Shooting color

[hiroh]

I shoot 99% black and white. I tried some Portra 160 and 400, but it didn’t turned well and I got discouraged. I love to see nice color images, with pastel colors, but mine always ended up being too contrasty and muddy. I love contrasty black and white photos, and I love to push my film 1,2 or even 3 stops, but I guess shooting color is different, and should rater pull it to get nice colors. I develop my b&w film myself, c]and color was sent to the local lab. Few shots turned okish, but majoristy is just too dark and muddy. I don‘t know if it’s my exposure, or the film development, or even the conversion in Negative Lab Pro. My local lab scans quite low resolution and does only JPEGs so I didn‘t bother. I need high res for printing, and not for posting on Instagram.

I watched YouTube videos about shooting color, and in theory, I think I know how to do it, but I’m just not satisfied with my color shots. i can tweak them quite well in Lr and Photoshop but I don’t want waste so much time for every single shot, and I’d rather like to have them correct straight out of the camera, with minimum need for post processing.

I love b&w, and I’ll always shoot mainly b&w, but I want to learn color, so I can do it when I need it, rather than picking up my digital camera whenever I need color.

 

[Moose22]

Is it the scans you mean? Or the negatives themselves?

Let us know the whole process. How are you scanning? You mention NegativeLab Pro, and NLP has a pretty good ability to handle misexposure, especially overexposure on Portra, so it's important to know how you scan to understand. Maybe even post a picture of some negatives so folks here can see if they are underexposed or not.

I just shot some color for the first time in a while and DSLR scanned it then used NLP. Kodak Gold and Ektar. It is a different animal, and I have to have a mindset shift, but it's fun. Post those negatives, I bet the crowd here has good advice for you.

 

[hiroh]

Is it the scans you mean? Or the negatives themselves?

Let us know the whole process. How are you scanning? You mention NegativeLab Pro, and NLP has a pretty good ability to handle misexposure, especially overexposure on Portra, so it's important to know how you scan to understand. Maybe even post a picture of some negatives so folks here can see if they are underexposed or not.

I just shot some color for the first time in a while and DSLR scanned it then used NLP. Kodak Gold and Ektar. It is a different animal, and I have to have a mindset shift, but it's fun. Post those negatives, I bet the crowd here has good advice for you.

Yes, the scans.

The last color roll I shoot and scanned was two years ago. I capture when with my Leica SL2, multi shot, 187mpx, macro lens, I have Negative Supply scaning equipment, it's all good, I think it's the negative itself.

I scanned my old family negatives the same way, that were shot 40 yeas ago by my father, who is not a photographer, and those scans turned out great. Mine are garbage comparing to these He mostly used Orwo film.

Few bad examples... these are just converted with NLP and not tweaked at all. They can look better if I edit them, but IMHO these is pretty bad starting point. Or maybe that's normal for color film?

Medium format shots are Porta 160 shot @200, and 35mm is Portra 400 shot @400.

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

Color negative film needs more light than the box speed. It depends on the film but for portra 160 and 400 I over expose by one stop. sometimes a little less for 160. All I do is set my ASA/ISO for portra 160 @100 and 400 @200. Then I meter normally or lean towards opening the shadows up a bit and the photos turn out really nice. For something like Kodak Ultramax 400 you can over expose by as much as 2 stops and the colors will be great with deep blacks. Gold 200 I over expose by one stop and it almost looks as smooth as portra.

Give it a try, your mileage may vary but you will find overexposing the box speed is the direction you will want to go.

Good luck,
D.

 

[koraks]

I’d rather like to have them correct straight out of the camera

With color negative film, there's no such thing, I'm afraid
Technically speaking, an orange-masked color negative image is about as far removed from real-world accurate colors as you can imagine. Consider it more as a digital RAW file - in itself, it's just data and its only purpose is to contain all the information needed to create the desired end result. But that 'creation' step is still required!

