Spectrograms and insect vision aside, you would still expect purple flowers to look purple. Of course, no film is perfect.
Last edited:
Part of the problem with the discussion here is that, yes, you have representative spectrograms of the dye sensitivity of the film in question, but you DON'T have any representative spectrograms of the light reflecting off this or that flower or sample of fabric, since there can be a multitude of potential variations of those, which the human eye is capable of differentiating in a different manner than the given film itself, or even differently from pollinators like insects and their own kind of vision, which is really the priority with blossoms, and not our pictures.
So from Steven's latest post it would seem that if you want this colour to be what the eye or eye/brain sees it as then you use digital. Given this, then when it comes to the likes of wedding shots where the commissioning parties will remember the correct colours and be annoyed to say the least if the pictures do not reflect what they see with their eyes then it is hardly surprising that photographers using film for weddings or social gatherings are as scarce as hens' teeth
Update. I just scanned the same negatives on Flextight X5.
The result is the same:
Unless you scanned them as a positive and did the inversion outside of Flexcolor, all you are testing is Flexcolor's sometimes odd understanding of colour neg.
I scanned them as positive and then inverted manually, i.e. exactly the same workflow as with a camera.
On my screen at least, and in comparison to most web images, the example you posted, Steven, looks overall too bluish-magenta, period. The whole color balance is off. Even the shaded skin areas are purple-inflected. Can't blame the film on that! Something is calibrated wrong in your workflow.
On my screen at least, and in comparison to most web images, the example you posted, Steven, looks overall too bluish-magenta, period. The whole color balance is off. Even the shaded skin areas are purple-inflected. Can't blame the film on that! Something is calibrated wrong in your workflow.
On my screen at least, and in comparison to most web images, the example you posted, Steven, looks overall too bluish-magenta, period. The whole color balance is off. Even the shaded skin areas are purple-inflected. Can't blame the film on that! Something is calibrated wrong in your workflow.
Pentaxuser - Since I only darkroom print, and only shoot film, that eliminates the intermediate variable of scanning.
It's all purple-inflected, pentax. It's just not quite as evident in the brighter areas.
Forgot to mention: her hands are covered with purple-tinted face paint (pink+violet was the birthday party theme), here's a fragment from another shot where it's better visible:
View attachment 345136
I'd leave the overall color balancing to me, somoene who was there and knows how the scene looked. The issue isn't that. The issue is the single color which is off by a mile. That mile can't be covered by minor inversion alterations. I am still intrigued though... Will see if I can RA4 print this negative in my area...
All of the skin including the snippet of a hand on the left has some purple in it.
The white patch on the upper right does too.
Unless all the light was filtered purple that is where your problem is.
My situation is that I noticed that one very specific color never shows up properly on my Portra 400 scans. It gets cooler and desaturated. The color is somewhere between pink and purple, maybe someone would be able to nail the name, it's basically the darker color of this girl's dress:
View attachment 344185
View attachment 344191
All of the skin including the snippet of a hand on the left has some purple in it.
The white patch on the upper right does too.
Unless all the light was filtered purple that is where your problem is.
Judging by these digital images and your scans the span of hues that Portra is blind to is quite big. Since this discovery Kodak might as well label Portra as a C-41 BW film...
Hey, maybe this is the second newly (re)introduced Kodak film we were "promised" this year?
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?