| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 46536 | 2004-06-27 07:57:00 | OT: Any film geeks here? | nomad (3693) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 247950 | 2004-06-27 07:57:00 | Hiya I am having some issues with a film camera. Its shot with a Canon Rebel film SLR, processed at a pro lab, film used was Fuji Xtra 400 domestic film. The dog photo was taken with same film and same lab (last yr) by the tutor. I have a Nikon D70 digital SLR and the pix were way different and better ... some were printed at the same pro lab. What is the is issue here? Film needing color adjustment? I would has assumed a pro lab would had considered this. Is it the film or is it a buggy camrea or lense? Dog photo was last yr. Other film photo was this yr April as were the Nikon D70's, all shot in aperture priority mode, balanced metering. Spot metering with Nikon, centreed metering with Canon. www.pbase.com/chora668 Thanks! |
nomad (3693) | ||
| 247951 | 2004-06-27 08:01:00 | Just correction: D70 digital files printed at a pro lab and great. Canon film SLR printed at a pro lab (the dog) and this color issue. Canon film SLR printed at the warehouse, this color issue again. It looks like the warehouse and pro lab sorta have similar issues here. I have some more pro lab photos with film they all seemed to have the same yellow tint on the greens as the dog photo.. |
nomad (3693) | ||
| 247952 | 2004-06-27 14:02:00 | Photo labs indeed consider colour correction, it is one of the major factors in print balancing, but the correction in a small print is to get the main subject correct. The other areas of the photo must take what results from this. A common complaint in wedding photos, especially where the bridal dress was made by the brides mother, is that the dress is not the right colour in some of the prints, sometimes a sample of the fabric is sent to prove the point. It is sometimes difficult explaining this,so I recall a set of proofs being sent off with the dress perfect in every shot. Pity about the bride's face, hair etc. When you consider the varied lighting in a series, (stained glass windows in the church, under trees after the ceremony, in a flourescent lit hall for the dinner etc.) it is amazing how well the human eye adapts while it is viewing the actual scene. When viewing a print however, the same lattitude will not apply, being influenced by room lighting etc. View a print you like under fluorescent light, then take it outside and view it under daylight. Surprise! The three colours in the negative, and their complements in the print are not linear in their sensitivity, a small change in light levels in an under-exposed print may affect the red dye much more than the green and blue for instance, so small changes in a brightly lit area may have quite undesired consequences on darker areas, with resulting colour shifts. The lab can quite possibly rectify this to a large extent, but the time and hence the cost tend to skyrocket. Colour balancing is a difficult and skilled task, but a compromise between cost, fidelity, and a pleasing picture is a continuous balancing act requiring skilled staff and good equipment. Unfortunately, the customer often focuses on the cost and doesn't consider what it takes to get ALL the colours balanced. Try a little juggling yourself in Gimp, Photoshop, PaintShop, or whatever and note how long it takes. The average light in NZ is a bit richer in blues and greens than most other countries, so the better film stock will have a measure of correction "built in" to cover this. Film purchased overseas may give indifferent results here as a result. Also, the "Use-by" date is for unexposed film; once it is exposed, it tends to be more sensitive to aging and imperfect storage. So, keep the film cool and get it processed quickly when it has been used. Cheers R2 |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 247953 | 2004-06-27 14:05:00 | Apart from the fact my head hurts,that was an interesting read. Well worth it. |
metla (154) | ||
| 247954 | 2004-06-27 14:48:00 | If you take a look HERE (sal.neoburn.net) it is a very rough example (somewhat exagerated) of colour balancing. I don't know which is the right dog impression :) Sorry about that Metla :p R2 |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 247955 | 2004-06-27 22:03:00 | > If you take a look > HERE (sal.neoburn.net > pg) it is a very rough example (somewhat > exagerated) of colour balancing. > > I don't know which is the right dog impression :) A picture is worth a thousand words they say. ;-) |
Fire-and-Ice (3910) | ||
| 247956 | 2004-06-27 22:35:00 | It pays to experiment with film types too Nomad. Try to find one that suits your general photographing conditions. I don't like Fuji film at all, but I have used worse. Generally speaking I use the slowest film I can for the conditions and save fast film for times when speed is essential. I don't think you can really make a valid comparison between digital and film based systems either. The response of the chemicals in a film will be quite different to the response of an electronic sensor. The crunch comes when you send for printing and I find that if I colour balance my digital camera output before commercial printing I get a far more consistent result. On the other hand, I find that film printing is a movable feast unless you use a real pro lab and pay accordingly. As an aside, for years my wife had an old Kershaw 8-20 Penguin (roll film) camera sitting in a box of bits and peices from her late parents. I picked it up one day and discovered that it still had a film in it with some shots left unused. I shot off a few then took it to a prolab for developing and printing. After 40 or more years in the camera, it still printed and we got some long delayed family photos from her childhood. Quality wasn't great, but after 4 decades and no particular care taken in terms of storage environment there was nothing to complain about. The last few photos that I took myself were quite reasonable, which speaks volumes for the original quality of the (Kodak) film. Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 247957 | 2004-06-28 01:09:00 | I think I'll do a bit of photoshoping (scanning nege's) to take out the middle man color balance issue or use a real pro lab if the pix are important. converting slides to prints is expensive .. I did some basic photoshoping just using "auto color" that already provided significant improvements... by the way, how does pro's process their pixtures like wedding, graduations etc? Those prints come out v nice. Hence if they had use my "pro" lab I tried, the tint would been inevitable. How do you define what is a pro lab really is? I don't wanna name the lab I went to but it sells pro equipment up to $15k DSLR, $5k film SLR, they sell pro film like Fuji Reala, Provia, Velvia, Kodak Portra etc .. having a look at their price list they seem to charge 50% more if color correction is "necessary". Billy, I don't know if this is correct but I was reading a book and he said Kodak is more towards yello color things and Fuji for green things? |
nomad (3693) | ||
| 247958 | 2004-06-28 06:07:00 | > Billy, I don't know if this is correct but I was > reading a book and he said Kodak is more towards > yello color things and Fuji for green things? Probably an element of truth there nomad, I find Fuji film too "cold" for my liking, but by the same token, I don't find Kodak "warm" . Natural is the word I would use . I never liked Agfa either, and although I tried one or two others as well whose names escape me, I always returned to Kodak . I learned my original photography skills on Kodak 25 ASA slide film and coping with the slow speed taught me a thing or two . I still tend to favour slower films even now to be honest . BTW, any pro lab that uses a "mini-lab" setup is limited in its ability to produce good results . I took a moderately underexposed film in to a fairly well regarded minilab a week or so back (bounce flash at f32 instead of f8 & forgot to preview) and explained the problem . They assured me that they could compensate, but all I got was a roll of dense negatives . At least they didn't print them all out like some are inclined to do, then they argue if you refuse to pay! Fortunately the pictures were no great loss but I expected better . One size fits all I guess . :( Cheers Billy 8-{) :| |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1 | |||||