Let's create a Redscale Image from any regular color image (for free)

[Sharktooth]

A Redscale image is traditionally one that was shot on film that was exposed through the base of the film. When you expose the image through the base of the film, the base acts like a filter that blocks a lot of the blue light from reaching the blue sensitive layer in the film. It also affects the light reaching the green sensitive layer, but to a lesser degree. The resulting positive image was dramatically low in blue, and slightly low in green, producing a pronounced reddish-yellow-orange effect when printed on conventional analogue color paper.

In the modern era, almost all color film is scanned to create a digital image, and the negative to positive conversion, as well as color correction, is all handled through software. The final output will almost always be a digital image to be viewed on a screen, or an inkjet type printout from the digital image. Any conventional color image, from either scanned film, or direct from a digital camera, can be converted into a redscale image through simple image editing software. There is no special film needed to do this. Modern redscale films are just a marketing gimmick to sell expensive products with imaginary magical properties. It's like selling tapwater with a fancy name at an inflated price.

I used Photoshop Elements to do this, but you could use Gimp, or many other image editing software programs. In Elements, just use the Levels adjustment to filter out the Blue almost entirely, and the Green slightly. Just use the slider, and adjust to taste. .... all done.

Here are a couple of samples.

If you buy a redscale film, you're probably going to be paying about $30 for the film, processing, and scanning. For your $30 you'll have about 36 redscale images that can't be converted to look normal. If you don't like the results, you've just wasted your money. That can start to get old pretty fast. It's your choice, but be aware that you can "redscale" any color image without needing any new film, or taking any new shots.

 

[dcy]

A Redscale image is traditionally one that was shot on film that was exposed through the base of the film. When you expose the image through the base of the film, the base acts like a filter that blocks a lot of the blue light from reaching the blue sensitive layer in the film.

It's a lot more than that:

Every layer is sensitive to blue. This is the nature of silver halide. This is why color films always put the blue layer on top and then they put a yellow filter after the blue layer that blocks any left-over blue from reaching further down.

When you redscale, you not only reverse the color layers and put the film base in front, you also switch the location of the yellow filter. Now the red-sensitive layer responds to both red and blue. Then any left-over blue that didn't get caught in the red-sensitive layer has another chance to be absorbed by the green-sensitive layer. Then any left-over blue light gets completely blocked by the yellow filter, so the blue-sensitive layer becomes completely inert.

In the modern era, almost all color film is scanned to create a digital image, and the negative to positive conversion, as well as color correction, is all handled through software. The final output will almost always be a digital image to be viewed on a screen, or an inkjet type printout from the digital image. Any conventional color image, from either scanned film, or direct from a digital camera, can be converted into a redscale image through simple image editing software. There is no special film needed to do this. Modern redscale films are just a marketing gimmick to sell expensive products with imaginary magical properties. It's like selling tapwater with a fancy name at an inflated price.

By that argument, all film is a gimmick since anything you do in film and then digitize can be simulated with a 100% digital workflow. Redscale is not a gimmick. It is simply a product you can emulate digitally if that's the sort of thing you like to do. Just like there are digital filters that create a film-like effect and some people like doing that.

I used Photoshop Elements to do this, but you could use Gimp, or many other image editing software programs. In Elements, just use the Levels adjustment to filter out the Blue almost entirely, and the Green slightly. Just use the slider, and adjust to taste. .... all done.

Here is a tutorial on how to use Photoshop to make digital photos look like film:

How to Make Your Digital Photo Look Like Film | Envato Tuts+

Color or black and white, it's your choice to decide which direction you take and what look you want to achieve. Let’s go ahead and see how to make pictures look like film!

photography.tutsplus.com

If you buy a redscale film, you're probably going to be paying about $30 for the film, processing, and scanning. For your $30 you'll have about 36 redscale images that can't be converted to look normal. If you don't like the results, you've just wasted your money.

Agreed! Everyone should stop shooting film and use Photoshop to emulate the film look. If your film has the wrong exposure or the development gets messed up, you've just wasted your money. But if you use Photoshop to mimic the film look, you can move back the slider until you get a look you like.

 

[BAC1967]

I'm sure not everyone is comfortable pulling a roll of film out of the canister, flipping it over, taping it back on, then re-spooling it. buying a film that not only has that done for you, but is also known to be good for redscale, is worth a few more bucks to some people. not all color film is good for it, sometimes things like base color and anti-halation layers affect the results. I've done some experimenting with different films, some didn't work very well. Harman red is a good one because of the clear base. I found Kodak Max 400 works well (see below). shooting into the sun with the sky full of wildfire smokes helps add a dramatic effect as well.

