Based on this test I am partial to the Ektar shots you took (comparing the first two because they have the same lens)
Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time
What would you say is a typical UV problem?
Curious, as I have never used a UV (or any) filter as a matter of course, like some do.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
Well, I am taking the statement at face value that these photos were taken just about sequentially, OK?
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
In the second pair, note the sky. One shows haze and the other shows the clouds (which have moved of course). The haze in the Fuji photo is indicative of less UV absorber in the lens or film, IDK which. Since they were taken with different lenses, the only way to "normalize" them is by using a heavy UV filter, if that would work.
Now, the first picture pair do not show a similar problem, but one more related to the scanner settings. This is why I say the test is unclear to me.
I hope this helps.
Last edited by Photo Engineer; 02-10-2010 at 09:44 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Adding "less UV absorber" to correct omission.
Hi and thanks for the replies.
Regarding the scanner issue, thank you for enlightening me. I do not usually scan colour negatives and naively assumed that the software must have some automatic colour correction functions built in that work adequately enough to at least do a "quick and dirty" comparison. Clearly this is not so and I need to rethink the method.
Regarding the lens issue: The first set of images was taken with the same camera, same lens. I included the second set because those lenses are in fact extremely similar. Do you seriously think that any difference can be attributed to these specific lenses? I have many images taken with the same lens that show the same sky effects as in the second comparison. I used that set, because the landscapes were the most similar.
The problem is that I cannot tell if it is the lens or the film. I do suspect the film, but my suspicion is no proof!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Thanks for the replies.
We've consistently had an easier time scanning Ektar. It scans well. Has anyone else noticed that?
Even when you print RA-4, you adjust color filtration to take out any unwanted color cast. This is also true when scanning, if not even more true.
So, color casts are not a point of interest. It is easier to compare two color films if all the color casts are corrected first. Then you can move on to the comparison of the films, which include: saturation, contrast, curve shape in shadows, curve shape in highlights, sharpness, grain, the way different colors are produced (spectral response, different thing than just color balance).
In the end, color balance is almost the ONLY "parameter" which is not film-specific but process-specific and always adjusted, either manually or automatically. That's why it's quite funny that people always compare "color casts" of different films, like "Fuji is green!" (and yes, Reala needs less magenta filtration in darkroom also) etc., in fact they are comparing scanner automatics. But, color casts are so easy to notice and compare, so I'm not surprised.
And, when you scan, you can adjust contrast, saturation, curve shape etc. almost too easily (meaning that they are probably also automatically adjusted!). It would be more interesting to compare how the negs print on same RA-4 paper. Then the prints scanned at the same time, on the same scanner glass.
And I'm not dissing your work, more likely I'm dissing all the usual comments about "color casts". .
The hilariousness of color casts is shown well by the fact that on your test, Reala is very magenta. For me, it's always green, when scanning (before corrections) as well as when in darkroom (compared to other films at same filtration).
Last edited by hrst; 02-10-2010 at 10:01 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Originally Posted by Colden
I've heard that scanning neg film with no orange base is easier.... Kodak color neg aerial film anyone? It's a matter of command and control... and careful precision to hit the target whatever/wherever the target is.
I've heard it too, and if it's true it tells quite a lot about scanners and their manufacturers. The mask is there to correct for unwanted dye absorptions ---to CORRECT colors!--- and the easiest thing in the world to compensate for in scanning/printing. But again, I'm not surprised. I've been thinking of building my own scanner because they all suck so much, unless we go to the $10000 class. $1000...$3000 Nikons have for example a piece of uncoated glass on the CCD that makes scanning dense, contrasty slides impossible because of hilarious flares. And scanning software always suck. Luckily, I like darkroom work so I can scan only when absolutely necessary.
Originally Posted by Mike1234
To me Ektar is really a kick a** film. I finally got hold of scanning it, and I must say that it is as good as a film can be!
I see it becoming my main color negative film, and by what I see and hear, I am not the only one. Kudos to Kodak!