Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,747   Posts: 1,515,678   Online: 799
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    everyone talks about the amazing colors of Cibichrome prints, and all my views of CN prints on RA-4 are not as impressive.
    Never confuse 'amazing colors' with 'accurate colors'. People seem to prefer saturated, higher contrast colors than actually exist in life.

  2. #42
    RPC
    RPC is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    361
    Cibachrome prints do not have the color accuracy of prints from color negatives. Yes, the colors pop. But my Cibachrome prints never had the skin tone accuracy of CN prints, and skies, while not purple, often appeared a bit grayed-down. The later version of Cibachrome had a form of masking built into it, but it was not completely effective. CN prints can produce beautiful skin tones and skies, much more accurate to me. On the other hand I have produced prints from films like Ektar that nearly matched Cibachrome saturation-wise, but with better color. Kodachrome is another case where people liked its look, and perceived it to be accurate, but as PE has said it suffered from crossover and dye-impurity problems. People may like the look of an image but that doesn't mean it is accurate.

  3. #43
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,011
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    Never confuse 'amazing colors' with 'accurate colors'. People seem to prefer saturated, higher contrast colors than actually exist in life.
    +1!!!!
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #44
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,908
    Images
    222
    The way it was phrased it sounded like you meant chrome prints were dull...

    And yes, I find "accurate" color to be inaccurate to my eye, I've even taken a picture on c-41 and then went back a day later, the colors ARE dull and don't show what my eye does.

    Not as much as E-6 of course, but more than C-41

    Anyway thanks for answering my query.


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #45
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,205
    Thank you Professor Pixel for that information. This field is truly dynamic: nothing stays still.

    PE said in January 2009: "A filter is uniform in density but a color mask has varying density that is inversely proportional to the image".

    That is true and I confirm: if you look at lower densities on your color negatives you will see NO orange in that part because 'another color took its place' even if that other color has a lower overall density as compared to the orange.

    STONE: never forget that the color you view those photos in can impart mighty differences in perception. Fluorescent is the worst. K3400 the absolute best. (These are my lifelong experiences and might not speak for all.) And when you find accurate color to be inaccurate to your eye perhaps you really mean 'unacceptable' to your eye. Yes? As RPC said (through PE): (mighty) Kodachrome suffered from inaccuracies in hue and crossover BUT.....BUT....was ACCEPTED as perfect by the public!

    And thanks, RPC for bringing us up to date on the remission Agfa decided upon in order to atone for its 'maskless' sins. Apparently, they learned, albeit a bit late. I'll bet they wanted a simpler approach that might have been plausible in theory but maybe not in practice. I am still intrigued as to unfolding the complete story because Agfa is not exactly a 'fly by night' manufacturer. Their theoretical basis must have held water.

    - David Lyga
    Last edited by David Lyga; 10-22-2013 at 07:41 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #46
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,908
    Images
    222
    True David, though I tested by daylight (the sun) lol


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #47
    RPC
    RPC is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    PE said in January 2009: "A filter is uniform in density but a color mask has varying density that is inversely proportional to the image".

    That is true and I confirm: if you look at lower densities on your color negatives you will see NO orange in that part because 'another color took its place' even if that other color has a lower overall density as compared to the orange.
    In all the color negatives I have ever seen even the low density areas and clear areas have orange.

    Yes, the mask does vary in density as PE says.

    But to make sure there is no misunderstanding, if you refer back to what I wrote earlier, the orange color on a negative consists of TWO things, the mask, AND what it is masking, dye impurities. The former forms a positive orange image, and the latter a negative orange image. Together, they form no image at all, just a UNIFORM orange all over the film which is filtered out in printing. Even the clear areas are orange, because there is residual dye-coupler there.

    So If someone says the orange color on a color negative is the mask, that is incorrect. It is the mask, PLUS what it is masking, and it is uniform.

  8. #48
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,205
    RPC, I have seen negatives that have LOWER overall density in the shadows than in the edge of the negative where there is no exposure, only orange. - David Lyga

  9. #49
    RPC
    RPC is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    RPC, I have seen negatives that have LOWER overall density in the shadows than in the edge of the negative where there is no exposure, only orange. - David Lyga
    I have looked at quite a few of my negatives and could not see anywhere what you described. Think about it-if the edges of the film receive no exposure, and produce a given density after processing, how can some point in the image, which also receives no exposure, be any different? If that point received even some exposure, it would then have more density. Perhaps spurious light is somehow slightly fogging the edges of the film in your camera?

    As I recall, you process your film in a non-standard process using RA-4 developer. I can't see how even that would cause what you see, but who knows.

  10. #50
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,205
    RPC. in my case the low exposure parts seem to NEGATE (not add to) the orange (mask?). In other words, where ANY exposure density manifests, NO orange forms to 'add' to the density.

    I would like corroboration or refutation here, as I am curious. - David Lyga

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin