Too much yellow on trees...'

[koraks]

The adjustment was of the scanned CD sent on my old Mac…!

Yes, that gives you some more image information to work with.
As you can see, working the sliders yourself gives a lot of control. From this point, you could digitally print these files, or try to achieve the same/desired results in optical prints in your own darkroom.

 

[Nikon 2]

Do filters correct for tint and temperature…?

 

[DREW WILEY]

YES..... That's what filters are for. I even phrased that in specific terms. But it sounds like you're trying to juggle so many out of control variables at once that any outcome is hard to predict until you pave over the worst chuckholes one at a time. You report camera inconsistencies, there are untamed scanning issues, you expect quality prints by cheap means, and frankly, don't understand the basics of color film exposure.

 

[Nikon 2]

Even the best meter isn't going to change your scene. No matter how you meter a scene, you're never going to change these two things:
1: the inherent contrast of the scene. In this case, it's a big difference between the shadow areas and the sunlit trees.
2: the quality of the light, in particular the already mentioned difference in wavelength distribution (color) between shadows and direct evening sunlight.

Concerning (1): what measurement result did you get for the shadows vs. the sunlit areas? Did you measure the different light levels in your scene? How did you strike a compromise between the conflicting exposure settings? Which side did you balance towards in this compromise?


Overexposure can sometimes do funny things on film due to crossover, but that's not the main issue in these shots. It may have contributed slightly, but other problems are far more dominant in this case.

Next time I’ll take a reading from the top part and sky and see what happens…!

 

[Nikon 2]

YES..... That's what filters are for. But it sounds like you're trying to juggle so many out of control variables at once that any outcome is hard to predict until you iron out the primary chuckholes one at a time. You report camera inconsistencies, there are scanning issues, you expect quality prints by cheap means, and frankly, don't understand the basics of color film exposure.

I’ll meter the parts that showed excessive yellowing and roll the dice…!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh, I'm glad I grew up the era when people shot color slides. It was a lot easier to evaluate what the camera and film were doing, if you were metering correctly or not, because you could just put the result atop a light box and see it with you own eyes. Now there's a whole complicated workflow one step after another, and if something goes wrong, you have to backtrack all along the way to identify the culprit.

But what you just posted is in fact a mixed lighting scene. A lot of deep blue shade plus some warm open sun. If you or some automated device tries to correct the excess blue percent, due to the shade, it simply warms the entire scene, and the rest comes out too yellow, or visa versa. Although I love Ektar and know how to handle such situations, my advice to you is to switch your film and try something like Portra 400 instead (presuming you did shoot it on Ektar).

The other issue is that you have to choose what is more important to you in the scene. The stream and trees are obviously overexposed. If you lower the exposure, the dark foreground conifers will go black, but that would be less annoying than what you have now.

So yeah, that's a hard scene for an in-camera averaging meter to psychoanalyze. I would have aimed the camera to the right to take the reading, minus the dark portion, use that setting, and then reorient the composition. To me, bold black in the final result would be more acceptable than bleached-out crossed-over yellows. You can't have it both ways at once. But again, you might compare the results of a wider-latitude film like Porta 400.

Good luck! You'll get there.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Gosh, I'm glad I grew up the era when people shot color slides. It was a lot easier to evaluate what the camera and film were doing, if you were metering correctly or not, because you could just put the result atop a light box and see it with you own eyes. Now there's a whole complicated workflow one step after another, and if something goes wrong, you have to backtrack all along the way to identify the culprit.

8 out 10 times, the culprit is poor exposure. From a technical point of view, it's the hardest part of photography, and it's the one people spend the less time figuring out. Partly to blame today are the gazillion videos on YouTube stating "Don't worry too much about exposure, film has great latitude!"

I’ll meter the parts that showed excessive yellowing and roll the dice…!

You have 36 exposures on your film. That's six different ways of metering your scene if you also bracket one up, one down, + six different filters you can try if you bracket one up, one down. There are also other ways you can split this up. Doesn't matter. Important is to try to understand the scene, understand the light. Take notes, compare them with what's good once you get the photos back. You'll have learned how to deal with such a scene with this film.

