Problem with Portra 400

[amellice]

Hello, I recently developed a roll of Portra 400 and I started to make some prints. It's my first Portra. I've done Ektar 100. With Portra I chose a negative that has some skin tone to decide the color filters in my Beseler enlarger, I managed to get good skin tone and colors, so I started to print other negatives.

The problem is 2 shots have magenta cast all over the image not just in shadows. The shot was in kind of dim lighting situation, they were shots for a friend of mine in a stadium during NHL game. I didn't know what is the problem so I decided to try another one. I did and got another print with red yellowish cast, I thought that this maybe cause by the shot was taken under tungsten light? But I'm not sure so I decided to ask first. Any help is really appreciated

Paper is Kodak Ultra Endura Gloss surface

Thanks

 

[MattKing]

Tungsten light definitely gives you a red-yellow cast.

And under-exposure may result in a magenta cast.

When the colour of your light source varies, you can compensate for that by either using compensating filters on the camera (preferable) or, to a certain extent, adjusting the colour settings at the printing stage.

 

[shutterboy]

A scan or 2 might be helpful?

 

[wildbill]

most venues like this aren't illuminated with tungsten (3200k) light but with all sorts of other types like mercury vapor, sodium vapor, cool white flourescent, warm white flourescent, and LEDs. All of these lamps cause issues with color film.

 

[Rudeofus]

Unless the light source is way out of whack (like low pressure sodium vapor lamps), you should be able to correct for these issues by adjusting filtration of your enlarger head (as suggested by Matt King). You should look for film or processing problems only if you can't correct your colors by filtration.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Uneven processing can do this as well.

PE

 

[Athiril]

What does it look like when you balance the magenta out with the filtration?

 

[amellice]

so this is the first photo, i took this of wife and son in the stadium on my right hand

this one is for my friend on my left hand side a moment after

and this shot is taken out the venue, it has red yellowish cast

all have been prepossessed in the same session, temp, time

 

[Photo Engineer]

The first one is "nearly" normal, but the last two lack cyan dye for some reason. This is negative film cyan dye. If you can rebalance, then it is a speed problem, but otherwise it is a process problem. It also looks like fluorescent lighting in the first one or some other lighting is interfering with the image quality.

PE

 

[Rudeofus]

RA4 is a high contrast process, which means small deviations in the negative or filtration have big effects in the print. I was unable to correct the colors of your print scan, but this means in no way that the negative can't be printed. If you can correct the highlights through filtration during printing, check whether the shadow regions look good. If they are off, you need to fix the process, whereas if they are good then, filtration is all you need, either during capture, or during printing.

 

[amellice]

just to make sure that I understand correctly, by rebalancing you mean trying to get the print right by changing filters when enlarging, if it works then it's speed problem (what speed? the shutter speed?) but otherwise it's a process problem (of the film itself or the prints)

 

[Rudeofus]

First of all, I assume you know about light temperature and related topics. A typical example is tungsten light, where red is about four times as strong as blue, which means if you don't correct with a suitable blue filter and adjust exposure, your blue sensitive layer (yellow) will be two stops underexposed while the red sensitive layer (cyan) will be mostly ok. Since C-41 film has a lot more latitude than RA4 paper, you can correct the yellow layer underexposure by adjusting filtration during printing, but you can imagine that blue will be a bit lacking in shadow detail.

Since you map the large density range of your color negative to the small input density range of your RA4 paper, a large amount of clipping will normally occur: shadows that have detail in your negative could end up solid black in your print, and in the same fashion highlights could be rendered as white blobs on your print that actually have plenty of detail in your negative. This means that your print may look way out of whack, and a nuanced change in filtration and exposure (during printing! ) can put everything back in place.

If you are unsure about light temperature during shooting, overexpose by two stops during film exposure, adjust filtration during printing and everything will be fine. One exception to this is low pressure sodium vapor lamps, which have a distinct yellow narrow band spectrum. As a result there is no blue light during exposure, and there will be no distinction between red and green subject colors. Unless you like the black/yellow prints that such images give you, you'd avoid these light sources.

Different issues can appear when C-41 processing is off: if the density vs. exposure slope of some color layer is off, no amount of filtration can correct for this issue: if you correctly dial in the high lights, your shadows will have a color cast, and vice versa. You can correct these easily with digital post processing, but not with standard dark room techniques.

That's why I was interested whether adjusting filter pack and exposure during printing could give usable prints: if yes, then your issue was most likely unaccounted light temperature, if no, you likely have some film processing issues.

 

[amellice]

First of all, I assume you know about light temperature and related topics. A typical example is tungsten light, where red is about four times as strong as blue, which means if you don't correct with a suitable blue filter and adjust exposure, your blue sensitive layer (yellow) will be two stops underexposed while the red sensitive layer (cyan) will be mostly ok. Since C-41 film has a lot more latitude than RA4 paper, you can correct the yellow layer underexposure by adjusting filtration during printing, but you can imagine that blue will be a bit lacking in shadow detail.

Since you map the large density range of your color negative to the small input density range of your RA4 paper, a large amount of clipping will normally occur: shadows that have detail in your negative could end up solid black in your print, and in the same fashion highlights could be rendered as white blobs on your print that actually have plenty of detail in your negative. This means that your print may look way out of whack, and a nuanced change in filtration and exposure (during printing! ) can put everything back in place.

If you are unsure about light temperature during shooting, overexpose by two stops during film exposure, adjust filtration during printing and everything will be fine. One exception to this is low pressure sodium vapor lamps, which have a distinct yellow narrow band spectrum. As a result there is no blue light during exposure, and there will be no distinction between red and green subject colors. Unless you like the black/yellow prints that such images give you, you'd avoid these light sources.

Different issues can appear when C-41 processing is off: if the density vs. exposure slope of some color layer is off, no amount of filtration can correct for this issue: if you correctly dial in the high lights, your shadows will have a color cast, and vice versa. You can correct these easily with digital post processing, but not with standard dark room techniques.

That's why I was interested whether adjusting filter pack and exposure during printing could give usable prints: if yes, then your issue was most likely unaccounted light temperature, if no, you likely have some film processing issues.

thank you for the explanation, i'll do some printing this weekend and I'll let you know, hopefully i can fix them with some filtration.

side question is how are you guys know all these stuff? did you study them? read them somewhere? I'm an idiot who came from the digital world and i'd love if you can recommend some learning materials on this subject, would really appreciate it

 

[MattKing]

thank you for the explanation, i'll do some printing this weekend and I'll let you know, hopefully i can fix them with some filtration.

side question is how are you guys know all these stuff? did you study them? read them somewhere? I'm an idiot who came from the digital world and i'd love if you can recommend some learning materials on this subject, would really appreciate it

You are not even close to being an idiot, if you are smart enough to ask the questions you have asked.

There are a lot of good instructional materials out there in the world of used books. And a Kodak Color Print Viewing Kit is a great thing to have as well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

None of us was born with this knowledge. Someone had to teach us.

 

[amellice]

You are not even close to being an idiot, if you are smart enough to ask the questions you have asked.

There are a lot of good instructional materials out there in the world of used books. And a Kodak Color Print Viewing Kit is a great thing to have as well.

Can you name couple of them? maybe I can find them in my local library

Thanks

 

[Mr Bill]

side question is how are you guys know all these stuff? did you study them? read them somewhere? I'm an idiot who came from the digital world and i'd love if you can recommend some learning materials on this subject, would really appreciate it

Hi, it's hard to recommend books without knowing more about your specific leanings. To me, a good technical foundation has been important, and one of the best books I can think of to learn about the craft is this: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Photogr...ds=basic+photographic+materials+and+processes
You can use Amazon's "Look Inside" function to get an idea how the tone of the book goes.

Most photographers I know would find their eyes glazing over from this book, but it is hard to beat as a foundation for the CRAFT. A basic understanding of a handful of chapters from this book would enable you to uderstand the "characteristic curves" published in manufacterer's data sheets. These curves essentially "spell out" the basic response of those films and papers, once you learn to read them. For example, http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4050/e4050.pdf

These two things, the book and data sheets, would go a long way to explaining what Rudeofus is speaking about. Pure photographers probably don't really need to know these sorts of things, but they certainly would help you to become a more complete photographic craftsman.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Mr. Bill has given excellent advice and excellent references.

I suggest Mees and James, "Theory of the Photographic Process" and Haist, "Modern Photographic Processes".

PE

 

[amellice]

Thank you Mr Bill and PE, I bought Basic Photographic Materials and Processes.

 

[Xmas]

thank you for the explanation, i'll do some printing this weekend and I'll let you know, hopefully i can fix them with some filtration.

side question is how are you guys know all these stuff? did you study them? read them somewhere? I'm an idiot who came from the digital world and i'd love if you can recommend some learning materials on this subject, would really appreciate it

You need to know that what you are attempting is difficult.
To become an expert in Photoshop takes 2 years or so.
When I started printing I picked a perfect negative
when you can print a perfect negative then you can try a more difficult one.
Start with a day with sun illuminating clouds.
Same shot wife kissing son head scarf pure white - to allow a colour balance.
Grey card in frame to be cropped out also for colour balance.
You may need to convince wife it is a photo prop not attire.

 

[amellice]

You need to know that what you are attempting is difficult.
To become an expert in Photoshop takes 2 years or so.

totally true, digital is way way way easier than film by all means in any aspect but imo everyone who's passionate about photography should learn film even if he's a master in digital, it's such a beauty to me and amazing feeling when i print with my hands

When I started printing I picked a perfect negative
when you can print a perfect negative then you can try a more difficult one.
Start with a day with sun illuminating clouds.
Same shot wife kissing son head scarf pure white - to allow a colour balance.

thanks for the suggestion, i think that was my mistake, i did what you're saying with my first Ektar 100 film but didn't do this with my first try of Portra 400, i think there's a photo in broad sunlight so i can try to balance on that one first

Grey card in frame to be cropped out also for colour balance.
You may need to convince wife it is a photo prop not attire.

she's an understanding person, although she never quit teasing me with my camera stuff flying over every inch in my 1BR apartment. digital didn't require much space but film does.

since you brought the grey card thing out, what do you think about the color checker? i like it but i just can't justify the price of it. no B&H website the cheapest one is $100

 

[Photo Engineer]

You can get a Kodak digital color checker for about $25.

PE

 

[amellice]

You can get a Kodak digital color checker for about $25.

PE

thanks for the suggestion, i'll try it out

 

[amellice]

so I chose couple of negs that were taken under cloudless blue sky under sun and I made couple of prints and I think they look okay (color perspective), that means (from the previous replies) that the color cast experienced was because of artificial lighting conditions that these photos were taken in

Thank you all for your comments and contribution in this troubleshooting, appreciate all the help that I got

the question now is how can I get a print out of them without wasting lots of paper in adjusting the filters?

 

[Rudeofus]

the question now is how can I get a print out of them without wasting lots of paper in adjusting the filters?

I have also heard of special filter swatches which you hold on your print. The one showing the picture as you want it will have the filter correction printed that you need to apply to your filter pack. This, of course, won't work with aged paper or abused chems, but should get you in the ball park quickly. Apart from that, "practice, practice, practice" is all I can offer you here. It will take you a while until you see "that needs an extra 15Y" or "this needs -10% exposure time" with your bare eyes.

You have already mastered the most important step: gain confidence that your negs are ok.