Smoke in Redscale by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[brbo]

Cutting edge!

(manipulating images in PS)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'd much rather play with film. Red-scaling Phoenix is fun...and real.

 

[koraks]

It's a lot more than that

Yes, it is. Your explanation needs some refinement, but the gist of the argument is valid. The post-processing offered by OP will not give true redscale results, although there's a superficial likeness. A more representative 'filter' could fairly easily be constructed though. Of course, it will never be an exact substitute as illustrated by the other responses. It's very similar to the Ken Rockwell argument that we should all just shoot color (also on film; he said this done 20 years ago IIRC) and then do a b&w conversion digitally for those images we want to see in b&w. It just ain't the same, obviously - but it'll work for some people.

 

[Sharktooth]

The point here is that you can redscale any color film. It doesn't have to be a "special" redscale film. Kodak Gold, Colorplus, or anything else, can be digitally modified to produce a redscale effect. The advantage of using a normal color film is that you can get both normal color images and redscale images from the same shot. Why carry around 2 cameras to get conventional or redscale images, when you can get both with one camera and one shot.

The fact is that in the current use of color film is in a hybrid workflow. When you take color film to a lab it is processed as "analogue" in chemicals. That's where the "old school" analogue element ends. To get the final image you see, the negative will be scanned by a machine, and converted in to a digital format which is manipulated by software programs to produce a final image. The "magic" is all through fancy software, which just manipulates the recorded data in any way desired. Whether it's a Noritsu or Fuji lab scanner software, Photoshop, or any other image editing software, the color image you see is always highly manipulated, be it from a scanned film image, or from a digital sensor.

When I say that the image is highly manipulated, I'm not implying that this is a good or bad thing, it's just the way the process works. Being able to manipulate digital images through software programs has opened up so many unique opportunities for creative people that were never possible before.

If you're like me, and want to keep using film, go buy some real color film from a quality manufacturer like Kodak or Fuji. When you use quality materials you'll have unlimited potential for creative images in a hybrid workflow. All you need is some imagination and a little skill.

 

[Sharktooth]

The other point I should have made about redscale is that it isn't some universal standard. There is no standards society that governs redscale images. It's just silly to say that there's a "pure" definition of what a redscale image should look like.

If you take your redscale negatives to 10 different labs, you'll likely get 10 different results. This is because any color negative film has to be manipulated to produce a positive image. This has been a problem since color negative film was first invented. The low contrast negative was great for capturing detail for a wide range of image brightness, but when you convert that color negative image to a positive, there are a myriad of variabilities that need to be considered, and that causes varied results.

Redscale films are not normal films, and when they get scanned and digitally converted by software, the software may not have been specially programeed to deal with redscale films. Even if it was, it's unlikely that each lab will have used the exact same modification.

The bottom line is that when you look at redscale images online, there is a dramatic variation of the "look". It's because the analogue to digital conversion is all being done differently, since there is no standard convention for this material. You get what you get, and it's not surprising that this may be far different from what you expected.

 

[dcy]

The point here is that you can redscale any color film. It doesn't have to be a "special" redscale film.

People who shoot redscale are probably aware that it is regular film, spooled backwards.

Why carry around 2 cameras to get conventional or redscale images, when you can get both with one camera and one shot.

Why assume people carry 2 cameras? Not sure where that idea comes from, but please rest assured that when I shoot redscale I only carry 1 camera.

Look. If you are happy with removing the blue channel on Photoshop and calling the result "redscale" that's great and I'm happy for you. Just understand that not everyone likes the stuff you like. Personally, I would find your workflow boring and I would not be satisfied with the results.

If you're like me, and want to keep using film, go buy some real color film from a quality manufacturer like Kodak or Fuji.

But you see... you don't get to tell people how to enjoy their hobby.

Your workflow does not at all reproduce the look of redscale, and some of us would find the process a bit boring. If you enjoy editing photos in PS and you are satisfied with the look you get from removing the blue channel, then power to you.

For me personally, even if you came up with a workflow that actually mimics the look of redscale, I would not use it. I do not enjoy digital editing and I do as little of it as possible.

 

[koraks]

The point here is that you can redscale any color film.

Sure, but the point you seem to be missing and that @dcy and make is that what you're suggesting is not a real redscale effect. It's a strong red shift - looks sort of similar, but a different animal. Again, you could redscale a digital color image (regardless of where it came from) in digital post production. Your approach is one step towards that, but not a complete solution.

