Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

[Photo Engineer]

All color negative films are calibrated to yield a neutral when printed (or scanned). This adjustment is possible due to the very nature of correction. You may need slight tweaks but nothing major. This is the "slope" adjustment on color printers.

PE

 

[MattKing]

The film "profiles" in scanning software are attempts to adjust for each different film's combination of dyes and mask.
And then the scanner and software throws everything into uncertainty by attempting to apply "automatic" corrections to take into account the peculiarities of that particular negative.

 

[Cholentpot]

The film "profiles" in scanning software are attempts to adjust for each different film's combination of dyes and mask.
And then the scanner and software throws everything into uncertainty by attempting to apply "automatic" corrections to take into account the peculiarities of that particular negative.

Good work, Cholentpot!

I work my way around that with a home made scanning rig. I use a DSLR and shoot the neg in RAW with a macro lens. The computer makes no decisions for me. It's a bit more work but it sure is worth it. If the film is clear and sharp it doesn't really matter all that much between one stock and another. Some stocks I find I can pull more or different colors out of. The Ferrania has some spectacular blues that come out really well. Kodak always carries the yellow-gold-orange better and fuji has better range on the greens and reds. That being said most of the c-41 I shoot is expired and all of it is developed myself.

 

[Nzoomed]

The film "profiles" in scanning software are attempts to adjust for each different film's combination of dyes and mask.
And then the scanner and software throws everything into uncertainty by attempting to apply "automatic" corrections to take into account the peculiarities of that particular negative.

Thats one reason I like shooting slide film, because you actually can see the real image as its supposed to look when you hold it up to the light and make comparisons to the scan, whereas, its anyone's guess what the "real" colour is supposed to be with a negative.

 

[Photo Engineer]

That being said most of the c-41 I shoot is expired and all of it is developed myself.

I see two potential problems here!

PE

 

[Nzoomed]

Well I now think the problems ive had in the samples posted is not over exposure, but under exposure, I think its inevitable when shooting into or close to the light source, as it was in the photos affected.
I suspect the light meter cuts down the exposure, in turn not exposing it enough, but in bright light, I dont think you really have much options.

 

[Roger Cole]

Some of those images look overexposed to me. They also look like they could make fine prints if print exposure was adjusted accordingly but my experience is that automatic printers don't do this that well. They adjust some, but not enough, so overexposed negatives print too light. Print them down optically (or..however..) to the right density print and they make fine prints.

Other than that I don't see anything wrong with them. I'd use a film with that color rendition.

 

[Cholentpot]

I see two potential problems here!

PE

Honestly PE if I was looking for proper color rendition, crystal clear sharpness on a dependable basis I would be shooting digital. Or a medium format and sending off for development. As it stands my B&W is sharp, clear and prints well. My C-41 is funky, fun and lovely. Lomo? No but I can understand them a bit from where I stand.

 

[MattKing]

Honestly PE if I was looking for proper color rendition, crystal clear sharpness on a dependable basis I would be shooting digital.

Properly developed and printed 35mm film (with or without a scanning intermediary) is easily capable of extraordinary quality. It competes easily with the high end full frame digital equipment (many will argue it still exceeds that quality).
All you need is good film, accurate film processing and top quality printing - the sort of developing and printing that used to be offered by the majority of pro labs, and a large percentage of the amateur oriented labs.

 

[Diapositivo]

Honestly PE if I was looking for proper color rendition, crystal clear sharpness on a dependable basis I would be shooting digital. Or a medium format and sending off for development. As it stands my B&W is sharp, clear and prints well. My C-41 is funky, fun and lovely. Lomo? No but I can understand them a bit from where I stand.

Film is able to produce better results than digital in some circumstances. Your "avatar", for instance, could - if properly exposed and scanned - be rendered by film as a proper stripe of sunshine on the sea, rather than a stripe of "clipped" highlights

PS If that is a picture taken on film, then I assure you film can do better and preserve details on the highlights much better than currently available numeric technologies.

 

[flavio81]

Properly developed and printed 35mm film (with or without a scanning intermediary) is easily capable of extraordinary quality. It competes easily with the high end full frame digital equipment (many will argue it still exceeds that quality).

