Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,694   Posts: 1,549,024   Online: 948
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,757
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    Well in scanning I usually scan my my negs as positive, and set the levels for each channels individually, invert then do any colour correction (if needed at that point, usually not).

    markbarendt: I wont be optically printing for a long time yet, so it would be nice to see the results and conclusions of others.
    The results you get are directly related to the processes and equipment you use, the lab you use, etcetera. Change any variable and you get a different result.

    "Normal" in an enlarger is different than in a scanner and different scanners and software packages do different things too.

    Since you are looking for info on how film works when scanned, and your scanning it yourself, I'd suggest that it might be more productive for you to try a forum that supports that digital path.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #12
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,559
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    The results you get are directly related to the processes and equipment you use, the lab you use, etcetera. Change any variable and you get a different result.

    "Normal" in an enlarger is different than in a scanner and different scanners and software packages do different things too.

    Since you are looking for info on how film works when scanned, and your scanning it yourself, I'd suggest that it might be more productive for you to try a forum that supports that digital path.
    A) The software 'package' is totally irrelevant with the way I scan and correct, even the hardware (apart from monitor) is completely abstract with the way I scan (apart from the digitisation quality), so unless you want to get into a 'digital discussion' please do not try to argue that point.

    B) I'm not looking for info on how film works when scanned, please refer to the thread title.

    C) This thread isn't about scanning, might I suggest you pay a little more attention please? My method isn't the subject of this discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by ZorkiKat View Post
    A colour negative with punchy dyes will print with more punch on a positive material, when optically printed, that is.
    Your results definately have a certain punch to them.

    I would assume to have a better saturation, that there would need to be better colour separation, but if one colour is already intense bright, will increasing exposure not raise the density of the other 2 colours but not increase the density of the already intense colour much since highlights are restrained more?




    I think a warning should go along with the advice of overexposing C-41 that the increased saturation will only appear in optical prints, I'll have to test if it's equivalent of shifting the black and gamma/midtone points, though perhaps I shouldn't say that here :P
    Last edited by Athiril; 05-26-2010 at 08:33 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,757
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    B) I'm not looking for info on how film works when scanned, please refer to the thread title.
    Athiril, lets work the basics a bit.

    Overexposure of color negative film moves the placement of each subject in the composition further up the films characteristic curve, the negative gets thicker, harder to push light through.

    So, lets say that you can print a normally exposed negative (in an enlarger) correctly with a 15 second exposure.

    If you print an overexposed negative of the same exact scene with the same 15 second exposure you will get an underexposed print, i.e. reds will move toward white, i.e pink. The negative is simply blocking more light.

    Standard printing doesn't work.

    To fix that issue with an enlarger you add more exposure time to the paper. More exposure on the paper means darker colors. Pinks move back to red.

    There is more to this story though.

    The three color layers in the film don't normally expose evenly, red may be underexposed in the shadows at a normal exposure setting.

    Adding exposure in camera can get all "three" exposures up off the toe and onto the straight line portion of the curve. Once you get all three layers well exposed you can balance the colors better.

    This can, but doesn't always, result in colors you might like better once corrected and placed at the planned brightness on paper.

    It's an art, not a rule.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  4. #14
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,559
    Images
    28
    Well I understand that.

    So printing longer to place the shadows @ shadows on the print so to speak, and will make the highlights (and midtones) on the print denser, and hence more colourful in some cases?

  5. #15
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,757
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    Well I understand that.

    So printing longer to place the shadows @ shadows on the print so to speak, and will make the highlights (and midtones) on the print denser, and hence more colourful in some cases?
    A denser version of the same color is just darker, that can be achieved with a normally exposed negative by just adding more enlarger exposure to the paper.

    An overexposed negative changes the palette, contrast, and "qualities" of the colors captured.

    The choices of the person processing make all the difference in the world, change the filter pack some and you have a new version.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  6. #16
    Mick Fagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,842
    Images
    29
    Interesting thread.

    My experience with over exposing colour negative film is that you end up with ever so slightly finer grain.

    One way to test this is to use Ilford’s C41 B&W film and expose a set of frames from gross under exposure to gross over exposure. The grain difference between the two extremes is interesting.

    With an over exposure of around 1/3 of a stop from a film’s true speed, I have generally found colour negative material to give optimum grain, optimum perceived colour accuracy and optimum colour saturation.

    When I wish for good punchy colour, apart from correct exposure and developing of the actual film, I find I need a reduced highlight to shadow range.

    Under controlled studio conditions, super snappy colour prints will emanate from a negative exposed under a lighting situation where one has an approximate range of 4 stops from the shadow reading, to the highlight reading.

    Negatives exposed under this regime are so stupidly easy to print, look so unbelievably good, you start to wonder what the fuss is all about when printing colour in the darkroom.

    One thing with colour negative printing, is the 6 colours. Three of those colours are in the film, two of the colours are in the enlarger, the sixth colour is controlled by exposure.

    Basically you control Yellow (blue in the film) and Magenta (green in the film) using the dials on your enlarger head, or filter packs.

    The Cyan (red in the film) in the enlarger, is not used. Correct red is achieved by exposure (density).

    If you have a print that is quite close to being correct, or is correct colour wise, then making a darker print will add red to the picture. By reducing exposure from correct, you will make the print more Cyan.

    This is effectively how the colour negative darkroom worker, achieves correct colour balance.

