scan Vs print

[Berri]

Today I processed one roll of Lomography rescale xr that I previously had respooled the right way and exposed as a normal negative. I didn't know what ISO to shoot it so I took some shots at 100 some at 200 and some 400. It came out overexposed, the best frames are this at 400. Now I come to the point, when I scanned one frame, a picture of a rose, it came out ok and the flower had a natural colour as I remember it, but when printing the same frame in the darkroom there is no way I could reproduce that colour and when the overall balance seemed ok the rose was much more deeper red and not as the real flower was. How is this possible??

 

[Sirius Glass]

Print if you have the means to do it.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

when I scanned one frame, a picture of a rose, it came out ok and the flower had a natural colour as I remember it, but when printing the same frame in the darkroom there is no way I could reproduce that colour and when the overall balance seemed ok the rose was much more deeper red and not as the real flower was. How is this possible??

Color negative film and color paper are designed to work well together. If you have done something to your film that makes it widely different (contrast, color reproduction, etc) than the film the paper was designed for, you results will not be 'normal' (some people may like the strange results). Scanning the neg and using something like PS gives you a wide variety of 'papers', one of which may do a good job of matching your off spec film negative.

 

[removed account4]

hi berri

i am guessing here ( i've only printed color once about 30 years ago and i only currenty print b/w )
that while you may be printing your color negatives well, when you scan them you are able to have
better contrast and color control. extreme color control is why william eggelston used the dye transfer process
regular c-prints diddn't give him the color saturation and contrast and "look" he wanted, my guess is you are
getting a similar effect through modern means.

have fun!
john

 

[Berri]

I only use colour balance in PS which usually behaves very similar to YMC filters in the darkroom, I understand that different paper may have different contrast, colour saturation and palette, but the overall look and balance should stay the same, right? T his two film were shot the same day in the same location and processed together, as you can see the first one looks exactly like the scan (the first one is a 135 Kodak Gold 200 whithin date) but the second comes out with a very different red to the scan and there is no way I could achieve that result in the darkroom (although I tried)

Kodak Gold 200

Lomography Redscale XR shot on the emulsion side, scan from neg.

my print

 

[Berri]

I must say the colour of the leaves is more accurate on the print, but the flower is not that colour!

 

[removed account4]

hi berri

i really can't help you much. do you have an photographs made with the film as it was intended to be used ?
i don't think this link will be much help or of interest to you but he uses a blue filterer ( in ps ) to counter the effect
so maybe when you print in your darkroom use a blue filter and see if the rose looks more like it normally did ?
http://filmphotographyproject.com/content/features/2014/11/shooting-red-scale-film

or ... just enjoy the intense reds &c the film offers

have fun with your experiments !

 

[fdonadio]

I am not a good color printer, but my guess is that it's too dense (too much exposure) and you filtered too much yellow out (see how the green is more bluish and the rose got brown?).

Even though the photos were taken in the same day, same light and processed in the same way, the emulsions are different. Different emulsions may have very different orange masks.

 

[Luckless]

Sharing a photo of the negative, ideally with a standardized colour target or something in the shot if you happen to have one, would be helpful to others trying to give you suggestions.

A bit of a side note, but before running too far down random rabbit holes to try and get your optical prints to match what you are seeing on your computer screen from your scans you should probably step back and ask yourself: "How confident should I be about the accuracy of this image on screen?"

Have you invested in any tools to check and do colour management with your system? Profiles out of the factory for high end screens are a nice starting point, but even those aren't actually all that reliable if you are dealing with anything where the precision of your colours actually matters.
Colour management, whether analog or digital, is kind of a complex subject, and is probably not something to be rushed through. Trying to achieve good and accurate results with gear that is sloppy and not properly aligned/configured/tested is a good way to lose some hair from the frustration of it all.


I suggest saving a copy of your scan, and then working on adjusting that copy to match your print. Once you have your on screen image looking more like what your print does, then you have something to work backwards from to base your next round of darkroom adjustments on.