If you take your redscale negatives to 10 different labs, you'll likely get 10 different results.

But the actual capture and thus negative will (should) be the same. The fact that inversion & color balancing are variable is true, but that's unrelated to the redscale effect.

The bottom line is that when you look at redscale images online, there is a dramatic variation of the "look". It's because the analogue to digital conversion is all being done differently

A lot also has to do with exposure and choice of subject matter.

Also, if you're going to synthesize color rendition in its entirety in digital space anyway, why would you take on the burden of using film for the original capture to begin with? And yes, I'm aware this brings a fundamental question of the utility today of color negative film. That's a very tricky bit of subject matter I'm afraid.

 

[dcy]

The bottom line is that when you look at redscale images online, there is a dramatic variation of the "look". It's because the analogue to digital conversion is all being done differently, since there is no standard convention for this material.

I wonder if you are perhaps overestimating how much of the variability you see is due to scanning. Have a look at this example from Harman Red:

(link to the article)

These shots were all scanned the same way. The variability you see here is an inherent feature of redscale. Because blue light gets captured by the red and green sensitive layers, the ratio of red vs green varies with exposure.

Another obvious source of difference is that the film back effectively becomes a filter in front of the emulsion. So different films will redscale quite differently.

Are you sure that the differences you're seeing are due to digital processing? Or is it possible that you simply saw differences and assumed that they were digital because you did not know about some of the quirky things that happen when you redscale film?

 

[dcy]

Your explanation needs some refinement, but the gist of the argument is valid. The post-processing offered by OP will not give true redscale results, although there's a superficial likeness.

If you don't mind taking a tangent here... Can you tell me a little bit about what I missed? I'd love to know more about the nuances of how film works.

 

[koraks]

Think about the green light.

 

[dcy]

Think about the green light.

Ok. I have to admit I have no idea how they made film sensitive to red + green. Early photographic film was only sensitive to blue light because that's what plain silver halide responds to. Eventually people figured out how to make it sensitive to green and that's when orthochromatic film appears. Then people figured out how to make it sensitive to red, and that's your modern panchromatic film.

From your comment... Uhmm... does the red layer also capture green?

 

[koraks]

does the red layer also capture green?

It does indeed. There are two filter layers in a regular CN product. The blue filter below the upper image-forming layer and another green filter on top of the red-sensitive layer. This is because there's at least some green-sensitivity in the red-sensitive emulsion layer, in addition to the inherent blue and UV sensitivity of the silver halide, of course. How strong that green sensitivity is, depends on how the red layer is sensitized and I expect there'll be some gap of reduced sensitivity somewhere in the green spectrum - but it won't be complete. So for all intents and purposes, green exposure directly onto the red layer (through the film base) will also create cyan density in a CN film. This adds to your story about blue light.

Then there's of course the complication with green, which as humans we perceive in two ways: as actual wavelengths in the middle of the spectrum, but also as a biological crosstalk between our sensitivity to yellow and blue. Fortunately, the most popular greens we see a lot as photographers are leaf greens, i.e. chlorophyll, which turns out to reflect the middle of the visible spectrum (i.e. proper green) mostly, so in that sense we're pretty much OK. Other greens, especially artificial ones, may interact in unanticipated ways if you 'redscale' them. How big or subtle that effect might be...that's another fun paper napkin exercise.

 

[ChrisGalway]

...... The blue filter below the upper image-forming layer and another green filter on top of the red-sensitive layer. .....

Are you sure? The filter below the top layer is yellow (blue-absorbing). As for the second filter layer, you surely meant magenta (green-absorbing) or, more probably red (blue+green absorbing)?

 

[koraks]

We mean the same. With the blue filter I meant the blue-absorbing filter. Similar for green. And no, I didn't mean a red filter as to the best of my knowledge there isn't one in CN film as it's not needed.

 

[Sharktooth]

Here's a link to the Lomography site where they show a bunch of redscale pictures together on one page. The differences are extreme, since you're just playing the lottery about how the digital image conversion software will convert a redscale film. It has nothing to do with creative use of the technique, since it's just a gimmick anyway.

https://www.lomography.com/films/871928461-lomography-redscale-xr-50-200-35mm/photos

Talking about the "purity" or legitamacy of a "true" redscale image is just silly.

When I proposed adjusting the blue and green levels slider in Elements, I was only proposing a simple and easy method of getting the "effect". Anyone could spend a little more effort and get something better or different. Create your own bluescale or greenscale images, or whatever.

