Is it possible for a particular color to fall outside of the Portra 400 gamut?

[pentaxuser]

As best as I can tell, the correct answer is anything other than Portra 400 is the problem.

Actually if you are the "man in the street" and want the most straightforward solution, I thought that using a digital camera came the closest

pentaxuser

 

[eli griggs]

Or you could try a warming skylight filter to see it it produces a more realistic rendition of that hue.

 

[BrianShaw]

Actually if you are the "man in the street" and want the most straightforward solution, I thought that using a digital camera came the closest

pentaxuser

Well, up to a point. I just replicated Steven Lee’s disappointed picture with an iPhone. The magenta-ish purple hue was much more vivid to the eye.

 

[BrianShaw]

And from a different angle it looks different. Less true to reality. Natural sky lighting through a glass skylight. No Portra or scanning involved. Viewing eyes are bespectacled with beginnings of cataracts and normal color vision.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Brian - were those done with the LSD app on your digi camera?

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Brian but to my eyes none of your pics of the same kind of bushes come that close any of Steven's pics be that the digital one of the Portra one

It is not my intention to be rude but I say what I have said above because I feel it is important to say what I see in terms of hopefully still seeking a solution to the problem raised by Steven


pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks Brian but to my eyes none of your pics of the same kind of bushes come that close any of Steven's pics be that the digital one of the Portra one

It is not my intention to be rude but I say what I have said above because I feel it is important to say what I see in terms of hopefully still seeking a solution to the problem raised by Steven


pentaxuser

You didn’t see the original subject with your eyes. They were much more vivid. This isn’t a live biological tree, but art constructed of a satin-like cloth or Mylar.

You’re not being rude. My point is that a similar color of a similar material is desaturated on an iPhone photo as well as on his Portra photo. If you have a theory let’s hear it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh, that sounds fun! Thanks for clarifying that. Yeah, I printed an Ektar shot a couple years ago of a particularly interesting roadside shrine with some artificial flowers on it, which came out deep-hued, while the actual biological counterparts respond poorly to most color films. Some of those artificial flowers were satin, others plastic.

But certain kinds of fabrics can really fool color films too. And one of the most difficult problems is fluorescent algal hues, which look spectacular to the eye, but are hard or nearly impossible to render on film, with one film exception which was discontinued four decades ago.

Way back when someone was trying to sell us an IBM continuous-spectrum color spectrophotometer larger than an upright grand piano, I messed with their heads by inserting fluorescent, velvet, and satin samples I knew would drive it crazy. They were pretty perplexed until they recognized my prank, and had a good laugh themselves. Those were really good units, but high maintenance and awfully expensive, so we waited till the next generation of technology.

 

[MattKing]

I'm trying to remember if I ever saw photographic references to colour "gamut" before the advent of digital photography. I don't think so. I'm wondering whether this might be another example of where the mixing of terminology makes for an uncomfortable fit with the question of whether a particular film's colour response works well with a particular subject.

 

[jmrochester]

Gamut usually refers to the capability of the device -- in this case, Portra -- to output a particular range of colors. In other words, can Portra's dyes create all the colors in visible spectrum when printed? No one in this long thread has suggested/proven that it cannot do that. Portra's limitation is not the dyes created during processing but is rather the fact that its light sensitivity is different from human visual sensitivity. So "gamut" has nothing to do with the problem nor is the film "colorblind". It just sees reflectances that we don't see and produces a color that we think is wrong.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I doubt if one person in a million would notice if a particular gamut didn't handle one particular color unless you had the original color right in front of you to compare. I imagine it would have to be a whole hue that's off color, like flesh tones, before anyone would notice.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Matt, the digital world adopted that expression after the fact, and not the other way around. It goes clear back to CIE color mapping days, long before that kind of mapping got modernized via analytic geometry programs for sake of computerization.

Most people nowadays only know gamut in terms of screen balancing and so forth; but it applies to all kinds of color science. Gamut basically means the actual scope of ability of any media or intermediate step in color workflow to reproduce the extant range of colors in question, based on either a three dimensional or four-dimensional mapping model. To oversimplify it, the bigger the balloon, the more discrete hues, tones, and shades it can hold.