We were debating about color reproduction. With "quality", do you mean "accurate color reproduction"?

Film is able to produce better results than digital in some circumstances. Your "avatar", for instance, could - if properly exposed and scanned - be rendered by film as a proper stripe of sunshine on the sea, rather than a stripe of "clipped" highlights

Yes, negative film has wider latitude, but setting luminance values aside (and by the way, modern pro DSLRs already have more latitude than what a screen or print is able to reproduce), my question is: is chroma value exactitude possible to be better with film, than with a pro camera?

I thought digital cameras were the best in this regard. In fact i recall than on one test one of my cameras (i think it was the Kodak Pro DCS SLR/n), was tested by a magazine to have incredibly correct hue reproduction.

 

[Diapositivo]

We were debating about color reproduction. With "quality", do you mean "accurate color reproduction"?



Yes, negative film has wider latitude, but setting luminance values aside (and by the way, modern pro DSLRs already have more latitude than what a screen or print is able to reproduce), my question is: is chroma value exactitude possible to be better with film, than with a pro camera?

I thought digital cameras were the best in this regard. In fact i recall than on one test one of my cameras (i think it was the Kodak Pro DCS SLR/n), was tested by a magazine to have incredibly correct hue reproduction.

Not to turn this into a digital vs analogue thread, the short answer is: digital suffers when the highlights clip. They clip suddendly. Film has a foot and a shoulder. Film "clips" very very gradually and gracefully and much later than digital.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Film has a Density/LogE curve and Digital has a Density/LogV (voltage developed on the sensor). Both types can be manipulated quite well. The problem with the latter is that the sensors are side by side creating aliasing and jagged diagonal edges.

PE

 

[flavio81]

Not to turn this into a digital vs analogue thread, the short answer is: digital suffers when the highlights clip. They clip suddendly. Film has a foot and a shoulder. Film "clips" very very gradually and gracefully and much later than digital.

Yes, but i was referring to color (hue) reproduction. Again, not to turn this into "film versus digital" but specifically color reproduction in film versus digital. I'm really interested, because I thought the best color purity was achieved on the digital domain.

And on the other hand the clipping problem you mention was solved long ago; you can always know if clipping is happening or not, by using the histogram, etc.

Not that the digital issues matter too much to me, since I use film 99% of the time. But i have no issues producing digital color images; it is a piece of cake to avoid highlight clipping, noise reduction artifacts, and other problems inherent to digital SLRs.

 

[Diapositivo]

And on the other hand the clipping problem you mention was solved long ago; you can always know if clipping is happening or not, by using the histogram, etc.

Not that the digital issues matter too much to me, since I use film 99% of the time. But i have no issues producing digital color images; it is a piece of cake to avoid highlight clipping, noise reduction artifacts, and other problems inherent to digital SLRs.

Not really, with digital you know if you have clipping by the histogram (more or less), but in certain circumstances - such as photographing directly into the sun, as in Cholentpot's avatar - you cannot avoid it unless you push all the rest of the image into the dark. Usable dynamic range is much larger with film than with digital: negative film has the highest, then slide film, then digital. Long story here. Probably a discussion of this would have us kicked out of APUG for Satanic talking

 

[Cholentpot]

Film is able to produce better results than digital in some circumstances. Your "avatar", for instance, could - if properly exposed and scanned - be rendered by film as a proper stripe of sunshine on the sea, rather than a stripe of "clipped" highlights

PS If that is a picture taken on film, then I assure you film can do better and preserve details on the highlights much better than currently available numeric technologies.

My avatar photo is actually my tribute to what film can do and handle. The photo is from one of my first rolls of film, before I had any clue what ISO was or what difference what makes. I set up my mothers old camera, an Olympus IS300 on a tripod put the aperture wide open and let'er rip for 8 seconds. Fuji Superia 800 that was slightly expired. I developed myself and I gotta say the film survived although it got burnt from the frame over that I left open for 30 seconds.

So yes, film is quite amazing. I do shoot it though because it's fun and that's about the only reason. Well that and awesome cheap cameras.

