These new Kodak color neg films really are quite a bit different than they used to be. For one thing, the
dye spikes are a lot steeper and more "spikey" than before, esp with Ektar. That means the potential for purer hues and actually less chromaticity error when optimized, but also less forgiving, at least until you go further down the chain of contrast, where the priority is on skintone reproduction (or at least, a visual stereotype of analagous warm neutrals). Unfortunately (or fortunately) I don't even have a digital camera for web use; and the web it a very blunt axe anyway. I do have some 'dud' CA prints laying around relative to my own comparison prints which I could take snips from, but not right away - getting ready for a trip.
Again, I've had no problems with that. Mixed lighting is mixed lighting. The obvious needs to be pointed out. It is not supposed to be balanced at the same time on the neg, they are supposed to render with a differential. Which they do, regardless of your filtering. They are spectrally different. Ektar does not have the kind of problems you are talking about in the mild scenario of mixing 5600K with 6500K you are describing, it is no where near any extremes that can occur. Indeed minor changes in your photo habits can result in significant improvement, so I would take a look at your metering technique and your lab processing quality.
Your attitude here is a very ad hominem approach. No that it makes any kind of difference to the validity of my ideas, I should point out the fact your ad hominem type attitude also is relying on several attitudes and pre-conceptions about other people which you have no idea about to begin with, making it that much more ridiculous. EG; I do have an enlarger, a Eurogon Dichroic, and I have my preferred method of shooting
I do have an enlarger, it is a Eurogon Dichroic. I have my preferred method of shooting. I upload few of the images I take, and print even fewer. I certainly do not have a "I can do anything in Photoshop" approach. The image above and the unfiltered version will colour balance the same on an enlarger as I have not done anything that cannot be done on the enlarger I own with it.
As an aside: Balancing on an enlarger optically is the last concern since the vast vast majority of RA-4 prints originate from scans, as very few people who make wet prints from colour film do it themselves with an enlarger (the majority concern is whatever the majority workflow is (the majority of sales of Ektar)). They get it done at a lab, from their scan, or from a minilab scan, etc. So more complex colour correction apart from a simple colour balance is perfectly applicable in the evaluation of the usage of Ektar (especially since it is a scanning film). Obviously a better quality neg is one that needs the least amount of work and only simple correction, with that in mind, it will optically enlarge well as a benefit as well.
Everyone here will be shooting film, and very very few of them here will be getting film-to-paper wet-prints.
Here is some Ektar from sunday, the only filtering is from the CPL, it is incident metered in the direct sun (adjusted for filter), and 1/3rd over that I think if I remember correctly from the time. It was a very high contrast scene, there is a lot more shadow detail on the neg than what is apparent in the image, as I chose to make it a bit more natural rather than having grey blacks. It is a straight colour balance, the same as what I can get with the dials on my Eurogon.
It looks natural, as does the differential light temperatures. I certainly wouldn't try to colour balance a neutral scale in both of them at the same time. That would be highly unnatural, I prefer the image to look natural for the most part, so I certainly do not wan't the colder portion of my image looking any closer to white/grey/neutral.
Waterfall by athiril, on Flickr
Otherwise what you are talking about is simply not a mild mixture of lighting, but a drastic one, which of course, is a dramatic different in light temperature. Your eye has local chemical sensitivity of exhaustion to intensity (both luminous and chroma). The film does not. Because it would sound like you are mixing shade as high as 10,000K with sunlight as low as 4,000K, and then throwing in 20,000K skylight.
Last edited by Athiril; 09-02-2011 at 03:39 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I regularly use a yellow filter for outdoors and NO filter under tungsten. More yellow is required when printing but I like the slight improvement with contrast with daylight exposures, especially in shade. (Indoor exposures already have the slight increase in contrast.) B&W or color, negative film likes Kelvin 3000 and hates Kelvin 10000 (except don't do this with reversal color!) - David Lyga
You're somewhat missing my point, Athiril. It's not just about color balance. It's about relatively minor
variations in the exposure difference between the different layers causing mismatched geometry in the
curves, and therefore certain uncorretable nuances. Ektar is especially sensitive to this. It might not
matter to some people, but does matter to me; and at times even a modest 81A correction will make the
difference between a merely OK print and one in which the hues absolutely sing. Optimization is the name of my game. Yeah, I'm very nitpicky how my prints look. I don't expect other folks to play by my
rules; but if they too want optimization of color neg response, this kind of filtering is a necessary element. Or at least, recognition of it is a valuable factor in deciding when to break the rules; for example, when you want the shadows to go blue and when you don't relative to the subject. Mixed
lighting with filtraton gives you options that mixing lighting without does not. And in this respect, color
neg films are a different animal than chromes. The problem is, photographers just got too accustomed
to what they think neg prints inherently look like. When an improvement comes along from the traditional
mud, they go "wow", but don't invest in the full potential of the new films.