So yeah, there is a lot of semantics confusion on forums like this one what gamut means. Those who only digitally shoot and view have a rather constricted and inaccurate definition of it. But it applies to industrial color too, and has done so long before the current digital generation was even born. When I state that I don't like the gamut of inkjet, and then get pushback from someone who says it looks fine on their screen, they don't even understand what I'm saying. It means that the "balloon" of that particular media in question simply isn't big or flexible enough to hold certain otherwise discernible hues.

But no color medium is perfect, especially in a photographic sense. Every color film ever invented has gamut flaws and always will. Likewise, every output medium. So one adapts as best they can, and chooses the tools best for their own needs.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Alan - any real color pro has to be able to discern the inevitable missteps in color reproduction if they're going to juggle those to their advantage rather than detriment. Otherwise, no paycheck - maybe even getting shot at if you matched some low rider's vehicle paint under the wrong light source, and it came out mismatched : one of the first things which needs to learn about is metamerism.

Even in the manufacture of color film, someone in quality control has to make an actual visual inspection, and that person has to be highly experienced at that very thing, or else we'd all be screaming, including you, and expensive batches would need to be recalled.

Ironically, still color photographers are often among the worst at understanding such basics. And it's getting even worser because they think they can just post-correct anything; but they don't know what to look for to begin with. It can really help to have a little solid color theory in one's background. But even then, it takes a lot of experience to train your personal psychology to recognize what your eyes actually see. It doesn't come either easily or automatically, but is a discipline. Any good painter, either in the arts or even a good house painter, recognizes that. And it can get nitpicky, very nitpicky. Clients can be demanding. And I'm my own worst client, and demand more of myself than others ever did.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan - any real color pro has to be able to discern the inevitable missteps in color reproduction if they're going to juggle those to their advantage rather than detriment. Otherwise, no paycheck - maybe even getting shot at if you matched some low rider's vehicle paint under the wrong light source, and it came out mismatched : one of the first things which needs to learn about is metamerism.

Even in the manufacture of color film, someone in quality control has to make an actual visual inspection, and that person has to be highly experienced at that very thing, or else we'd all be screaming, including you, and expensive batches would need to be recalled.

Ironically, still color photographers are often among the worst at understanding such basics. And it's getting even worser because they think they can just post-correct anything; but they don't know what to look for to begin with. It can really help to have a little solid color theory in one's background. But even then, it takes a lot of experience to train your personal psychology to recognize what your eyes actually see. It doesn't come either easily or automatically, but is a discipline. Any good painter, either in the arts or even a good house painter, recognizes that. And it can get nitpicky, very nitpicky. Clients can be demanding. And I'm my own worst client, and demand more of myself than others ever did.

The point I was trying to make is that for most photos, colors not matching the original colors are not an issue unless really off. Of course, certain colors like flesh tones, if not correct, are quickly noticed because our brains look at people all the time and know when someone looks sick because their color is off.

Marketers who have to match colors for selling clothes have to do matching closely. Otherwise, purchasers will return the garments they ordered because it is not the color they thought they were ordering. But for most people looking at general photos (maybe not you), colors aren't critical to match the original.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, Alan, I look at all hues that way, not just fleshtones. And even photographic fleshtones are not necessarily fully realistic, but fall into what we stereotypically find acceptable and pleasing.

The point is, I don't try to do the impossible, and make photographic color identical to visual reality, which it never will be, but do try to understand the specific strong and weak points of every relevant film in my arsenal, in order to use it to my best advantage. The choice of color films is thinning out, yet at the same time, the current Kodak color films are their best ever in that respect. But still, there are all kinds of hues in nature which are very difficult or impossible to reproduce photographically. That's just the way it is, and we have to work within our limits. Photoshoppers might think they can walk on water; but they can't do that either. In fact, a lot of the time they dive head first into some mud hole.

In terms of marketing color, you'd be amazed at just how internationally organized that is. When I was involved at my own little end of the business in color consultation, I had a number of personal conversations with the head of the International Color Council. Of course, he made about fifty times more money a year than I did, but was still a great guy to chat with,
and highly competent.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well, Alan, I look at all hues that way, not just fleshtones. And even photographic fleshtones are not necessarily fully realistic, but fall into what we stereotypically find acceptable and pleasing.