(Keep in mind that a digital RAW file is something you never even get to see - it's just bits and bytes. The preview you get on a screen is in fact already a sort of automated proof print!)

They can look better if I edit them, but IMHO these is pretty bad starting point.

I think it's a pretty reasonable starting point, really. From here, it's a matter of tweaking the result to match what you want it to look. Twist curves, play with saturation etc.

Color print film is not like slide film where all the 'magic' happens in the film itself. With color negative, the printmaking process and/or digital post processing are inseparable and vital parts of the road to the end result!

In case you feel that digital manipulation is somehow inappropriate - keep in mind that pro printers making optical color prints also employ all sorts of techniques to get the images to look they way they should. This includes techniques like pre/post flashing, masking, burning & dodging etc. Essentially the same stuff you'd do in Photoshop, just a little more challenging to get right.

Also keep in mind that the software you used (NLP) to generate a positive image from the digital scan employs a lot of automatic post-processing (evidently!) to make things easier for the average user. But since it's automated and requires little user involvement, it also follows that the output will never suit the exact vision you have. Despite advances in AI, mind-reading photo editing software still has not materialized

 

[Romanko]

Or maybe that's normal for color film?

To me this looks like underexposed negatives overcorrected by NLP. It would be interesting to see the scans of the negatives.

 

[hiroh]

I plan to do a test tomorrow with one roll of Portra 160, Portra 400, Ektar 100, Gold 200. This is all color film I have, and I plan to shoot the same subjects in the controlled lighting, just to see what to expect from each stock. I rarely (almost never) shoot color film, and I'm not even sure what's the difference between Portra 160, 400 and 800, in terms of look, other than sensitivity, obviously.

Do you all agree I should shoot at the box speed or overexpose it by 1 stop?

 

[koraks]

Do you all agree I should shoot at the box speed or overexpose it by 1 stop?

I would expose in such a way that you obtain sufficient shadow detail as per your needs/vision. For me, personally, that usually involves shooting at box speed and taking some care to meter relevant shadow areas. YMMV.

If digital output is intended, IMO it makes little sense to rely on mechanisms like "overexpose for more pastel hues" since such effects are quite subtle in comparison to even a minor adjustment in digital post processing.

Overexposing a little won't hurt with most films (the Ektar is an exception here as its highlights will crossover into cyan when overexposed, which you'd then have to fix separately in digital post), but won't magically get you what you want either.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I find it too hard to scan and process color negative film to get the colors right. So I shoot chromes like Velvia 50 or Provia 100 which is less saturated and contrasty. You can look at the film and know immediately if you exposed correctly before wasting time scanning. They're easy to scan and adjust. Adjusting the black and white points (levels) gets the color 97% correct.

Of course, chrome film is more contrasty than color negative film like Portra.

 

[hiroh]

I would expose in such a way that you obtain sufficient shadow detail as per your needs/vision. For me, personally, that usually involves shooting at box speed and taking some care to meter relevant shadow areas. YMMV.

If digital output is intended, IMO it makes little sense to rely on mechanisms like "overexpose for more pastel hues" since such effects are quite subtle in comparison to even a minor adjustment in digital post processing.

Overexposing a little won't hurt with most films (the Ektar is an exception here as its highlights will crossover into cyan when overexposed, which you'd then have to fix separately in digital post), but won't magically get you what you want either.

I choose a wrong word. By pastel I actually meant not so contrasty and saturated as mine. I know it can be easily fixed in post, but I thought that stock like Portra would give you that anyway. Not all my photos are like these, I intentionally choose the ugly ones.

I keep some photos in color when shooting digital, and it doesn't matter if I over or underexpose a bit, the colors are not affected that much. Also with B&W film, I do over and underexpose, often intentionally, and most of the time, I can get with that. With color film, obviously it matters to get the exposure correct. Also, I found it difficult (not impossible) to correct them using only NLP. So I save them as TIFs and then edit them in Lr or Ps. And that's the part that bothers me. I'd much prefer leaving it in DNG and do a little correction in NLP.