Can you refrain from talking for some presumed "majority":"Balancing on an enlarger optically is the last concern since the vast vast majority of RA-4 prints originate from scans". WTF?
"Balancing" in the enlarger is a major concern of this thread. And all the scanning "majority" should take their problems elsewhere.
Also, this wiley is all over the place making no sense at all with his dye spikes and all the rest.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Makes no difference. The nature of the problem is analogous whether one is printing in the darkroom or by any other means. If you're off on the wrong foot when you take the shot in the first place, you are boxed in as far as potential corrections are concerned. But it's all there on the mfg tech sheets anyway. Why do you think they publish these things in a standardized fashion? But you have to learn the vocabulary, which in this instance is on a graph and logarithmic. They've already done a lot of the work for you and make it easy to compare one film to another, once you understand the basics. Being
able to correctly interpret the dye spikes saved me about six more months of testing and several hundred dollars. For example, just compare the dye curves for Ektar from those of Portra 400 and
ask what the practical significance is of the difference. This same kind of shorthand has been the
standard way of objectively comparing film for decades. You still need to do personal testing to get
the feel for the specific signature of a film; but ignoring the dyes curves is about like ignoring the
ASA if you want to avoid wasted time and money, and disappointing shots.
So far I was agreeing with you completely. People "on here" are likely to be most interested in optically printing onto photo paper. I won't dispute this isn't true for the majority of people, but those aren't on here.
Originally Posted by iranzi
At least I am primarily interested in optically printing with an enlarger onto RA4 photo paper. I care a bit less about scanning for web or my own ink jet output, and not one bit in the world for scanning by a lab or for the lab to output my scan on a lightjet, inkjet, holodeck or replicator. Whatever. I'm going to optically print mine.
But then you we suddenly and abruptly part company of opinion:
Drew is making perfect sense. His comments about the dye response peaks make perfect sense to anyone who knows the slightest bit about color film and sensitometry. That would be me, someone who knows "the slightest bit." I'm far from an expert, don't own a desnitometer, but his comments are completely lucid and make sense. I for one appreciate his input.
Originally Posted by iranzi
Originally Posted by iranzi
No. The vast majority of RA-4 prints come from scans. As the vast majority of RA-4 prints come from minilabs. Most colour shooters don't process their own film let alone print. Those who print their own RA-4 directly from a film negative with an enlarger are the minority of colour film shooters.
Last edited by Athiril; 09-02-2011 at 10:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
Actually they are on here. APUG is one of the best and most popular resources for film shooters.
APUG unfortunately seems to attract a lot of people that have attitude problems and issues with just about everything, and have very easily offended sensibilities with just about everything again.
They make this place less friendly and scare off an unknown number of film shooters.
The film is daylight balanced, you do not have to go far to correct for daylight, shade falls where shade falls at that colour balance, and that is both normal and correct.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
I've had identical colour filtered and unfiltered in situations close to daylight, including mixed light that has all originated from the sun.
The film is 5600K balanced. 5600K is direct sun, direct sun throws shadows, and simply will be by definition your specific very mild example of "mixed lighting".
As far as what the "mfg" has specified, they have published that Ektar has nearly 11 stops of a straight line response for red (cyan forming layer), green (magenta forming layer) and blue (yellow forming layer).
If you have uncorrectable problems with that shooting in a 5600K situation that is changed by very minor filtration, then the problem is with you - either exposure, processing or psychological.
I don't have an attitude problem and I don't have any problem with people shooting negatives for hybrid work flow, which is what you are talking about whether you call it that or not. But APUG has made a big stink about not being about hybrid methods. FWIW I don't agree with that. I'd like to see it encompass shooting film for such purposes. But I don't make that decision and it's not within the stated subject matter of APUG.
Originally Posted by Athiril
More importantly, I think, while I agree the majority these days are scanned one way or another, those aren't the people who primarily come here. This is a different audience.
I'm not even against arguing that, "for scanning purposes filtration concerns are different because..." etc. What I'm taking issue with is the idea that optical printing via an enlarger is such a small group as to not be a consideration. That may be true for the manufacturer who needn't be too concerned with our small quirky little band of darkroom workers, but I don't believe it is generally applicable here.