The point is, I don't try to do the impossible, and make photographic color identical to visual reality, which it never will be, but do try to understand the specific strong and weak points of every relevant film in my arsenal, in order to use it to my best advantage. The choice of color films is thinning out, yet at the same time, the current Kodak color films are their best ever in that respect. But still, there are all kinds of hues in nature which are very difficult or impossible to reproduce photographically. That's just the way it is, and we have to work within our limits. Photoshoppers might think they can walk on water; but they can't do that either. In fact, a lot of the time they dive head first into some mud hole.

In terms of marketing color, you'd be amazed at just how internationally organized that is. When I was involved at my own little end of the business in color consultation, I had a number of personal conversations with the head of the International Color Council. Of course, he made about fifty times more money a year than I did, but was still a great guy to chat with,
and highly competent.

The other things I do when scanning is that I adjust the colors and brightness and contrast until they look right to my eyes. I don't try to match the original colors shown on the film. My theory is that it's my art, not some Japanese engineer's who's probably dead by now who picked the colors to look right to him. Plus, if the colors look acceptable to me (for the internet), they should look acceptable to most people. The original film colors don't matter. Of course, if I printed, I'd have to adjust my editing since printing has its own set of rules and changes.

 

[BrianShaw]

I doubt if one person in a million would notice if a particular gamut didn't handle one particular color unless you had the original color right in front of you to compare. I imagine it would have to be a whole hue that's off color, like flesh tones, before anyone would notice.

This I believe to be absolutely true. Not sure if your proportion but in general…

My taking of those pics were solely because of this thread and I found the results interesting from that standpoint. If I hadn’t seen this thread I probably be one of those “million minus one” you mentioned.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Get around some really serious color printers and you'll begin to understand the difference. Back when certain people specialized in dye transfer portraiture, for example, my brother was standing in front of trade show counter of one of them, talking to the person next to him and not getting any response, so he looked directly and realized it was a life-sized cutout dye transfer print of someone. No inkjet or chromogenic print would ever fool you like that. Of course, something like that would cost a small fortune to do.

 

[koraks]

real color pro

I assume these people wear a badge that says something like "Real Certified Legitimate Color Pro Printer". When they meet each other, I imagine they do handshake routines that combine characteristics of contemporary rapper/gang culture and Monty Python's seminal "silly walks" routine. They carry dictionaries that they can slap acolytes and infidels with when those use terms like 'gamut', 'balance', 'hue' and 'primary' and evidently don't adhere to the standards set out in the Bible of Pro Color Printing. This text is not one that's traceable to a historical person, but allegedly has been handed down by the Rainbow Deity itself from the Pigment Mounds of the Midwest.

You recognize these Color Pros for their phenomenal acumen in discerning hues in printed materials. They may or may not be also be able to do this on real-world samples, but nobody really knows, since they rarely see the light of day. They carefully protect their eyes from any harmful UV radiation that would subtly alter the peak sensitivities of their rods and cones. Insofar as they see daylight, it's from behind tripe-pane museum glass on only north-facing windows of their viewing booths (the windows being blacked-out entirely on all days except the winter solstice to favor the artificial diffuse, shadowless black-body spectrum 5100K viewing lights) with no surfaces in view with a reflectance over 18%.

 

[foc]

I assume these people wear a badge that says something like "Real Certified Legitimate Color Pro Printer". When they meet each other, I imagine they do handshake routines that combine characteristics of contemporary rapper/gang culture and Monty Python's seminal "silly walks" routine. They carry dictionaries that they can slap acolytes and infidels with when those use terms like 'gamut', 'balance', 'hue' and 'primary' and evidently don't adhere to the standards set out in the Bible of Pro Color Printing. This text is not one that's traceable to a historical person, but allegedly has been handed down by the Rainbow Deity itself from the Pigment Mounds of the Midwest.

You recognize these Color Pros for their phenomenal acumen in discerning hues in printed materials. They may or may not be also be able to do this on real-world samples, but nobody really knows, since they rarely see the light of day. They carefully protect their eyes from any harmful UV radiation that would subtly alter the peak sensitivities of their rods and cones. Insofar as they see daylight, it's from behind tripe-pane museum glass on only north-facing windows of their viewing booths (the windows being blacked-out entirely on all days except the winter solstice to favor the artificial diffuse, shadowless black-body spectrum 5100K viewing lights) with no surfaces in view with a reflectance over 18%.