    Making a print darker than correct will not make colours more anything, except slightly darker and the whole print will start to get a slight reddish look.

    That said, correct colour is always subjective, but colour negative to positive paper printing, correct or otherwise, is obtained by the combination of the two filters and exposure.

    I have found over the years that the lighting conditions play the most important part of just how punchy (or not) a colour negative print portrays colour.

    So to answer the original question; to the best of my knowledge and experience from printing colour negatives in a darkroom, over exposing colour C41 material does not change the colour saturation component I see in a colour print from one of those negatives.

    Mick.

  7. #17
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,757
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Mick Fagan View Post
    Negatives exposed under this regime are so stupidly easy to print, look so unbelievably good, you start to wonder what the fuss is all about when printing colour in the darkroom.
    I have to agree.

    I lucked into a Color by Bessler "Subtractive Color Calculator" in a box of darkroom stuff that I got at a thrift store. That alone was worth the price of the whole box of stuff.

    Most of the time now one "calculator print" gets me color and exposure settings that are so close it's silly.

    It takes me a lot more work to get a B&W close.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  8. #18
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    Oh dear, you are way off in almost everything...

    Of course if you expose the paper for longer time, it will get darker, but hey, that is if you have a normal negative! If you have a darker negative, the total light reaching paper when using longer printing time, is the same, given that there is no reciprocity failure. How can you go this off in this kind of very basic principle?

    THEN, more dyes mean "darker" image, it is NOT more saturation. If you have an equivalent amount of cyan, magenta and yellow dye, what you have is grey, and if you increase dye density, you have a darker shade of grey. If you then adjust for this by exposing the paper longer, you are where you started.

    Dyes ARE the image, they are not some kind of colorants for BW image, which seems to be the basis for thinking in this thread.

    The saturation thing has to be explained by different arguments. What I can see here is just misconceptions and new theory around the very basics that are just misunderstood completely.

    I would start searching the answer from the shape of the characteristic curve. It would be quite intuitive that contrast - and perceived saturation - would go low when overexposed because of the shoulder area, but the shoulder is quite far up in the modern color negative films and with usual, low-contrast scenes you are not on the shoulder at +1 or even +2 stops. BUT, on the other hand, by overexposing, you move the shadows, which probably are at toe region, to the linear region that has more contrast. This is simple and understandable, but there probably is something more to this that could explain the phenomenon even better. But it is not the fact that you have to expose the paper "longer". The time doesn't matter (unless reciprocity failure kicks in).

  9. #19
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,757
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by hrst View Post
    THEN, more dyes mean "darker" image, it is NOT more saturation.
    I agree.

    A given density on the film will create a given brightness level with a given amount of paper exposure.

    What can change by adding film/camera exposure is the color balance, i.e. getting the reds in the shadows up off the toe of the film's curve.

    What has been called more saturation here might be better described as better color balance and placement of tones.

    For the shot of the lady in the red dress in the jungle above, overexposing the film some would really help in getting all the color info onto the film.

    Conversely, in a highly controlled situation like Mick's studio where the color balance starts near to perfect, there little or nothing to gain from overexposure.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  10. #20
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8

    3 reasons to give color negatives generous exposure

    Reason 1

    Color is like B&W in one basic respect --- sufficient exposure of the PAPER is necessary to make a full and strong BLACK.

    Remove the negative from the process for a moment. If you give the PAPER the minimum exposure necessary to make black, you get black. If you don't, you get mucky almost but not quite black. And in color, it is thoroughly disgusting. Obvious, right ?

    Automated color printing machines usually are (were) set up to print the film base to the minimum exposure necessary to make an almost, almost, almost pure paper black. I guess this was the most effective way to make acceptable prints for the greatest number of customers. If you ran the printer in a pro lab, you simply calibrated the system to a real black. This meant than Aunt Milly's pictures were always going to be lousy, but that was OK. Aunt Milly was the customer who dyed her little white poodle green on St Patrick's Day back in 1992 and brought the whole lab to its knees trying to balance out the green from an obviously white dog. You never forgot Aunt Milly, did you ?

    The easiest way to make the automated printer make pure black was to force it to expose longer. Since you couldn't sneak into the lab at night and recalibrate the system to expose for a higher density black you were left with the obvious workaround: make your negatives denser by adding half a stop exposure. The printer was compelled to expose longer, and with a normal subject, you got a real black.

    And a real BLACK is necessary for adequate color saturation IN AN OPTICAL PRINTER.

    Reason 2

    In order to correctly balance the color on color paper, you need to give sufficient exposure. Get the exposure correct, the color falls in line. Over exposed color negatives ( a stop or two) were easy to color balance. Underexposure, impossible. To prevent lousy color, the easy fix was to add a margin of error to your exposure. Shoot 160 at 100, and you were protected from bad color.

    Reason 3

    If you were shooting a JOB.... for MONEY ... with CLIENTS and CONTRACTS.... you added a little extra exposure to reduce the chance of making a stupid mistake and suffering for it.

    There you are, the 3 reasons folks traditionally exposed an extra half stop above the box speed of color negative film.

    But that was a long time ago. Printers which scan film can scavenge more information from underexposure than an optical printer could, and the software can correct the image to print well. There are fewer reasons today than there were 40 years ago to give extra exposure. Saturation can be dialed in by Photoshop if you are not using a closed loop system like a Frontier.

    The need to protect yourself from total failure still remains, and giving an extra half exposure is good insurance... even if you are very careful with your technique.
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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