Luminar 100 35mm film

[Huss]

Leica M7, CV 50 2.5, Luminaire 100

 

[Huss]

Leica M7, CV 50 2.5, Luminaire 100

I always get a light leak shooting the first image on this film. But this is not the film's fault really, as I am being cheap and squeaking out shot count 0. If I wound it on to 1, no issue (plus they roll 38 exposures anyway).

Still, the leak looks kinda cool on this pic!

 

[MattKing]

A suggestion: use the 0 frame to shoot something like a reference or date page or something that will assist with keeping your rolls organized.

 

[Huss]

A suggestion: use the 0 frame to shoot something like a reference or date page or something that will assist with keeping your rolls organized.

I thought that was what the text boxes were for on my printfile sleeves?

 

[MattKing]

I thought that was what the text boxes were for on my printfile sleeves?

It is. But having the reference on the film itself makes it much easier to remember which film is what, in furtherance of getting the right info into those text boxes!

 

[Huss]

 

[Huss]

I really like this film, and it is an excellent option if you cannot get hold of your normal fix.

 

[mtnbkr]

I really like this film, and it is an excellent option if you cannot get hold of your normal fix.

I'm liking the pictures you're posting and can't wait for Spring to arrive so I can put my two rolls to use. I'm not going to waste them while everything is brown and yucky.

Chris

 

[Ten301]

I really like this film, and it is an excellent option if you cannot get hold of your normal fix.

Is it my eyes, or do many of the examples I see posted online of Kodak Aerocolor IV show this film to have a just barely perceptible peachy/pink cast? Not necessarily a bad thing and it doesn’t detract from the film in any way, but the photos from it look just a bit different than other films.

 

[Huss]

Is it my eyes, or do many of the examples I see posted online of Kodak Aerocolor IV show this film to have a just barely perceptible peachy/pink cast? Not necessarily a bad thing and it doesn’t detract from the film in any way, but the photos from it look just a bit different than other films.

You mean on this thread or elsewhere?

 

[Ten301]

You mean on this thread or elsewhere?

Everywhere. It seems to have an overall very slight, almost imperceptible (but noticeable) warm peach/pink hue to it. I know that’s not a very technical description, but it’s the best way I can describe it. It doesn’t affect the color balance. The film to me looks a lot like a Kodak Gold/Pro Image film, but with that extra touch of peach/pink. Perhaps it’s something my eye is picking up on from the film having a slightly different sensitivity due to its intended purpose. I don’t know.

 

[Huss]

Interesting. Well, it is its own film and it would be good that there is a difference to others. As I scan it, cast can be adjusted but I don’t really see what you see. Maybe that’s because I like how it looks!

 

[Kino]

The blacks appear to have an ever so slight peach tinge.

Perhaps a bit of increased red sensitivity in the toe region?

 

[Huss]

 

[Ten301]

The blacks appear to have an ever so slight peach tinge.

Perhaps a bit of increased red sensitivity in the toe region?

I never thought a film could be described as having peachy blacks, but I think you’ve nailed it. That might be what my eye is picking up on. I think because it does seem to affect black, it affects the overall photo slightly. I’ve also noticed it shows up a bit in all skin tones, light and dark.

 

[MattKing]

Peachy blacks might actually be the result of having to correct for cyan skies.

 

[Huss]

Peachy blacks might actually be the result of having to correct for cyan skies.

To do that one could just dial back on the cyan.

What this thread needs is input/pics posted from someone else! Cuz it could be the way I process it (to my taste) or the film. Or both.

 

[MattKing]

To do that one could just dial back on the cyan.

Which makes all the rest red.

 

[kino-eye]

I've seen it claimed that Aerocolor has increased red saturation to counteract the haze typical with aerial photography. The B&H description also claims "its design also provides 30nm-longer red sensitivity than previous aerial films for increased haze penetration and foliage reproduction, as well as increased green saturation and lower D-min values for fast printing times." Saturation/color balance and wavelength sensitivity are different things, but they both may be formulated to counteract haze. I'm also curious about dynamic range for this film, since the Kodak data sheet mentions the "smaller range in subject luminance" in addition to "atmospheric haze conditions" typical of aerial photography.

 

[koraks]

Virtually all of these subtleties that may or may not be part of the film will be totally swamped by digital post processing. Based on scans like these (which I find very pretty, btw) there's no saying what "the film does". Don't worry about it; if digital output is intended, shoot whatever color film you can find/like and then make it look the way you fancy.

 

[foc]

Many years ago, I used this type of test print to determine the correct colour for a film and if True Balance didn't have the negative type, we shot our own.

As Matt said, less cyan makes the image look red (bottom right ++-)

 

[koraks]

Ironically, that example ringaround is significantly shifted to red - which goes to show that the digital domain is kind of fickle if you try and use it as a proxy for the properties of film and paper materials.

 

[Kino]

I think it has a nice color pallet and, for whatever reason, looks just different enough (in the scans I have seen) to be a nice alternative.

 

[Huss]

Virtually all of these subtleties that may or may not be part of the film will be totally swamped by digital post processing. Based on scans like these (which I find very pretty, btw) there's no saying what "the film does". Don't worry about it; if digital output is intended, shoot whatever color film you can find/like and then make it look the way you fancy.

I agree. When you scan film, you can fiddle around however you want. What I really like about this film is it gives nice results, has very fine grain (can't fake that!) and is AVAILABLE!!! For a decent price.

I would like other people to post their results so it's not just me and my process shown.

 

[Huss]

I've seen it claimed that Aerocolor has increased red saturation to counteract the haze typical with aerial photography. The B&H description also claims "its design also provides 30nm-longer red sensitivity than previous aerial films for increased haze penetration and foliage reproduction, as well as increased green saturation and lower D-min values for fast printing times." Saturation/color balance and wavelength sensitivity are different things, but they both may be formulated to counteract haze. I'm also curious about dynamic range for this film, since the Kodak data sheet mentions the "smaller range in subject luminance" in addition to "atmospheric haze conditions" typical of aerial photography.

I have noticed that this film really makes reds pop. When I pp I just do very basic things and do not touch saturation to try to emphasize reds.

Here are some more examples of poppin' reds, and you will also see reds a-poppin in my previous shots.