Too much yellow on trees...'

[neilt3]

Yes, the sky had no clouds but looks washed out during “golden hour”…!

An hour or two earlier the sky might have had a bit of colour and interest to it .
Potentially using an ND grad at an angle might have given you a chance of balancing the dark left corner with the bright upper right side .
It might also have left you with some detail in the sky , with it being blown out like it is , I don't know if their was anything to capture .
It would probably have at least came out blue .
A polariser might also have helped you .

 

[Nikon 2]

Overexposing, as in the examples above, doesn't help. With Ektar 100, you need to nail the exposure right. It doesn't have the latitude a black & white film does, and it doesn't respond to over exposure as well as Portra. Neither does the colors respond well to underexposure, for that matter.

Range is also smaller. In scenes like yours, with that much contrast, you'll have to sacrifice the shadows.

I rarely use color film other than Ektar 100, but I find it almost as difficult to master as the Kodak E100 slide film. When I don't have a spotmeter with me, I always bracket, just to make sure.

I’m using MyLightMeter Pro for exposure.
I should maybe under expose a few stops to compensate?
Would the correct exposure still show the yellowing and the blue in the shadows…?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

An hour or two earlier the sky might have had a bit of colour and interest to it .
Potentially using an ND grad at an angle might have given you a chance of balancing the dark left corner with the bright upper right side .

Limited range of Ektar won't allow you to do that. There is little balance with that film, only contrast—which is what people like about it, and what one wants to exploit when using it. As soon as you try to open up the shadows too much, you blow up the highlights. Ektar 100 also becomes warmer with overexposure, so it's the least successful strategy to use during the golden hour.

As I said, fabulous film, but tough to master.

 

[faberryman]

Can you explain the difference in exposure, processing, and scanning between 2936.jpeg, 2937.jpeg, and 2938.jpeg. In 2936.jpeg, on the right, the leaves are yellow/brown and the evergreens are yellow. In 2937.jpeg, on the right, the leaves are brown and the evergreens are green. In 2938.jpeg, the colors are similar to those of 2937.jpeg, but it looks underexposed.

 

[BrianShaw]

You really should try Gold200.

 

[Nikon 2]

I'd suggest doing your own prints. You evidently have a good idea what you want your prints to look like, so it makes good sense to take control over that part of the process as well. Whether you use inkjet, send digital files to get silver halide prints back, or darkroom optical enlargement, doesn't matter - in all instances you can control what color rendition you want. Within the capabilities of the process and your own competencies of course. The latter is very flexible, as you can learn (which coincidentally is also fun).

I've simulated a magenta + yellow adjustment on one of those prints:
View attachment 342646
It's of course an approximation, since I'm working with a quick & dirty adjustment of a photo of a print, posted back to you as a digital file...a real print will always look differently.

Note that what the others said is of course very true and won't change, ever: early morning and late afternoon/evening light is warm, and shadows are cool. Exploit it, embrace it or work around it as you desire.

Learn to look like painters do, and forget things you think you know about objects having colors. Trees are NOT green. Rocks are NOT grey. People are NOT pink or brown. Water is NOT blue. As kids, we somehow learn to draw/paint this way, but it's nonsense in the end.

Look at a Van Gogh painting and ask yourself if those colors are real. They can't be, right? They are! He painted exactly what he saw - exaggerated the colors, yes (and some of them have faded/shifted, especially the yellows)! Look at his portraits and note how faces have streaks of green in them, how shadow areas are stark blue (e.g. his Auvers church) or cyan (some of his almond blossoms - spring light!), and how his trees are cacophonies of greens, blues, whites, tans, yellows...It looks unreal, until you start actually carefully looking at the real world and isolating the colors under different lighting conditions. You start to notice that what he did was eerily accurate - just amplified.

Look at a scene as it really is, and not at the objects as you think you recognize them. Your photo above: try not to look at a stream, the rocks in it, the trees in the background. Notice a patch of dark greens on the left, an area of cyan hues in the center, vibrant yellows and oranges to the right. The bottom half consists of pale blues and magentas, with flashes of yellow. Forget about objects and their names. Look at things like shape, value (dark/light), color, spatial relationships. And then decide where you want to take them; what you want to emphasize, shift in a certain direction, etc. Digital space is vastly more flexible in this sense than optical printing, but the latter certainly also offers certain possibilities for playing around (it just takes more time, more effort, more experience in getting anything done).