 

[RPC]

Yes, but i was referring to color (hue) reproduction. Again, not to turn this into "film versus digital" but specifically color reproduction in film versus digital. I'm really interested, because I thought the best color purity was achieved on the digital domain.

Who says that, the digital people?

And on the other hand the clipping problem you mention was solved long ago; you can always know if clipping is happening or not, by using the histogram, etc.

Working as a color corrector in a lab, what I frequently see is that it doesn't take much overexposure to begin degrading color, contrast and saturation with digital.

 

[MattKing]

I'd hazard a guess that if you are looking for colour purity, and there is at least one part of your process that is digital, you will get higher purity if your process is fully digital.
However, if you are looking for natural, accurate and pleasing colour, film and an analogue workflow will serve you exceptionally well.

 

[Nzoomed]

Some of those images look overexposed to me. They also look like they could make fine prints if print exposure was adjusted accordingly but my experience is that automatic printers don't do this that well. They adjust some, but not enough, so overexposed negatives print too light. Print them down optically (or..however..) to the right density print and they make fine prints.

Other than that I don't see anything wrong with them. I'd use a film with that color rendition.

Well I think we can both agree that the ones that are properly exposed look great.

Im happy enough with the results, but im unsure why my XA3 got the exposures bad, usually it gets it right at least 90% of the time.

 

[mshchem]

You read it here first!

FILM Ferrrania, you can send me a kit as thanks for the idea, send free kit to:

FLAVIO81 TECHNOLOGIES (a subsidiary of INITECH)
#K14 Yellow Brick Road
Elbonia
Postal code C41

Love It! The Elbonians!
Best Mike

 

[petrospyr]

Hello guys,
found this post while browsing for ferrania entries in google.
I am actually the guy that sold the big quantities on eBay, having had them in my fridge for many years.
Unfortunately the films are almost over, I have around 75 rolls in ISO100, without paper package, and maybe 30-40 more pieces in ISO200 and ISO400.

The expiration date for all those films were 2008 to 2010, but they still look good enough to my eyes. They tend to be yellowish but with beautiful grain and contrast. Also, they sometimes give me the feeling that they are a bit more sensitive than what they say, but, as said above, they tolerate overexposure well.
Looking forward to shooting the new ferrania films when they start selling.
Photo is Ferrania ISO100 shot on a minolta CLE with Voigtlander 40/1,4 classic.
Greetins from Athens

 

[Nzoomed]

Hello guys,
found this post while browsing for ferrania entries in google.
I am actually the guy that sold the big quantities on eBay, having had them in my fridge for many years.
Unfortunately the films are almost over, I have around 75 rolls in ISO100, without paper package, and maybe 30-40 more pieces in ISO200 and ISO400.

The expiration date for all those films were 2008 to 2010, but they still look good enough to my eyes. They tend to be yellowish but with beautiful grain and contrast. Also, they sometimes give me the feeling that they are a bit more sensitive than what they say, but, as said above, they tolerate overexposure well.
Looking forward to shooting the new ferrania films when they start selling.
Photo is Ferrania ISO100 shot on a minolta CLE with Voigtlander 40/1,4 classic.
Greetins from Athens

I bought a brick off you last year off ebay here in New Zealand!

Im happy enough with the results and the ones that have exposed correctly look great, as is your example you have had.

I dont think there is anything wrong with the film, but I quite like the sample you posted and is very similar rendition to my shots im getting

 

[Rudeofus]

I'd hazard a guess that if you are looking for colour purity, and there is at least one part of your process that is digital, you will get higher purity if your process is fully digital.
However, if you are looking for natural, accurate and pleasing colour, film and an analogue workflow will serve you exceptionally well.

If you look at the typical spectral response of bayer pattern filters (see Figure 4), you will see profound differences compared to the spectral response curve of the human eye. High end digital sensors are very linear, and with carefully crafted tests you can construct the claim, that digital sensors with bayer patterns accurately reproduce colors. Once you enter real life scenes, the veracity of these claims should be reconsidered.

Film does the same thing, and beautifully so IMHO. Let's hope, that Ferrania does a good job with this.

 

[pbromaghin]

It that's what the new stuff is going to look like, I can't wait!

 

[RattyMouse]

Time for an update I think....