experimenting in uncharted territory, always love your videos.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

If I can make a suggestion, add the format or film size in your introduction (what we see in the frame above). Ciao.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I too like punchy and fine grain. I standardized on Kodak Portra 400 in 135 and 120, which is close to Kodak Porta 160 with that extra speed than helps keep the tripod folded up. Maybe I too will do some testing.

 

[koraks]

IDK about this, @Andrew O'Neill . The color balance really doesn't look any different on the light table:

What you're comparing is not so much Gold 200 vs. Gold 200 + 1...it's more "Something the Epson software does with Gold 200 vs. something else the Epson software throws me if the negative happens to be overall a little more dense."

At this point it becomes a bit of a philosophical question of course whether you're comparing film/exposures etc. You could argue that the imagine system as a whole for some reason gives you a different color balance - and since it started with a difference in exposure, then it's fair to conclude that the final output is different as shown. However, I personally find it problematic to subscribe to such a view if it turns out (as is the case here) that it's really not the film that's creating these big differences. Instead, it's mostly due to the scanner doing a black-box thing.

 

[koraks]

And be sure to turn off any automatic color correction. Koraks has a bunch of color correction stuff on his blog.

Yeah, and please don't take any of it for gospel - because it isn't. However, in the 20-odd years of scanning color negative film, I've banged my head often enough to grow a sizeable lump on my forehead and I've since started to use that as storage space for some things I pick up when it comes to color balancing color negative scans...

 

[mshchem]

Interesting. I have a terrible time with CN films and scanning.

I would suggest making color contact sheets in the darkroom, then scan the contact sheets.

 

[btaylor]

The color balance looks very different between both the film and the exposures. Shoot a color chart/gray card and get a consistent white balance. That would be a start.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Andrew did you find Ektar 100 hard to scan and get the colors right?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew did you find Ektar 100 hard to scan and get the colors right?

Trickier than the first roll of Phoenix 200 I did a while back... but I'm not so concerned about colour accuracy as I'm planning eventually to make sep negs for tri-colour gum. I think I'm more concerned about knocking out the film's base colour, than anything.

 

[koraks]

I think I'm more concerned about knocking out the film's base colour, than anything.

That's easy; if you use Photoshop, just use the pipette while adjusting curves or levels to set the black point.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@koraks thank you!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I piddled around with one of the images, following your advice, @koraks. I like this for tri-colour gum, but I'd like to knock a bit more of the pink out of the sky...I could do that, but lost too much colour saturation. It also has a bit of a posterised look, which I don't really care much for...

 

[koraks]

Yeah, I see the problem; it helps if you scan them as a positive and then invert manually. Ensure nothing clips on the shadow and highlight ends, that's the key thing.

 

[Ben 4]

Just to answer your original question (and recognizing that the scans may be misleading, as pointed out by many above), I think that Portra 160 at box speed looks the best, with Ektar at half-box speed close.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A little bit of Color Neg 101 :
First of all, you were working with overcast light without any corrective color temp filtration (like an 81A) at the time of the shot. Gold 200 and Portra are somewhat artificially warmed; Ektar is not. So you don't have a level playing field. And don't expect to iron out these errors in post-fashion, because they potentially involve curve crossover issues.

Second, those are some pretty bizarre outcomes, and how much of that is an unrelated artifact of scanning is hard to tell.

Others have already mentioned the need to try to reproduce a standardized test chart first. I recommend a MacBeth Color Checker Chart. Get to the point where each color patch looks realistic, and the entire gray scale itself is true neutral gray at the same time.

Stick with box speed until you've mastered the color chart; and meter with as much care as you would a chrome film. The days when the advice to overexpose color neg film allegedly applied passed away along with wooly mammoths. That's especially the case with Ektar, which is higher contrast with a lot less latitude than your other two options. Gross over/under exposure actually skews the color palette in irretrievable ways.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

A little bit of Color Neg 101 :
First of all, you were working with overcast light without any corrective color temp filtration (like an 81A) at the time of the shot. Gold 200 and Portra are somewhat artificially warmed; Ektar is not. So you don't have a level playing field. And don't expect to iron out these errors in post-fashion, because they potentially involve curve crossover issues.

Second, those are some pretty bizarre outcomes, and how much of that is an unrelated artifact of scanning is hard to tell.

Others have already mentioned the need to try to reproduce a standardized test chart first. I recommend a MacBeth Color Checker Chart.

As I previously stated, I am not overly concerned with colour balance and going through all that colour checker stuff/filter stuff... but I would be if I were say, doing portraits. I would like to be able to use some colour negs for tri-colour gum.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, Andrew - I spotted your comment about potential gum use, where exact color balance is relatively unimportant. But I also know that a balanced negative is easier to generate color separations from. It is more predictable. And Ektar is almost in a category unto itself among color neg films, in terms of hue saturation and purity, along with the advantage of more contrast (at the expense of overall luminance range). But over or under exposing that a full stop really leaves you little wiggle room for corrections of the boundaries of exposure. It's an entirely different animal than Portra, and certainly than Gold.

Have fun, and thanks for sharing your experiment!

 

[koraks]

But I also know that a balanced negative is easier to generate color separations from.

Pretty sure @Andrew O'Neill will do the separations digitally, just like the rest of the planet. Doesn't really matter what he starts out with as long as he's happy with what he gets, whether it's slide, color neg, something funky like Phoenix etc.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Some people can be quite specific about even funky "creative" results. Others aren't. I take these kind of threads in stride not only with respect to the individual in this case - Andrew - but in relation to others potentially seeking answers.

Actually, not all the planet does separations digitally. The ocean still has some ceolocanths swimming around in it.

 

[koraks]

The ocean still has some ceolocanths swimming around in it.

As an endangered species, we try to cherish them as long as they don't foul the place up too much.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Quality film scanners are themselves an endangered species, getting harder and harder to maintain. And the lifespan of the software isn't so great either. And "service bureaus", who do the separations for you, are becoming the scarcest of all. By contrast, working with film and a registration punch might not be either fast or cheap, but at least the equipment lasts for many decades.

 

[koraks]

LOL. Right.