Newbie, first roll developed but odd colours

RockyT · May 26, 2015

Hi guys, I'm a newbie in film photography and I recently made a decision to step up into medium format with a Hassy and a Rollei. I was really interested in film because I've seen so many samples in the past where the colours and tones are just uniquely beautiful. I shot my first few films and just got the scans back today but I'm somewhat disappointed with the results mainly on the colours. I shot with an Ektar100 and the results I got looked like it had an instagram filter applied onto it. My initial thoughts was maybe they were bad scans but I hope you guys can help point me in the right direction on how to improve. Do these results seem normal to you? If not what do you think could be the potential problem? Could it be bad scans or maybe the chemicals used were old (the films used were well before their expiry date)? I was expecting to get very transparent like tones and colours from the ektar. I'm really new to film so I'd love to hear any suggestions on comments, thank you for your time.

Rocky

Straight scans from labs:

rollei

hassy

rollei

RobC · May 26, 2015

since they are scans you have to consider the scanning and what colour adjustments were done there, your monitor calibration, what you've done to the images in your image editor, what the upload to apug has done and what my and everyone elses monitor calibration is. So in short no one on the web can tell you if there's a problem or not, we don't know what you're seeing and you don't know what we're seeing.
Images look OK to me, perhaps slightly over saturated but only a tad. We don't know what the exact original colours were so can only guess how correct or otherwise they are.

Next time put a colour reference chart in one of your images so that you and we can correct/adjust colour properly.

bdial · May 26, 2015

If you're looking for subtle color, Porta may work better for you. Ektar tends to be pretty saturated, I think of it as what Kodachrome would be as a negative film.

These look fine to me, there seems to be plenty of detail in the dark tones, for example the model's hair and blouse, and the color looks like about what I would expect from Ektar.

More exposure may help. Adding a stop or two will begin to wash out the highlights, but I'm not sure that would get you the "transparent" tones you're looking for or not.

Is the effect you are after a little more like the seascape?

Mustafa Umut Sarac · May 26, 2015

In my opinion , ektar can be rarely good and frequently very bad. They say highest resolution film but colors are horrid , in my opinion worst color film from kodak and worst in the market. I Find regular film like gold 200 or superia and enjoy the colors.
I am getting horrible results from our labs and bad film , bad processing , bad exposure , shaky camera , bad scanner total is horrible.
Switch in to bw and self develop , print and scan from print , use good enlarger and camera lens , use good paper , everything turns in to heaven. I dont know there but here color photography finished

bernard_L · May 26, 2015

Ektar is marketed as high saturation; your impression is interesting: "like it had an instagram filter applied onto it". You ask for suggestions: start with something more "middle-of-road", like Portra.

trythis · May 26, 2015

You never know what you'll get from lab scans. Were they auto adjusted or done by hand?
They look normal on my phone, but the back lit shots are a little flared, especially the guitar. But that is not what you asked about.

Typos made on a tiny phone...

bvy · May 26, 2015

Consider that if you took the same film strip and scanned it on three different scanners, you would likely get three wildly different results -- possibly to the extent that you would doubt that they were the same film. That's why I'm wary of statements that extol a film's saturation or palette based on the scan alone.

These look fine to me. If they were printed optically, they would look very different -- I'm pretty sure of that.

RockyT · May 26, 2015

Thank you for the replies guys . I had no idea that ektar is a high saturation film, I saw some samples up on the net which were very "light" in colours and assumed I'd be getting similar results. My monitor is colour calibrated but I'm seeing yellows creeping in the highlights from the scans. A lot of the shots were taken on overcast days so I found that a bit odd. How important is it to use warming/cooling filters for film? I wish I had a mentor but I hope you guys don't mind me asking really newbie questions. I am trying to get professional results with the mf system so I'd love to hear any tips or suggestions so I can improve. I'm hoping that by the end of this year I can go on a holiday with just a film system so I'm all ears. The flare is from the Rolleiflex, I'm guessing its because I didn't use the hood which didn't have at the time.

RockyT · May 26, 2015

trythis said:
You never know what you'll get from lab scans. Were they auto adjusted or done by hand?
They look normal on my phone, but the back lit shots are a little flared, especially the guitar. But that is not what you asked about.

Typos made on a tiny phone...

I have no idea how it was done. It was small scans and I was given around 5mb jpegs with the pics on them. I asked them whether if they were processed or not but I haven't got a reply. Would it be wise for me to invest in a scanner say something like the Epson Vxxx with betterscanning holders and fine tune from there?

