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!
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.
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
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).Honestly PE if I was looking for proper color rendition, crystal clear sharpness on a dependable basis I would be shooting digital.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Love It! The Elbonians!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
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'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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?