Or you can roll the dices. I don't know anybody who has learned anything from rolling the dices.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gambling is highly efficient for depleting both your film and money, and getting nothing in return. Bugsy should have opened a camera store that didn't sell any light meters at all.

 

[mshchem]

Transparency film, a good note pad, a gray card and even lighting. One could learn a lot from a couple rolls.

Slide film is cool. Bracket and take notes. Or buy a F5 and use auto bracketing and matrix metering

 

[Nikon 2]

Gosh, I'm glad I grew up the era when people shot color slides. It was a lot easier to evaluate what the camera and film were doing, if you were metering correctly or not, because you could just put the result atop a light box and see it with you own eyes. Now there's a whole complicated workflow one step after another, and if something goes wrong, you have to backtrack all along the way to identify the culprit.

But what you just posted is in fact a mixed lighting scene. A lot of deep blue shade plus some warm open sun. If you or some automated device tries to correct the excess blue percent, due to the shade, it simply warms the entire scene, and the rest comes out too yellow, or visa versa. Although I love Ektar and know how to handle such situations, my advice to you is to switch your film and try something like Portra 400 instead (presuming you did shoot it on Ektar).

The other issue is that you have to choose what is more important to you in the scene. The stream and trees are obviously overexposed. If you lower the exposure, the dark foreground conifers will go black, but that would be less annoying than what you have now.

So yeah, that's a hard scene for an in-camera averaging meter to psychoanalyze. I would have aimed the camera to the right to take the reading, minus the dark portion, use that setting, and then reorient the composition. To me, bold black in the final result would be more acceptable than bleached-out crossed-over yellows. You can't have it both ways at once. But again, you might compare the results of a wider-latitude film like Porta 400.

Good luck! You'll get there.

1. I used Ektar 100.
2. Used myLightMeter app to meter.
3. Didn’t use Pro but Classic…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Realized I stopped down on this shot.
Different day and later on in the morning…!

 

[Nikon 2]

8 out 10 times, the culprit is poor exposure. From a technical point of view, it's the hardest part of photography, and it's the one people spend the less time figuring out. Partly to blame today are the gazillion videos on YouTube stating "Don't worry too much about exposure, film has great latitude!"



You have 36 exposures on your film. That's six different ways of metering your scene if you also bracket one up, one down, + six different filters you can try if you bracket one up, one down. There are also other ways you can split this up. Doesn't matter. Important is to try to understand the scene, understand the light. Take notes, compare them with what's good once you get the photos back. You'll have learned how to deal with such a scene with this film.

Or you can roll the dices. I don't know anybody who has learned anything from rolling the dices.

Learning from your mistakes…!

 

[BMbikerider]

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...!

The technician is right to some degree but when colour printing because there is no way to change the paper contrast of the image what you see is what you get. You can print for the highlights and the shadows will be too dark. Conversley expose for the shadows and the highlights will be too light (which seems to be what happened here). Unlike B&W printing you cannot 'burn' or 'dodge' the print without altering the filtration to counter the colour balance changes that will occur with extra/less exposure. You can get away with a small amount of change but to correct a large shift in tone like that would require some extensive changes of filtration and not via a machine.

 

[grain elevator]

Realized I stopped down on this shot.
Different day and later on in the morning…!

What do you mean? You didn't use a wide aperture or you stopped down further from what the meter told you or...?
On the comparison you posted earlier, of two pictures of the same scene, the one you called stopped down looks a lot crisper than the other, so I assume the other was shot wide open. Not a good choice for such a scene. But we're discussing exposure here, and as that's the result of both aperture and exposure time, you could be clearer in what you actually did differently.

 

[koraks]

the one you called stopped down looks a lot crisper than the other, so I assume the other was shot wide open.

It's a fluke most likely. We're looking at phone snaps of prints in some cases and phone snaps of digital edits of scans in other instances, and probably edited scans directly in yet other cases. There's a whole lot going on here that mostly remains implicit and that you have to specifically ask for to bring to light.

 

[Nikon 2]

What do you mean? You didn't use a wide aperture or you stopped down further from what the meter told you or...?
On the comparison you posted earlier, of two pictures of the same scene, the one you called stopped down looks a lot crisper than the other, so I assume the other was shot wide open. Not a good choice for such a scene. But we're discussing exposure here, and as that's the result of both aperture and exposure time, you could be clearer in what you actually did differently.

I might have shot wide open with either lens on the different photos but I know I stopped down to test bracketing results…!

 

[Nikon 2]

It's a fluke most likely. We're looking at phone snaps of prints in some cases and phone snaps of digital edits of scans in other instances, and probably edited scans directly in yet other cases. There's a whole lot going on here that mostly remains implicit and that you have to specifically ask for to bring to light.

With what I have to share by using obsolete computer designs and my ignorance of posting professionally, negatives or scans, the subject under discussion can be troublesome.
My old Mac computer with CD slot to view the scans of the prints isn’t capable of correct connection to WIFI to share to this group…!

 

[koraks]

Yeah, digital technology is great - if it works; it can be a pain in the ... if it doesn't!

 

[Nikon 2]

Yeah, digital technology is great - if it works; it can be a pain in the ... if it doesn't!

Yes, I need to get a 35mm film Mac computer...!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Next time I’ll take a reading from the top part and sky and see what happens…!

Please no! Take light reading without the sky which will provide the proper subject exposure will some shadow detail.

 

[Sirius Glass]

8 out 10 times, the culprit is poor exposure. From a technical point of view, it's the hardest part of photography, and it's the one people spend the less time figuring out. Partly to blame today are the gazillion videos on YouTube stating "Don't worry too much about exposure, film has great latitude!"



You have 36 exposures on your film. That's six different ways of metering your scene if you also bracket one up, one down, + six different filters you can try if you bracket one up, one down. There are also other ways you can split this up. Doesn't matter. Important is to try to understand the scene, understand the light. Take notes, compare them with what's good once you get the photos back. You'll have learned how to deal with such a scene with this film.

Or you can roll the dices. I don't know anybody who has learned anything from rolling the dices.

Yea. Right. When HIE was discontinued and I had only one roll of HIE some wide self appointed sage recommended that I use all 36 exposures of exactly one subject and then I would know everything about using infrared HIE on one subject. Of course I would not have any HIE to use after that. Wise move --- NOT!

 

[koraks]

Yea. Right. When HIE was discontinued

But OP is shooting Ektar 100. There's lots more where that came from. At least as of yet.

 

[Sirius Glass]

8 out 10 times, the culprit is poor exposure. From a technical point of view, it's the hardest part of photography, and it's the one people spend the less time figuring out. Partly to blame today are the gazillion videos on YouTube stating "Don't worry too much about exposure, film has great latitude!"



You have 36 exposures on your film. That's six different ways of metering your scene if you also bracket one up, one down, + six different filters you can try if you bracket one up, one down. There are also other ways you can split this up. Doesn't matter. Important is to try to understand the scene, understand the light. Take notes, compare them with what's good once you get the photos back. You'll have learned how to deal with such a scene with this film.

Or you can roll the dices. I don't know anybody who has learned anything from rolling the dices.

Yea. Right. When HIE was discontinued and I had only one roll of HIE some wide self appointed sage recommended that I use all 36 exposures of exactly one subject and then I would know everything about using infrared HIE on one subject. Of course I would not have any HIE to use after that. Wise move --- NOT!

But OP is shooting Ektar 100. There's lots more where that came from. At least as of yet.

My point is that one size fits all solutions, do not fit all solutions.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

My point is that one size fits all solutions, do not fit all solutions.

And my point was a suggestion, not a command, nor even a "solution" . And I was just showing how much testing he could do with 36 frames, not ordering him to do so, nor telling him it's the only way he'll learn.

He's an adult—I think—, he can use the amount of film he wants, 2, 3, 12 or all 36 frames, for his exposure test. Or he could roll the dices.

 

[lamerko]

There is great magic in the golden hour. Maybe it's just that the scene is a bit contrasty... But I wouldn't look for color compensation