• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Gold 200 on 35mm - Yellow / Soft / Avoid

OP
OP

DavidClapp

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
209
Location
England
Format
Medium Format
I've never found the Vuescan emulsion profiles to be ideal.

The LS9000 produces linear scans using Vuescan, called ‘raw tifs’ which is an oxymoron (!), but means that the software doesn’t influence the scanner output and saves as a linear scan that is interpreted by ColorPerfect using their film profiles.

The system works really well on all other films I’ve used (both 120 and 35mm) but I’m now starting to think this film and another Gold 200 I have shot from the same batch has something wrong with it.

The pics at the start of the roll seem a lot more yellow than the ones at the end of the roll.

Anyway the photos above make me realise I’m still not in love with the yellow in the colour signature of Gold 200 and I’ll have to find something else.

I’ve just finished a roll of Vision 3 250D so maybe that’ll do it, or look just as gold… haha…
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
27,433
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
The LS9000 produces linear scans using Vuescan

I'm still interested in seeing these actual raw scans that would look something like this:

If it looks like a normal photo with recognizable colors it's already inverted and interpreted and something has happened which may or may not be linear. You never really know.
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
5,109
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
My understanding is that when Kodak reformulated their color films they prioritized low grain at the expense of some resolution.

Not really. 4000ppi is still inside the information content capacity of Portra etc. The scan does not look especially well focused (and MTF seems a little low) and the colour inversion may not be helping (I've seen Flexcolor on Hasselblad/ Imacon scanners do terrible things to files that are perfectly sharp if you extract them before it tries to colour invert them). Gold 200 has a high low frequency contrast response to make it look as sharp as possible, even when used in cameras that had not so sharp lenses, or printing systems that aren't as sharp as they could be. This also comes at a granularity cost - which is the major trade-off, between granularity, sharpness and colour saturation/ overall contrast. Ilford also tends to prioritise very high low frequency performance, and that can make less able scanners seem a little better.

What seems to have been done with Porta etc is an alteration in some undercuts (you can look up Ron Mowrey talking about this with regard to emulsion design) which allows you to enhance the red saturation (for example) without a general contrast increase, but at a certain level it will start to cut into high frequency resolution in a particular colour. Having worked with all the generations of Portra, even with very good taking lenses and excellent scanning or enlarging lenses, the difference is much more slight in absolute usable resolution (most opto-mechanical systems are working pretty hard to get the information content required for 4000ppi down in a 24x36 frame on colour film) than those making questionable readouts of high contrast charts (you can forecast their results from the manufacturers' MTF if you know the 'test' chart contrast, and discover that that several of these 'tests' read out colour neg at a different contrast from transparency).
 

loccdor

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 12, 2024
Messages
2,790
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format

Thanks for your experience on the topic.
 

Scott J.

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
170
Location
Wyoming
Format
Large Format
Regarding the color, I downloaded the image of the grassy park/city skyline and did a basic curves adjustment to correct the color (slightly increase green, slightly decrease blue). I also added a curves adjustment to give more overall contrast, as well as a vibrancy adjustment to give a little more saturation, and got basically the same thing that Koraks did (close enough that it would be redundant to post it). While Kodak Gold 200 might not be to everyone's liking, the problem here isn't the film; it's the inversion software (though, that doesn't preclude the possibility that the software in question can be good, just as you report, with other films).

My general view of the canned film profiles that are included in ColorPerfect and others (Silverfast, Vuescan, etc.) is that they're generally pretty hit or miss, and seem to miss more often than not for the films I use. They tend to produce what you have here -- results that are too flat, too cyan or magenta (magenta in your case), and too desaturated. Negative Lab Pro seems to produce the best out-of-the-box inversions (in my opinion), but it can miss, too.

When I forced myself to learn manual inversion from scratch (using an approach that's very similar to what Alex Burke does in his tutorials), it taught me a lot about RGB color relationships, and that knowledge became indispensable for correcting color casts more broadly (e.g., in slide film, in already-inverted color negatives, etc.). You'll quickly learn to identify the exact problem with any color photo that looks "off," and moreover, will find that the problems are pretty consistently the same ones in nearly every scan and/or inversion (too much magenta, too much blue, and skies that have too much cyan). It's amazing what you can do with minor curves adjustments to only two color channels and some contrast boosting.

Regarding the softness of the scans (e.g., the headshot of your wife), that has all the hallmarks of missed focus by the Nikon. My Nikon Coolscan and Imacon Flextight both produce soft, fuzzy grain that looks exactly like what you posted when they miss focus. Even a photograph in which the taking lens wasn't focused properly when creating the film exposure should still exhibit sharp, sandpaper-like grain in a properly focused scan. Thankfully, both the Nikon and the Flextight can be manually focused to correct focus problems. The Nikon is more difficult to manually focus, however, because the nature of the stock 35mm film holder is such that it allows for a lot of curl along the short axis of the film, which means that good focus in one spot of the frame (the center) might not translate to good focus in another (an edge).
 

blee1996

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
1,507
Location
SF Bay Area, California
Format
Multi Format
Indeed to get the best scanning results from color negatives, you have to calibrate and fine-tune the profiles or create your own. I use XRite ColorChecker for the "scan as slide" in scanner plus "Negative Labs Pro inversion" workflow. At least once for each new film emulsion and vintage.
 

Kodachromeguy

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
2,174
Location
Washington
Format
Multi Format
Interesting. Do you also photograph one of the ColorChecker cards on the first frame of a new (or each?) roll of film?
 

blee1996

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
1,507
Location
SF Bay Area, California
Format
Multi Format
Interesting. Do you also photograph one of the ColorChecker cards on the first frame of a new (or each?) roll of film?

Ideally for each roll of film, but it's not always practical and I'm a bit lazy. So I tend to photography the ColorChecker card for the first two frames of a film that is new to me (e.g. Harman Phoenix II, or an expired Agfa Ultra 100).