Low contrast films?

[George Mann]

For good or ill, the vast majority of colour neg questions unfortunately involve having to deal with the oddities induced by Frontier/ Noritsu machines and their sometimes questionable idea of colour/ density corrections.

Are these scanners really faulty, or does the real fault lie in the component that is situated between the control panel and the chair?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Are these scanners really faulty, or does the real fault lie in the component that is situated between the control panel and the chair?

They aren't faulty - instead, certain compromises seem to made in terms of gamut etc, such as to enable relatively inexperienced operators to achieve high productivity rates quite quickly - and the results can then be readily output on to RA4 papers without gamut problems. It was a pretty clever solution at the time - especially in the way they enacted scanning & colour correction automation (especially in terms of handling poorly exposed/ processed film), but if absolute quality of colour matters, there are better solutions - ie high end scanning or optical enlarger prints on RA4 paper. Neither are cheap.

 

[George Mann]

but if absolute quality of colour matters, there are better solutions

Though you say that, I have been happier with the scans from a Fuji Frontier of Colorplus and Ektar than more expensive services offered.

But then again, I have gone out of my way to find a truly competent lab tech to operate it.

I normally shoot slide film though.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@George Mann With a decent operator, Frontiers can deliver pretty good results. I have however seen many horrid scans of Ektar (from many different machines & operators), caused mainly by overexposing it & poor decisions about how to deal with the consequent crossover at the scanning step. Ektar can be stunningly good - if exposed correctly (treat it like transparency rather than neg) - and sensibly inverted/ colour corrected. Above a certain level of quality of scanner, the ability of the operator matters far more than the machine.

 

[Ten301]

This is a 100% analog thread and I do not understand why repeatedly reference/advice to scanning is made.

If the answer is "nobody does colour wet prints anymore", then let us close that whole analogue-colour thing for good.

Like it or not, just the process of the OP showing examples to us in this thread involves scanning. While this is an analogue thread, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority send their C41 films out to be processed and printed and/or scanned. For most it doesn't make economic sense to do it at home with the volume they shoot, even if the wanted to. It's also a fact that only a few labs still do optical printing. So it's simply a matter of current realities. I don't think we should have an allergic reaction when someone posts a question about this or that film and how to get a desired result and the subject of scanning comes up. That's a reality of analogue photography in 2020.

 

[AgX]

Like it or not, just the process of the OP showing examples to us in this thread involves scanning. While this is an analogue thread, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority send their C41 films out to be processed and printed and/or scanned.

You gave the expected reply. My answer to this you have read above.

 

[Scott Micciche]

I've found shooting expired film at its box speed produces some lower contrast (less shadow blacks/detail as a result, however). You might want to pick up some to try out.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

. you could pre-expose to lower the contrast...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Looking at your examples, it just looks like a normal colour film, with subject shot under soft lighting... For outdoor, sunny scenes, as I said previously, pre-exposure will give you a softer look, like in your first example...

 

[film_man]

You gave the expected reply. My answer to this you have read above.

It would be a very small world with very few opinions and very poor results if this forum was limited to people that only optically print, especially when it comes to C41. At the end of the day if the mention of a scanner when discussing practical solutions to using film offends you just move on and ignore the thread.

 

[George Mann]

What is sad is that we no longer have readily available and reasonably affordable optical analog printing.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Regardless of the final output options, most labs will not pull process C41, not any more. For non-digital solutions to the contrast/saturation issue, I'd second/third/fourth the previous recommendations of altering the lighting in the scene with diffusion and/or reflectors (1st preference), fill-flash (distant second - unless you know how to control it, it won't alter the saturation, just the overall contrast), and very distant third, expired film - look for stuff that's over 10 years past date, so that it needs additional exposure. The great risk with the expired film technique is that the conditions in which it was stored and handled are unpredictable, so you really don't know what you're going to get - if it was frozen, it may not have a perceptible loss, but if it was stored in a metal cabinet in an un-airconditioned garage, well... it may have significant degradation.

 

[Ten301]

What is sad is that we no longer have readily available and reasonably affordable optical analog printing.

Blue Moon Camera and Machine in Portland, Oregon is the only one I'm aware of in the U.S., although there may be others. They do excellent work.

 

[George Mann]

Blue Moon Camera and Machine in Portland, Oregon is the only one I'm aware of in the U.S., although there may be others. They do excellent work.

Which is neither readily available for those living outside Portland, nor reasonably affordable per roll.

I do commend their service however.