LMNOP · May 26, 2015

RockyT said:
Thank you for the replies guys . I had no idea that ektar is a high saturation film, I saw some samples up on the net which were very "light" in colours and assumed I'd be getting similar results. My monitor is colour calibrated but I'm seeing yellows creeping in the highlights from the scans. A lot of the shots were taken on overcast days so I found that a bit odd. How important is it to use warming/cooling filters for film? I wish I had a mentor but I hope you guys don't mind me asking really newbie questions. I am trying to get professional results with the mf system so I'd love to hear any tips or suggestions so I can improve. I'm hoping that by the end of this year I can go on a holiday with just a film system so I'm all ears. The flare is from the Rolleiflex, I'm guessing its because I didn't use the hood which didn't have at the time.

I know if is off topic for APUG but I would suggest using VueScan software and owning your own scanner.

Ektar is tricky, and I think they said it best about starting with Portra. I am still trying to wrangle my Ektar results, but with the right scanning, its the most beautiful film in my opinion. I go back and forth between portra and ektar but when I shoot ektar, the scanning process takes more time. I end up custom adapting the scan settings.

Here's a recent Ektar shot, saturation is under control and the fine grain is working in my favor.

zanxion72 · May 26, 2015

I would expect more warm tones by Ektar 100. That color shift to colder ones denotes development problems (or out of date film).

RobC · May 26, 2015

I maintain that if you put a colour reference chart into the first image on any roll of film, then you have the have the ability to correct to a known reference when you get your scans back regardless of scanning or dev being off a bit.

If you have a colour printer then you can print your own on a piece of A4 from time to time. Its so easy, why wouldn't you do it.

trythis · May 26, 2015

The size and resolution of scans only makes a difference in printing. Your computer monitor has 72 or 96 dpi resolution, posting online you only need a 800 pixel image at 72 dpi
Getting a scanner thats high rez only makes bigger files. I would recommend getting an older used cheaper flatbed and see if you want to deal with the tedious nature of scanning first. It might be better to use the cd you are getting now and get better scans done for things you want print big.
If you have the cash ($1000) for an epson and better scanning, consider instead having your good shots drum scanned or build a darkroom.

Typos made on a tiny phone...

RobC · May 26, 2015

trythis said:
The size and resolution of scans only makes a difference in printing. Your computer monitor has 72 or 96 dpi resolution, posting online you only need a 800 pixel image at 72 dpi

Typos made on a tiny phone...

That might have been true a few years ago but not today. There are loads of retina screens out there now. I was only looking at a new apple 5K monitor the other day to test a website I wrote for someone. Other manufacturers are producing them too. They are really designed for ultra high definition video but graphics pros are using them and photographers too. Pixel density is over 200 ppi so the now very old idea that its 72 ppi or 96 ppi is defunct.

Ok so 5K monitors aren't that common yet but 1920x1080 are now very common so 800 pixel image is too small on those. My experience having tested on a 5K 27 inch 16:9 monitor is that image size of around 2400 pixels wide works well. If the monitor was physically larger than 27inch diag then it would start to suffer.

Unfortunately using this size images leads to problems of filesize, bandwidth and of theft since a 2400 pixel wide image is very useable.

trythis · May 26, 2015

I have never seen one of these screens. My web site must be very very small on them. The thumbnails are 100 pixels wide and must be only 1/2 inch visually. It must also be irritating to see images made for retinas on a an antique ips lcd screen that are nearly a foot wide visually.

Typos made on a tiny phone...

Sirius Glass · May 26, 2015

Ektar 100 color are a bit garish plus there may be improper color balancing from the scanning process. Try Kodak Porta 160 or 400 for more accurate color renditions since they are professional films balances for all skin colors.

gone · May 26, 2015

You might want to take the saturation and contrast down to where you like it in your image editing program, and you'll be good to go. You could play around w/ the hues as well. Those files have been way over sharpened, which is par for the course w/ most lab scans.

RobC · May 26, 2015

trythis said:
I have never seen one of these screens. My web site must be very very small on them. The thumbnails are 100 pixels wide and must be only 1/2 inch visually. It must also be irritating to see images made for retinas on a an antique ips lcd screen that are nearly a foot wide visually.

Typos made on a tiny phone...