Getting your prints made at Blue Moon might give you better results, but it won't be because they work in a certain way - if the prints are better, it's just because the person doing the color balancing somehow leans closer to your preferences than whatever man or machine made the other prints. It'll still be a crap shoot. The only way out of it, is to take control.

Wow!
Great summary and advice…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Can you explain the difference in exposure, processing, and scanning between 2936.jpeg, 2937.jpeg, and 2938.jpeg. In 2936.jpeg, on the right, the leaves are yellow/brown and the evergreens are yellow. In 2937.jpeg, on the right, the leaves are brown and the evergreens are green. In 2938.jpeg, the colors are similar to those of 2937.jpeg, but it looks underexposed.

Thank you, my concerns also…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Overexposing, as in the examples above, doesn't help. With Ektar 100, you need to nail the exposure right. It doesn't have the latitude a black & white film does, and it doesn't respond to over exposure as well as Portra. Neither does the colors respond well to underexposure, for that matter.

Range is also smaller. In scenes like yours, with that much contrast, you'll have to sacrifice the shadows.

I rarely use color film other than Ektar 100, but I find it almost as difficult to master as the Kodak E100 slide film. When I don't have a spotmeter with me, I always bracket, just to make sure.

Will the morning yellowing on the trees still be there with correct exposure…?

 

[MattKing]

Those prints were from Process One.
My next lab is Blue Moon… and they use the optical method…!

And the difference in method isn't nearly as important as the skill and experience of the person making the prints.
It is possible to make really superb prints using either method.
But even with the best people, absent some of the more extra-ordinary types of expensive, custom interventions (layers, masks, et al) the printer will be limited by what is on the negative. And what is on the negative is determined by the subject, the light, the exposure choices made by the photographer, the film, and (to a lesser extent with colour) the developing.

 

[Les Sarile]

Some of my prints show too much yellow on trees that should be green.
Only the trees that have the direct intensive sunlight show the yellow.
Stopping down doesn’t seem to work.
The lab technician said the film I’m using, Kodak Ektar 100, has this problem and shows extensive yellowing in extreme lighting. He suggested using a different film, Kodak Portra or Gold. Can a filter help?
The scans sent don’t show the yellowing as much as the prints...!

What scanner and software were used in the scan?

I've shot a lot of Kodak Ektar 100 and depending on the scanner/software used, it is possible to get very aberrant results. This one from the same frame of Kodak Ektar 100 scanned in full auto modes with the Coolscan and Epson with the latter showing excessive yellow.

Kodak Ektar 100_06-18AB by Les DMess, on Flickr

Doesn't happen all the time but when it does it can make you think they're from 2 different films.

 

[Nikon 2]

What scanner and software were used in the scan?

I've shot a lot of Kodak Ektar 100 and depending on the scanner/software used, it is possible to get very aberrant results. This one from the same frame of Kodak Ektar 100 scanned in full auto modes with the Coolscan and Epson with the latter showing excessive yellow.

Kodak Ektar 100_06-18AB by Les DMess, on Flickr

Doesn't happen all the time but when it does it can make you think they're from 2 different films.

I take umbrage for what some labs produce…!

 

[Les Sarile]

I take umbrage for what some labs produce…!

These are from my own scanners but I have gotten equally bad results from cheap mini lab scans too.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

In two pages you've got summed up the difficulty in trying to evaluate a photo and its problems on a forum when you don't have access to the negative and have little knowledge about the rest of the process.

You have so far three hypothesis—overexposure, scanning process, printing process—if not more, and all three are valid. Your yellow cast might even be due tu a combination of two or more.

Only solution moving on is take as much control as you can of the process, taking a part of everybody's advice here so far: make sure your exposure is right on—use a spot meter, if none available, bracket—and make sure you trust your camera's meter ; if you don't have access to a high end scanner, make sure the lab you use does, and that you trust their work ; do your own prints, or, if you can't, send them somewhere that you know does good to high quality prints (depending on your budget).

