If you read the OP and look at the image of the flowers, which are supposed to be purple not light grey, the problem is with the film not correctly capturing purple, not with the lavender cast. If anything, correcting the lavender cast will make the problem worse not better. The lavender cast is a problem, not the problem.
Here is a photo of wisteria taken with Portra before its spectral sensitivity was changed, and here is a comparison of wisteria on Portra and digital after the spectral sensitivity change in Portra. I showed the technical description of this change a page above. It appears to be the dominant reason for the issue being discussed here.
Here is a photo of wisteria taken with Portra before its spectral sensitivity was changed, and here is a comparison of wisteria on Portra and digital after the spectral sensitivity change in Portra. I showed the technical description of this change a page above. It appears to be the dominant reason for the issue being discussed here.
@Helge According to C-41 control strips and my densitometer, there are no development problems with this or any other rolls. There are no workflow-induced casts of any kind here.
Referring to a colour as "purple" is a huge simplification.
The dyes used in fabric that appears "purple" have a significantly different effect on light reflected off them when compared with the constituent parts of lilacs or bluebells or other "purple" appearing flowers.
And in the particular examples, the light that falls on the flowers is significantly different than the light falling on that dress.
Every film has its own distinct colour response. Every eye has its own distinct colour response. Every combination of digital sensor plus firmware plus software has its own distinct colour response.
The differences in character between all those distinct colour responses go a long way to establishing the particular colour character of each such film/eye/sensor+firmware+software combination.
Portra films have always favoured Caucasian and darker ski tones - they tend at least slightly to the warm. Bluebells probably reflect a fair amount of light in the near UV part of the spectrum, so they look lighter on Portra than they do with other films. And that is neither unusual, nor unwanted, i most circumstances.
Thanks. The "before version of Portra" seems to overdo the wisteria colour In fact a lot of other things such as the wood and rocks seem to be imbued with the same colour. The "after version of Portra" seem to have tamed the previous extreme but possibly to too great an extent and while the colour is more restrained it is OK in comparison with Steven's scan of the wisteria. It is the case that in Steven's Portra version the wisteria in what appears to be deep shade compared to the digital one in sunlight
Might this shade have contributed to the drained colour look of the wisteria and two identical shots on digital and Portra taken in the same light conditions would show much less of a difference?
pentaxuser
My wisteria are the color of the first example. Your wisteria are just whimpy and I am not talking about hamburgers!
Gosh. So much secondary nonsense going on
The purples and violets I got with Portra 160VC were stunning. I've got a four-foot wide print enlarged in the darkroom from an 8X10 Portra 160 neg just a few feet away from me on the wall right now, full of rich violet, yet at the same time, highly saturated greens and numerous reddish and yellowish shades. It was shot in diffuse daylight using precise box speed of 160. If I has shot ordinary Porta 160 instead - the predecessor or current Porta 160 - the colors would have been similar, but as a film marketed for soft portrait applications, much less saturated by design.
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
It shows up fairly life-like on iPhone photos or photos taken with my Canon digital camera, as shown above.
But the same dress never looks like this on Portra 400 scans. Here is what I get:
View attachment 344187
Sometimes, when the color gets closer to purple, it gets completely desaturated. This picture is particularly telling:
View attachment 344190
Usually these look like this:
View attachment 344191
I have numerous other examples, with different light and different subjects. But it's always the pink/purple combo and always Portra. Could be a coincidence, I should probably shoot that dress on 5 different emulsions to make sure.
This can also be the limitation of my scanning. At the moment I sold all of my scanners and using the Sony A7R. I have access to 3 automatic color inversion tools, but I prefer to invert manually. No matter how I go about the inversion, I can't get that color to be even close (without destroying every other color in a photo). In case you're wondering, I have zero complaints about the colors I normally get, as long as it's not this one
I will find a few negatives with this color and send them out to a lab asking for a raw scan, but while I do that, I wanted to post a question here and see if my problem lies in the analog domain and perhaps emulsions have gamut limitations? (hence I'm posting into the analog section). I only see in with Portra, but I do not shoot enough color (and did not keep a good record of my past scans) so I can't find any examples of this color exposed on other films.
Thoughts?
[EDIT] I forgot to mention two other thoughts I had. First, could this be that Kodak deliberately wanted to desaturate this particular hue to make people's skin look better than in real life? Less cooked? It's called Portra, after all. The second is the observation that if you invert the digital image (with a truer color) in Photoshop it will look bright green, and I can't recall ever seeing a Portra neg with such punchy uninverted green. The latter thought prompted me to post here.
What color would you have used to make reference to the flowers (wisteria) that were not rendered as seen? What color would you have used to make reference to the dress that was not rendered as seen? Please suggest one, and then explain why it doesn't show up with Portra 400, and why that is a not a problem if you are shooting flowers (wisteria) and dresses that are [insert color name].
I'm not trying to be rude about any of this, but when I do get to the copy-stand, it's going to be for months on end of print collection cataloging. I dread it, in fact, but do have a pretty deluxe copy setup when that inevitability arrives,
allowing me an almost assembly-line like workflow. But it's not convenient for casual one-off use.
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?