You know me so well.....................

 

[koraks]

My apologies for the diversion

 

[pentaxuser]

You didn’t see the original subject with your eyes. They were much more vivid. This isn’t a live biological tree, but art constructed of a satin-like cloth or Mylar.

You’re not being rude. My point is that a similar color of a similar material is desaturated on an iPhone photo as well as on his Portra photo. If you have a theory let’s hear it.

Thanks Can I clarify: Are you saying your picture is not of a real tree but one of art constructed of cloth material. On you second point and assuming I understood correctly what Steven said, it was that in the bush picture of the hanging flowers the desaturated one was what Portra showed but the second one which a much more normal look was that taken digitally and that while the dress was of an artificial material the digital picture was a good representation of the correct colour but the Portra was wrong.

So in the case of the dress, had I not been shown a picture of the correct colour then I would have been unaware of anything being wrong but that is not the case with the flowers with Portra which look positively drained of colour.

Drew hinted strongly that the rendition of the flowers can be improved and has a picture of such that shows it but he cannot show us

I have no theory of why this happens or why the flowers taken on Portra look so bad so no suggestions as to how to improve matters. I have never used Portra and my experience and knowledge of RA4 printing is not extensive but I certainly would like to know if the colour can be improved by any "in-camera" way combined with an optical enlargement and the optimal filtration combination for RA4

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

My apologies for the diversion

Apologies not necessary. That was hilarious and very enjoyable to read!

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks Can I clarify: Are you saying your picture is not of a real tree but one of art constructed of cloth material. On you second point and assuming I understood correctly what Steven said, it was that in the bush picture of the hanging flowers the desaturated one was what Portra showed but the second one which a much more normal look was that taken digitally and that while the dress was of an artificial material the digital picture was a good representation of the correct colour but the Portra was wrong.

So in the case of the dress, had I not been shown a picture of the correct colour then I would have been unaware of anything being wrong but that is not the case with the flowers with Portra which look positively drained of colour.

Drew hinted strongly that the rendition of the flowers can be improved and has a picture of such that shows it but he cannot show us

I have no theory of why this happens or why the flowers taken on Portra look so bad so no suggestions as to how to improve matters. I have never used Portra and my experience and knowledge of RA4 printing is not extensive but I certainly would like to know if the colour can be improved by any "in-camera" way combined with an optical enlargement and the optimal filtration combination for RA4

pentaxuser

There’s a bit of confusion, it seems. I appreciate that you are trying to puzzle through this by facilitating the conversation.

The pics I posted are two iPhone pictures of a similar color and material as Steven’s dress. No Portra was exposed by me.

I am testifying that even a direct digital image of similar color/material are not represented correctly, with ‘correctly’ being what my (and others) eyes actually witnessed. Both of the digial images I presented were not true to reality; they were both muted colors. Moreover, i demonstrated that lighting angle differentially affected the color rendering of color/material similar to that in Steven's situation.

No statement is being made by me via those images about Portra. My point is that even a digital camera produces images of that color/material that are significantly distorted, and lighting angle also affects that color distortion.

If I were to draw a conclusion it would be that the material, itself, is more of a challenging subject and “the problem” than the color gamut of either the film or the digital camera. If you haven’t already please read the link I posted earlier about photographing satin materials. That has been a documented problem in the wedding photography genre even before the development of Portra. And, please… let’s not go down the rabbit hole of “if that’s so, why didn’t they fix that problem.”

Does that help clarify?

 

[BrianShaw]

.... and since you asked... Here are a couple of 35mm Porta 160 pictures of purple and pink bologics recently photographed with a Retina IIIC that just arrived from the lab. The bluish-purple iris (I think it's an iris) are very, very close to what it looked to my eye wit the only differnce that I can discern being the softer color palette of Portra 160; the pink carnations are spot on. I wish I had a magenta biologic to photograph but no such luck. Please note, that I'm showing the "most true to reality" of several images; there were differences and the color was muted in some of them. The degree of color variation seems to depend on the lighting angle, even though in some of these Portra scans the lighting differences were quite subtle.