Skycreeper
Allowing Ads
Is it possible your Portra 400 was overheated before you processed it?
Film goes through so many hands and storage conditions on the way to us; and even if our film is in the same dye lot, individual rolls can be mishandled by freight forwarders.
Everything you list is fine, and it's a plus that you're using a separate bleach and fix. The idea of blix has never felt "right" to me.
My wife and I owned and ran a large commercial film lab with Pako dip and dunk processors for E-6 and C-41. We kept the temp +/- one quarter of a degree with two 100-gallon water heaters and a super-accurate temperature control system. Even running 3 control strips a day, replenishing with my obsessive tendencies, and removing as many sources of error as I thought possible, there would be that rare "Oh, my goodness" situation.
Just a thought: what if you purchased 3 (or more) rolls of fresh Portra 400 from 3 different suppliers, mark them with twin checks (or other unique identifiers), and processed them in your well-established procedure setup.
Hopefully somebody will have THE answer for you.
What do the negatives look like on the light table? Could you compare your Portra 400 vs. Fuji 400 vs. a third negative that you know is good?
As @BillBaileyImages said your film is a primary suspect here. It has a characteristic "expired look". Your Fuji film also has problems. The part to the right of the subject is much warmer than the left-hand half of the image.
Also, could you share information on the C41 kit you are using? Was single-use or did you reuse it after developing other films in the same solutions?
I like your images. I hope you can recover the colors with post processing.
I think it’s difficult to judge based on an inverted scan of a negative, some films just come out like that. Every single Portra I’ve scanned has had a green/teal color shift. I also develop at home.
Would you mind uploading the scanned negative somewhere to let me have a try at converting it?
Scanned with Canon R, pp with Negative Lab Pro.
no problem with color
The part to the right of the subject is much warmer than the left-hand half of the image.
Please just upload them here, thanks.What is your email?
The Kodak color films have a very persistent magenta dye
The problem is that automatic color correction tools (like NPP, but also 'standard' scanning tools like Epson scan etc.) determine "correct" color balance on the basis of image content. These tools have no absolute benchmark to base the color correction on, and as a result, the final color balance of the image is fairly random. Most of the time it will not match the original scene, but depending on what the tool does and what your preferences are, you may still be happy with it (see e.g. the Fuji shot, which also has unrealistic colors).
If you're satisfied with the Fuji negative, that's fine, but I suspect it's pretty bad even based on the scan. Given the rendering of the shadows, it's either underexposed or (more likely) fairly heavily fogged. The latter is likely given the age of the film.
Yes, there are gross color balance variations across the frame, in both examples posted. This makes them virtually impossible to color balance well. I suspect these trace back to the camera scanning setup and unevenness in the illumination of the negative.
@Skycreeper can you provide some more details on your camera scanning setup? I think most of your problems trace back to this part.
Once you've got the digital part of the process under control, it's worth having another look at your film processing. However, it makes no sense to try and troubleshoot your development process at this point. You would just end up trying to correct digitization/scanning problems by adjusting the chemical side of the process. The result of this will just be a massive amplification of problems and a bunch of wasted film and chemistry.
This expired Fuji400 is indeed not optimal, with a blotch of yellow in the middle
PS: it might really help if you could also post one or two 'raw' negative scans here (not inverted or color-corrected). They don't need to be full-resolution files; you can downsize them so they can be posted on the forum. This will make it a little easier to see what you're actually working with.
The yellow blotch is unrelated to the film being expired. It's most likely a light scanning source problem. Maybe you've just overlooked it until now; it sometimes takes a while before you figure a problem out and then it turns out it was there all the time.
Could you post some scans of your good Gold 200, Ektar 100 etc. negatives?
What kind of light box and diffusion do you use? Many white LED panels have very uneven illumination and need additional diffusion.
PS: it might really help if you could also post one or two 'raw' negative scans here (not inverted or color-corrected). They don't need to be full-resolution files; you can downsize them so they can be posted on the forum. This will make it a little easier to see what you're actually working with.