I would say that in the last 5 years, there has not been any redscale film that wasn't digitized and converted for display. That's because you have infinite control over the conversion, so it only makes sense. Color photography by analogue only methods has very limited flexibility, and can't be easily modified.

Anyone is perfectly welcome to spend their money any way they want. You can climb mountains because they're there. What's so infuriating is that many people are telling others that you must spend money on redscale film to get a "true" redscale image. We should be better than that.

 

[brbo]

What's so infuriating is that many people are telling others that you must spend money on redscale film to get a "true" redscale image. We should be better than that.

Really?

That's... absolutely horrible!!!

We should do better. We should tell people that they have to spend money on redscale film (preferably Harman Red because it IS the best redscale film) and cross process it in E-6 so they can see what they've got without any software manipulation.

 

[Don_ih]

Talking about the "purity" or legitamacy of a "true" redscale image is just silly.

People talk about far sillier things - like why someone shouldn't buy a particular film because you can get the same result in photoshop.

It's nice to propose a method how to do something for those who otherwise might not know. But why condemn what other people want to do in the process?

Harman, by offering and promoting redscale film, is offering a option to people who can't reverse the film on their own and also adding to at least some peoples' excitement about film photography.

And, really, you're implying your use-normal-colour-film-and-photoshop method is more pure or true than using film marketed for that purpose. So, isn't that silly?

 

[ChrisGalway]

..... cross process it in E-6 so they can see what they've got without any software manipulation.

You do realise that Harman's next film is to be called "Phoenix Reversal" ... same emulsion of course, but you E6 process it. Followed, 6 months later by Phoenix Redscale Reversal ... same emulsion of course ...

I hate to think what follows those two, but I'm sure Harman marketing have already figured that out.

 

[dcy]

Here's a link to the Lomography site where they show a bunch of redscale pictures together on one page. The differences are extreme, since you're just playing the lottery about how the digital image conversion software will convert a redscale film. It has nothing to do with creative use of the technique, since it's just a gimmick anyway.

https://www.lomography.com/films/871928461-lomography-redscale-xr-50-200-35mm/photos

Those look amazing. I should buy more redscale film.

You seem quite adamant that these differences are due to digital conversion. Have you been following the discussion about the very analog reasons why a redscale film gives different results depending on exposure and the particular color wavelengths in a scene?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

This is a straight scan, with black point adjusted... No manipulation.
I think this thread would have been more constructive, if the OP had done a "how to do digital redscale" instead of bashing an Ilford product.

 

[Don_ih]

I think this thread would have been more constructive, if the OP had done a "how to do digital redscale" instead of bashing an Ilford product.

Yeah, well, people get more interest that way, it seems.

 

[Sharktooth]

A straight scan is a meaningless term. I'm not "bashing" Ilford. The film is clearly a redscale film, but that isn't the concern. What is the concern is the way that the product is being marketed as the only "valid" way to make a redscale image. In my original post I described a simple way to create a redscale image from any conventional scanned film. It's not hard, and it doesn't cost anything if you already have a basic amount of skill with image editing software. You can experiment with this effect on any current images you already have, to see if this is something you're interested in.

If you buy and use a redscale film, and you end up not liking the results, there's no way to convert it back to a "normal" image. We do casual users a disservice if we don't tell them there's other ways to get this effect that work just as well, and don't put any images at risk. If you convert any normal image to redscale, and you don't like the result, you always still have the original. Nothing's lost, and everything is still to gain with any other manipulation you may want. That's the whole advantage of a hybrid workflow.

If a casual user see's this effect, and wants to try this out, all the information provided here would tell them that they should be buying redscale film. Anything else is not really redscale, as if there was some fundamental law about what a redscale image really is. All the bashing being done is on me, who's only providing a sensible alternative, that doesn't cost them anything to try, and can be done with any normal film without losing anything. When someone buys a redscale film, and gets disappointing results, we shouldn't be surprised when they start thinking that film is only for special effects. We all lose in that scenario.

What would be benificial for the film industry would be for Harman to make a redscale app. They could provide this download for a nominal fee (or free) for anyone that buys Phoenix. The conversion app would be tailored to the characteristics of Phoenix, which is clearly much different than other color films in the market. That would be a win-win for everyone.

Phoenix/Red is clearly a substandard film when compared to anything from Kodak or Fuji. Everyone, including me, wants a viable competitor in the marketplace. Unfortunatley, trying to sell a substandard product at a premium price through gimmick marketing, is not a good path forward, in my opinion. You can only fool people so many times, and all your credibility is lost.