 

[koraks]

I thought that stock like Portra would give you that anyway

As I said, it depends on how it's post processed or printed. Portra is not inherently a high contrast film, at least less so than Ektar, but in my experience, it's not nearly as 'soft' when I RA4 print it as 'typical' digitally processed Portra shots I see a lot online.

when shooting digital, and it doesn't matter if I over or underexpose a bit

Yeah, but exposing for digital is a bit like exposing for slide film. It kind of works the opposite way compared to negative film in terms of exposure leeway. Simplifying things a bit, but that's what it boils down to.

So I save them as TIFs and then edit them in Lr or Ps. And that's the part that bothers me. I'd much prefer leaving it in DNG and do a little correction in NLP.

What's wrong with doing further editing on the basis of TIFFs?

I think part of this is letting go of some remaining bits of prejudice about what you're 'allowed' to do in post processing

 

[foc]

My advice is to shoot at box speed. I have done so for the last 35 years, professionally and personally.
C41 colour film is so simple to use.
That is the way it was designed.
Shoot at box speed, process as standard C41, and scan to your liking.
IMOP very simple. Others may think differently.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My advice is to shoot at box speed. I have done so for the last 35 years, professionally and personally.
C41 colour film is so simple to use.
That is the way it was designed.
Shoot at box speed, process as standard C41, and scan to your liking.
IMOP very simple. Others may think differently.

It's the scanning I find difficult compared to chromes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I plan to do a test tomorrow with one roll of Portra 160, Portra 400, Ektar 100, Gold 200. This is all color film I have, and I plan to shoot the same subjects in the controlled lighting, just to see what to expect from each stock. I rarely (almost never) shoot color film, and I'm not even sure what's the difference between Portra 160, 400 and 800, in terms of look, other than sensitivity, obviously.

Do you all agree I should shoot at the box speed or overexpose it by 1 stop?

In a word "No!" I only vary from the box speed reading if I use the box speed in the Zone System for more shadow detail.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My advice is to shoot at box speed. I have done so for the last 35 years, professionally and personally.
C41 colour film is so simple to use.
That is the way it was designed.
Shoot at box speed, process as standard C41, and scan to your liking.
IMOP very simple. Others may think differently.

I agree. The only difference is that I have been doing it since 1960. See the previous post about the Zone System exposure for color film.

 

[quilts]

My advice is to shoot at box speed. I have done so for the last 35 years, professionally and personally.
C41 colour film is so simple to use.
That is the way it was designed.
Shoot at box speed, process as standard C41, and scan to your liking.
IMOP very simple. Others may think differently.

I'd agree with this assessment. I typically always shoot C41 at box speed as well. I leave any pushing and pulling to B&W film.
There's usually enough exposure latitude with whatever C41 film you're using that you'll always be able to tweak the shadows or highlights to your liking in post-processing.

 

[foc]

It's the scanning I find difficult compared to chromes.

Yes scanning C41 film can be difficult but it depends on your system.
I must admit I had it very easy as (when I had a lab) I used Fuji Frontier and Pakon scanners.
The Epson scanners and the new software are very helpful but scanning can be an art in itself.

 

[Romanko]

Do you all agree I should shoot at the box speed or overexpose it by 1 stop

Bracket your exposures +0, +1, +2 stops, have your film developed and scanned by a good lab and evaluate the results. Keep in mind that colour negative film was not meant to be used in a hybrid process. Scanning and post processing is the key factor in getting consistent results. For me this is the hardest part of the colour process and I am still in doubt if it is for me.

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

Romanko has a good point. Bracket and you will see what you are looking for. I never shoot C41 at box speed. I ALWAYS over expose it and am very happy with the results. Remember, there are no rules. Shoot what you want, the way you want. It's your work after all.

Good luck
D.

 

[koraks]

Keep in mind that colour negative film was not meant to be used in a hybrid process.

Well, none of the analog materials were, originally