And this is the light box I am using.
Yeah, all your scans have the same problem with a yellow spot in the center. I think you maybe overlooked it because it kind of looks like a natural vignette.
The color balance on all of your photos shows distinct anomalies; none of them looks right.
In the Ektar example, note the blue band at the bottom of the frame.
On the Fuji example, note how the white dress goes from blue (bottom) to yellow (top).
Both of them have a distinctly brighter center area and darker corners that don't look like lens vignette since they coincide with color balance changes.
The Gold 200 shot is overall wonky color-wise, but that's at least partly due to the lighting in the scene, so difficult to get that to come out right one way or another.
I agree the Portra 400 shot looks especially problematic, but since the problems are occurring in all examples, I think you're dealing with a systematic issue in your scanning setup, not so much a film-related problem.
It's a tracing pad. It's not made to offer perfectly diffuse and even lighting. You could try building another diffuser on top of it; take a piece of milky white translucent plexiglass and place that on top of the light pad, with a distance of a couple of centimeters (let's say 10cm or so) between the tracing pad and the additional plexiglass.
The other thing you'll have to do is block out all light that doesn't come from the actual light source, and reduce reflections. It's possible that your color balance problems are in part caused by light from your tracing pad bouncing around between the negative and the lens, creating flare and contrast problems (they will also affect color balance). You need to use a mask that cuts sharply around the negative and blocks out all other light. Ideally you use a column that blocks all light from outside entering the space between the negative and the digital camera lens. The inside of this column/chimney needs to be painted matte black so it doesn't reflect any light, which can cause flare problems.
Light source design is kind of an art and turns out to be more complicated than it seems at first glance. It's tricky because at first you might expect that you can simply take any old tracing pad, slap a negative onto it and fire away, but then it turns out that you run into a million problems - as you are presently finding out.
If you can post some photos of your scanning setup I'm sure people will be able to offer some additional advice. The general tendency will come down to:
1: Ensure perfectly even, diffuse light shining through the negative.
2: Block out all other light regardless where it comes from, and reduce reflections in the optical system.
If you look at how a diffusor enlarger works, you'll notice that it is designed to exactly these things, so it's not really new knowledge. It's been around for 100+ years, but the digital generation will need to re-invent it from the ground up, it seems.
How about this image, apart from focus error, any color shift issues?
I think it’s difficult to judge based on an inverted scan of a negative, some films just come out like that. Every single Portra I’ve scanned has had a green/teal color shift. I also develop at home.
Would you mind uploading the scanned negative somewhere to let me have a try at converting it?
I looked at the negatives and did a rescan. This time I put the negative in the middle of the light pad and did manual inversion. These are findings:Hard/impossible to tell with the mixed lighting. You've got very warm/low-K artificial (LED?) lighting in the foreground right, something much cooler (streetlights; with typical Cinestill halation) shining in from the exterior and mixed lighting on the wine rack in the middle. The couch is also a mix. Since the lighting is so variable across the image area, it would be hard to notice more subtle shifts across the frame, even if they are there. For instance, if the center is yellow in this particular frame, you'll never notice because the skin tones on the face are very warm due to the light source on the right side and on the wine rack the yellow cast is lost in the color of the bottles.
For reasons like these it's very likely you never noticed the problem - until you start photographing scenes that are more critical and everything starts to crumble. Try shooting a model on a grey/overcast day in a concrete environment. You'll drive yourself crazy to get it to balance shots like those well, especially if you need good shot-shot and roll-to-roll consistency!
the Portra is still color shifted to green
Thanks for posting the actual negatives. You have severe cyan staining on the portra negative. In my experience this is generally due to either optical fogging (e.g. while spooling the film onto the developing reel) or due to incomplete bleaching and/or especially fixing. I'd start by running this film through fresh bleach and fix and see if that makes a difference. If you try one strip of film, you can compare it with the rest of the film to see if there was any change. I suspect that your replenishment method doesn't work well and has left you with dead fixer.
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?