Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,946   Posts: 1,585,854   Online: 1043
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by roteague
    In your opinion, of course.
    Which must differ from yours I have no bias either way, I'm just looking at reality.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by dxphoto
    To me, it is more like a scanner or scan processing problem, esp to your 2nd problem.
    Do you have something specific that you could point me to? Thanks!

  3. #23
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacko1729
    Which must differ from yours I have no bias either way, I'm just looking at reality.
    Again, reality in your opinion.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Kino
    Sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong (so what else is new?), I would say it IS compounded for 'normal' color balance assuming your water is in the PH range considered 'normal' by the manufacturer.

    Do you happen to know the PH of your water?
    Boy, this is opening a can of worms I really have no idea what the PH of my water is, but I have a feeling I need to find out!

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by roteague
    Again, reality in your opinion.
    I really don't understand your point, or your attitude. What are you trying to tell <i>me</i>? Your smug comments about my opinion is something I don't really need right now. Are you talking about the lens in question? Are you talking about the resolving power of my digital camera? 35mm film?

    I'm having to assume here that I'm working off opinion, and that you're working only with facts, so please enlighten me.

  6. #26
    DKT
    DKT is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    504
    one thing that is confusing about your question--is that you're comparing the color balance of your process against both a scan of the film, and a digital image as well. You also mention your light table giving you another color balance also. I guess my answer to your question, is that there are too many variables...you have a whole chain of color control issues between your scanner, monitor etc. Same goes for the digital camera. The same is true, for the light table that you view your slides on as well. It all has to be calibrated for it to make any sense.

    I remember a few years ago, having some E6 problems that PE solved for us (thanks--it was the reversal bath!)--but our approach to it, was to nail down everything with a color meter, and we wound up processing control strips for weeks before we even got the film straightened out--then we had to test back with CC filters to get that right. and we were shooting all the same emulsion number film as well.

    One thing we discovered in this, was out of the three light tables we use, each one has a different color balance. We also discovered modifiers & different strobe heads that were causing various color shifts. But the objects/subjects we shoot--they can play tricks with how they reflect light....you say that sign is "white", but is it really? Shooting gray cards, or running control strips---these help you isolate the problems down to something tangible that you can check against. The digital image, and the scanned image are just complicating things and not really that helpful, imho.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Well, I can see this is going nowhere fast. I guess I will look elsewhere, or just give up on the processing.

    Obviously I don't ask properly, or I didn't present this very well. I've been told everything from "learn to use your gear" to the "digital image is just complicating things".

    I didn't expect to have to present credentials or to prove my level of expertise, but I've been working in a completely color managed work flow for years. I've presented a perfectly color balanced digital capture as a benchmark, nothing more, nothing less, but many want to question whether I even know how to do that. The digital capture is the constant, the benchmark in this instance. I know it's correct. My ignorance lies in film processing or maybe even in the scanning, but not in digital workflow.

    The jist of my problem was "why am I getting a magenta cast with my E-6 processed film?" If it's a scanner problem, I'll figure it out. I don't think it is, because I can scan commercially processed film and I have no problem. That leads me back to processing. If that's where the problem is, I'll figure it out. So, on that note, I'll go.

    Regards,

    Jack

  8. #28
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacko1729
    I really don't understand your point, or your attitude.
    You are passing off your opinion as fact, when it is in fact, opinion.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  9. #29
    Derek Lofgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    757
    Images
    114
    Hey Jack,
    I don't even have a clue to how to fix your problem but it sounds like Photo Engineer and others have in nailed down to your chemistry. I would start there, PE is the about the smartist one on this stuff, IMHO. As far as your digital image goes, some people are sort of sensitive about digital around here. No big deal, Robert seems to think the only film to use is Fuji Velvia 50 anyway . Everyone is just trying to help. I would love to hear what the problem is so when you figure it out let us know.

    regards
    D.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacko1729
    Another reason I think something is wrong in my processing, there is some sort of 'halo' in the film shot. The text on the awning looks like it has some kind of shadow. Here's the example:

    Jack
    The halo is definetly a scanner issue.
    Even with top notch consumer scanners this effect cannot be eliminated.

    Try to have this very slide scannered with a drum scanner (Tango and the likes..." to see if it helps...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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