 

[Berri]

I think something was wrong with the chemicals. I opened up a new batch and mixed some developer. I printed a contact proof and it matches the scan. I didn't have enough time to investigate any further so I will have to wait till tomorrow or next week to enlarge the negative.
I'll post the scan of the contact print as soon as I can

 

[Berri]

Sharing a photo of the negative, ideally with a standardized colour target or something in the shot if you happen to have one, would be helpful to others trying to give you suggestions.

A bit of a side note, but before running too far down random rabbit holes to try and get your optical prints to match what you are seeing on your computer screen from your scans you should probably step back and ask yourself: "How confident should I be about the accuracy of this image on screen?"

Have you invested in any tools to check and do colour management with your system? Profiles out of the factory for high end screens are a nice starting point, but even those aren't actually all that reliable if you are dealing with anything where the precision of your colours actually matters.
Colour management, whether analog or digital, is kind of a complex subject, and is probably not something to be rushed through. Trying to achieve good and accurate results with gear that is sloppy and not properly aligned/configured/tested is a good way to lose some hair from the frustration of it all.


I suggest saving a copy of your scan, and then working on adjusting that copy to match your print. Once you have your on screen image looking more like what your print does, then you have something to work backwards from to base your next round of darkroom adjustments on.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Did you see my post with the pictures? how does the first picture look on your monitor? Whatever it looks like the colour of the print and the colours on the screen are the same. A calibrated monitor would show you the exact right hue both on the monitor and in real life(sort of), but what I'm experiencing here a major discrepancy that no expansive colour management tool would overcome.

 

[removed account4]

have you tried to expose and print the film as it was intended to be exposed ?

 

[Berri]

have you tried to expose and print the film as it was intended to be exposed ?

Well, the film I tried was intended to be exposed as a redscale, but I reversed it and shot normaly, ic came out overexposed because I didn't know what ISO to rate it; I exposed some frames at 100 others at 200 and 400. the rose is exposed at 400 and still is a bit overexposed so it made me think that originally it was a 800 ISO film.

 

[removed account4]

hi berri
sorry for my confusion!
yeah, i got that from your original post
have you exposed it as redscale film, instead of respooling and shooting "normally"
i was wondering how it looked shot backwards ( or in this case wrong(right?) side up
is it as intense as the microsites and reviewers say it is ?

 

[rpavich]

Post a scan of the print..I'm interested in what it looks like after the fresh chems.

 

[Berri]

hi berri
sorry for my confusion!
yeah, i got that from your original post
have you exposed it as redscale film, instead of respooling and shooting "normally"
i was wondering how it looked shot backwards ( or in this case wrong(right?) side up
is it as intense as the microsites and reviewers say it is ?

here is the scan from a contact sheet including the frame of the rose. Here you can see one frame exposed at 100ISO 200ISO and two at 400ISO

This one is a (silly) shot with another film from the same pack of lomography redscale XR rated at 50ISO and printed in the darkroom with the same paper and process shot as a redscale

 

[macfred]

Love her luscious expression ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Me too.

 

[Arklatexian]

hi berri

i am guessing here ( i've only printed color once about 30 years ago and i only currenty print b/w )
that while you may be printing your color negatives well, when you scan them you are able to have
better contrast and color control. extreme color control is why william eggelston used the dye transfer process
regular c-prints diddn't give him the color saturation and contrast and "look" he wanted, my guess is you are
getting a similar effect through modern means.

have fun!
john

Regarding extreme color control and William Eggelston, did he usually try for realism or did he try for colors that he liked? I remember when Kodachrome II came out and Kodak quit making Kodachrome I. Around here skies that had photographed a rich blue with Kodachrome I photographed a washed-out blue because of the minute water droplets in the atmosphere and it took a polarizing filter to make the sky blue again. That is when we learned that realism is not all that great and started looking for films that had more color saturation. We discovered Agfa CT18. The colors were not realistic but they sure were pretty and they have held up quite well for these many years............Regards!