Korak's advice on how to work with color is perfect.

 

[Nikon 2]

In two pages you've got summed up the difficulty in trying to evaluate a photo and its problems on a forum when you don't have access to the negative and have little knowledge about the rest of the process.

You have so far three hypothesis—overexposure, scanning process, printing process—if not more, and all three are valid. Your yellow cast might even be due tu a combination of two or more.

Only solution moving on is take as much control as you can of the process, taking a part of everybody's advice here so far: make sure your exposure is right on—use a spot meter, if none available, bracket—and make sure you trust your camera's meter ; if you don't have access to a high end scanner, make sure the lab you use does, and that you trust their work ; do your own prints, or, if you can't, send them somewhere that you know does good to high quality prints (depending on your budget).

Korak's advice on how to work with color is perfect.

1. I use the MyLightMeter Pro app on my iPhone 13 Pro Max.
2. The next lab I’ll be using is blue Moon with optical printing…!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

1. I use the MyLightMeter Pro app on my iPhone 13 Pro Max.
2. The next lab I’ll be using is blue Moon with optical printing…!

It's not the meter you use, but how, and/or what you metered. Which, essentially is my question to you .

As I said,my hypothesis is overexposure. Tough to say for sure, but if you were thorough in your metering process for such a high contrast scene, you'll be able to eliminate it, and get rid of me .

 

[Nikon 2]

If this photo was overexposed why is just the part where the sun’s intensity was the greatest that showed yellow and not the rest of the scene…?

 

[neilt3]

Limited range of Ektar won't allow you to do that. There is little balance with that film, only contrast—which is what people like about it, and what one wants to exploit when using it. As soon as you try to open up the shadows too much, you blow up the highlights.

Hence the suggestion to use an ND Grad filter , to control the brightness across the whole scene , allowing for satisfactory exposure for the shadows without blowing the highlights .
I've been using them for many years , typically for keeping detail in the sky , including with Ektar .
I assume you familiar with ND grad filters ( not ND filters ) ?
If not , I mean such as these ; https://www.wexphotovideo.com/lee-100mm-nd-grad-medium-filter-set-1595922/

 

[Nikon 2]

It's not the meter you use, but how, and/or what you metered. Which, essentially is my question to you .

As I said,my hypothesis is overexposure. Tough to say for sure, but if you were thorough in your metering process for such a high contrast scene, you'll be able to eliminate it, and get rid of me .

I metered the scene using the Pro part…!

 

[BrianShaw]

I metered the scene using the Pro part…!

Are you saying that you rated Ektar100 at 25? Or is that just a random picture of the light meter you used?

 

[MattKing]

If this photo was overexposed why is just the part where the sun’s intensity was the greatest that showed yellow and not the rest of the scene…?

Because that is where the light is most yellow.
And that may be the only part of the scene that received more exposure than is best.
When you have a scene with a large Subject Luminance Range, to achieve the best results you need to evaluate the luminance and make choices on where to place your emphasis. Sometimes that means accepting less than perfect rendering for parts of the scene in order to maximize how well other parts of the scene render.

 

[MattKing]

Are you saying that you rated Ektar100 at 25?

I hadn't noticed that - good eyes Brian.
That amount of excess exposure would cause problems.

 

[Nikon 2]

I metered the scene using the Pro part…!

This is the filter I used…!

 

[Les Sarile]

For a contrasty film, Kodak Ektar 100 still has a good amount of exposure latitude.

Kodak Ektar 100 latitude by Les DMess, on Flickr

This of course is just straight autoexposure scanning. More can be had if you over/underexpose during the scan as well as apply post process.

 

[Nikon 2]

The bottom print was stopped down a few stops…!

 

[Nikon 2]

For a contrasty film, Kodak Ektar 100 still has a good amount of exposure latitude.

Kodak Ektar 100 latitude by Les DMess, on Flickr

This of course is just straight autoexposure scanning. More can be had if you over/underexpose during the scan as well as apply post process.

I never used the EV key just the aperture ring…!