Modern websites are written to be what is called "responsive". This means the content will flow and scale to fit any size screen including mobile phones if its done well enough. But yes, an old website which is NOT "responsive" and was written to fit an 800 pixel wide screen will look tiny on some currently available monitors.

Typically galleries like using these large hi res monitors to view artists work for potential exhibition so its wise to stay with whats happening if you want to use galleries to show your work.

pentaxuser · May 26, 2015

The scans look OK to me but it's a scan of a print that replicates the print that we need to see. Before you make up your mind about how saturated Ektar is, have a look in the gallery at theflyingcamera's shot with Ektar.

pentaxuser

ic-racer · May 26, 2015

Do these results seem normal to you?

Not sure what I am looking at in the first post. If those are scans, they have been either intentionally or unintentionally, reversed and the orange mask removed. I'd not read too much into proof-scans (assuming you are using those instead of proof prints) because of what you know from the manufacturer's datasheet:

Because no standards exist to define the colored filter sets that film scanners use to capture the red, green, and blue information of the film image, each manufacturers scanner has its own characteristic output. Kodak E-4046

Ektar is a negative film and If this is your first time printing color negative film, remember that filter pack changes are opposite what you would expect. It may seem counterintuitive, but if the test print is too yellow you need to ADD yellow to the filter pack, etc.

RobC · May 26, 2015

they were scanned with an SP-3000 which is a fuji frontier scanner I believe. The lab concerned probably has reasonably well calibrated settings unless they are completely useless.

removed account4 · May 26, 2015

hi rocky
working with a lab can be tricky ...
it is like dating, conversations and dinner and dessert
...what i mean is sometimes it takes going inside and talking with
the people at the lab and asking questions about how
the images were made ( saturation, levels boost, sharpening &c)
and it might take a few visits until
you and lab speaks the same language .. so
when you go with a roll they say automatically " this is rocky's film, straight scans
no over sharpening, no over saturation, let the film do its thing"
and maybe they can give up little prints ( 4x6 proofs?) to make sure everything is kopacetic ..
I have a lab I use who is local, she is a wizard with color, enlargements and everything else ..
it's good to have a local lab you can have a relationship with, it keeps everyone happy ..
if you sent your film away to be processed .. I'd learn rudimentary ( or more ) editing skills
so if you get proofs like this, you know how to tweek them to be the way you want

nice portraits by the way !
john

toyotadesigner · May 26, 2015

The scanner is a Fuji Frontier SP-3000. The white point is correct, the colors appear to be close to being perfect. However, if the film had not been profiled and the machine data for the film type had been used, it could be that the colors are a bit off. But this is all about the technical theory.

I've never used Kodak Ektar 100 because I've read that it is somewhat 'colorful'. A Kodak Portra 160 or the Fuji Pro 160 NS might be suited better for your needs if you want pastel type colors.

250swb · May 26, 2015

RockyT said:
I'm really new to film so I'd love to hear any suggestions on comments, thank you for your time.

It is the wrong forum to discuss this but a scan is a digital capture, and as such you need to do the normal post processing that you would do with any digital image in Lightroom or Photoshop. The reason the pictures don't pop out of the scanner the way you are thinking the image should appear is because the scanner and/or the person operating it have know way to understand what it is you are expecting. The scanner, and/or person operating it, will do an 'average job' hoping to get close, but what is average if everybody wants super saturated colour for their holiday snaps?

Steve

RockyT · May 26, 2015

Thank you guys very much for all the tips and advice. I played with the files yesterday and I could get better results but I've still got a long way to go. I think I had the wrong expectations of what the film process is like, I thought the starting scan would be like a subtle raw file where I would need to add contrast or saturation to taste. In this case I had to dial it back. I know color is subjective but do you guys see a noticeable difference between the two scans below? They're shot within minutes but the second one has the color palette which is to my taste. The lighting and metering was identical but I don't understand why they look so different. The first one was the one I initially posted and I adjusted with lots of color adjustment in lightroom, the second had no color adjustments. I was not able to get color from the first picture to look the same as the second one with digital processing.

Newbie, first roll developed but odd colours

RockyT

Attachments

RobC

bdial

Mustafa Umut Sarac

bernard_L

trythis

bvy

RockyT

RockyT

LMNOP

Attachments

zanxion72

RobC

trythis

RobC

trythis

Sirius Glass

gone

RobC

pentaxuser

ic-racer

RobC

removed account4

toyotadesigner

250swb

RockyT

Attachments

Newbie, first roll developed but odd colours

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency