So I'm doing an RA4 printing session this evening with some Pro 160S (a very neutral film) that expired in 2007 (thankyou to whoever on APUG sold it to me on the cheap!). It's a tad dense and requires much more cyan filtering due to its age but the colours are still accurate and (on the papers I can get) slightly more contrasty and saturated than I want for a portrait. It looks like a mildly-boosted digital photograph with similar punch to Provia. Getting enough saturation is not a problem, personally I find getting it down to an acceptable level more difficult.
[QUOTE=rwreich;1488609]The images that I see that make me wary are scanned and probably manipulated. I just wondered what they'll really look like after printing instead of on the monitor.
Have a look at some scans in the gallery by AJMiller who uses, if I recall correctly, Portra film. I am sure there are others whose scans represent accurately as is possible the actual print, it was just that a recent scan of a print by AJ Miller of I think a bicycle by a harbour in France was a good example of realistic colour
I use the Porta NC, and set my luna-pro at 125, and I'm happy. I suppose when the knuckleheads on the Kodak board finally crash and burn the company, I'll have to do something else. I'm NOT looking forward to that day. Looks like it's coming though.
Not entirely on topic, but I would like to express that the actual perception of saturation can be increased by setting the "black point" of the viewer, whatever that means.
It is my impression that the same print, seen against a black background, appears to have more saturated colours than against a white background. By the same token, slides are projected in total darkness, and as soon as some light enters the projection room the perception of saturation (and contrast) decreases noticeably. I understand the real saturation and contrast - in scientific laboratory terms - of the images is the same, but the perception is different.
So if you have a series of prints that you are showing to somebody, or exhibiting, and for one of these prints you would like to give a greater sense of saturated colours, you can show it against a dark(er) background. Or you could show it in the dark, lighted by a spot light.
I also suppose that the same applies to slides seen through the loupe on a light table. Our brain tends to set the darker zones as "pure black" and the lighter as "pure white" and we have a perception of high contrast which, I suppose, in turn tends to give a perception of high saturation. If we see some pure white (part of the light table without a slide over it) near the slide both the perception of saturation and of contrast tends to be lowered (although if we measure them they are the same).
Unless that's just the result of my hallucinations.
There was a color TV in the 70's that advertised a "jet black screen". I forgot which. You do have a point, however unfeasable.
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
Actually there is plenty of good scholarly info on the dark/light surround.
Think slides vs prints.
I think that was the Sony Trinitron.
Originally Posted by HTF III
Good thoughts, all!
When I finally get around to printing color, I'll likely use existing negatives I have from rolls of Portra400NC, new Portra400, and some Color Plus that I found in a drug store in a hurry.
I'd like to try Ektar sometime before too long, and though I know it's not always easy on portraits, I can accept it for what it is as long as I still get even gradation throughout the faces.
More than anything, I'm trusting the film to deliver texture no matter what... That's obviously easier with portra, but we'll see about Ektar when I get there.
Any thoughts on the nature of the texture in bright skin-tones?
(I agree, most of that is related to exposure;)