That should have read "FOR color," not, "OR color."
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
"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)
You missed my point completely, Ron. But I'm not the only person aware of the issue. In the practical sense, by understanding or "psycholoanalyzing" how these damn neg curves really work,
I've been able to signficantly improve visible color reproduction. As the quality of a scan diminishes,
the detail will actually suffer less than the ability to correctly reproduce hues. It's especially a problem with small 35mm negs and amateur scans. Hence the film get blamed. It's the SHAPE of the
three curves RELATIVE to one another which is the issue, and how well a scan picks up the nuances
of a curve shape. I hear goofy arguments about this all the time from the Fauxtoshop crowd; but
if they can really fix it afterward, how come their prints always look like #@@*&!
I guess I really have no problem with most any negative or positive color film, and knowing the dye curves kinda dominates my judgement.
Thanks Henning for explaining who "we" are in your post
To put it a little more succintly, if the dye curves are not correctly exposed relative to one another,
it's not only the density that's affected but the geometry one curve relative to another. So when
push comes to shove, a less than ideal scan might pick up a very different slope at the same presumed level of exposure. Seems like a number of pro cinematographers understand my lingo exactly and have been aware of the issue with neg films in general all along. With Ektar's steeper
curves it just gets more exaggerated. I think lots of photographers just shrug their shoulders and
think that a muddied result is inherent to the film, whereas if it its optimized, it can become fairly
clean. Maybe the industry was of explaining this is a little different, Ron; but I'm fairly amazed at
how little the film mfg itself communicates other than published curves and general marketing
applications. Glad I filter, mask, and enlarge, rather than scan.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
That just sounds like crossover to me. Or perhaps interimage effects. I print optically and also scan my negatives. It depends.
I'd call it cross-contamination on the lower part of the curve, once a particular dye layer gets geometrically pushed down due to underexposure. Analagous in effect to white light spillover in older
subtractive enlargers, where residual unfiltered light ends up contaminating all three color layers in
the paper and results in "mud". It's real effect regardless of scan or not, but as I said, a relatively
poor quality scan, typically from an amateur flatbed scanner, combined with small format, is going
to exaggerate the problem. I ran some scanning tests just to confirm this, even though I print
optically. But when the film exp and workflow is reasonably optimized, Ektar does come closer than
any other neg film in mimicking the cleaner hues reminiscent of chromes. And its not just a matter
of saturation, but of curve steepness itself (which also makes it a bit more finicky than other negs).
Postscript - by curve steepness I meant the shape of each repective dye peak, not the overall characteristic exposure curve. Sorry.
I can easily see how the exposure for blue zone V could be underexposed and end up somewhere down on the toe with what we wanted in the blue zones II to III lost or nearly devoid of any detail/color info while the exposure for red and green zone V were up where we might normally expect zone V on the curve.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
This would definitely screw up the color.
Not following you here at all though, are you speaking of spectral senitivity?
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
This thread went way over my head with all the tech details of the film, but I'll add in my layman's $.02:
As long as you like that color palate that it gives you, then it's great.
If you don't then it's not going to be any good for you because that color palate is very distinct.
Same can be said for Portra NC (RIP), Fuji C (RIP), Kodachrome (RIP), etc.