Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,208   Posts: 1,531,955   Online: 1143
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Film Comparison

  1. #11
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    The upper one looks like having a green, or yellow cast, the colour of the sky looks wrong.
    The lower ones looks like having a magenta, or reddish cast, but overall the sky looks less unnatural.

    The sky to me is the ultimate benchmark of chromatic accuracy. There are many grass-greens, but there is only one sky-blue in my opinion. Tiny colour shifts are more evident in skies.

    The subject looks like an exercise in finding a film stress test.

    With slides for projections I would have opened more, if really the doc had ordered me to take that picture, accepting some overblown white in the sky in order to obtain some detail in the rock. More probably, I would have reframed the image excluding either the sky or the rock. With slides for numeric acquisition I would have exposed this way, tried to open the shadows in post-processing, and basically moan that I should have used negative film instead.

    With negative film I would have used some generous overexposure and than "extracted" detail from the highlights. Actually, I would expect this situation to be the typical situation where negative must perform better than slide film, but it doesn't show, and I suppose it doesn't because the exposure is the same ("for the highlights", correct for slide, a waste of dynamic range, in this case, for negatives).

    I suppose that with a different exposure (2EV or 3 EV more with the colour negative) the scene would have constituted a school case to show the differences in dynamic range between negative and slide film. With the same exposure it shows that negative film doesn't have much forgiveness in the shadows, which is in itself a case for those who routinely "overexpose" their negatives (rate them at less than nominal ISO speed in order to better exploit their dynamic range).
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 11-30-2011 at 04:52 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  2. #12
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,186
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    The upper one looks like having a green, or yellow cast, the colour of the sky looks wrong.
    The lower ones looks like having a magenta, or reddish cast, but overall the sky looks less unnatural.

    The sky to me is the ultimate benchmark of chromatic accuracy. There are many grass-greens, but there is only one sky-blue in my opinion. Tiny colour shifts are more evident in skies.

    The subject looks like an exercise in finding a film stress test.

    With slides for projections I would have opened more, if really the doc had ordered me to take that picture, accepting some overblown white in the sky in order to obtain some detail in the rock. More probably, I would have reframed the image excluding either the sky or the rock. With slides for numeric acquisition I would have exposed this way, tried to open the shadows in post-processing, and basically moan that I should have used negative film instead.

    With negative film I would have used some generous overexposure and than "extracted" detail from the highlights. Actually, I would expect this situation to be the typical situation where negative must perform better than slide film, but it doesn't show, and I suppose it doesn't because the exposure is the same ("for the highlights", correct for slide, a waste of dynamic range, in this case, for negatives).

    I suppose that with a different exposure (2EV or 3 EV more with the colour negative) the scene would have constituted a school case to show the differences in dynamic range between negative and slide film. With the same exposure it shows that negative film doesn't have much forgiveness in the shadows, which is in itself a case for those who routinely "overexpose" their negatives (rate them at less than nominal ISO speed in order to better exploit their dynamic range).
    Absolutely agree. The scan of the slide is possibly a little greener than the slide itself, which is also a little cool. While the black hole is annoying, the highlights (clouds, gilding) are the subject and therefore much more important than a slimy rock and I wouldn't give the chrome any more exposure. wrt "I like the chrome because more highlight contrast", that's obviously a post-processing decision for the C41. I'm pretty sure I could make the cloud edges blow out on that one in the way that they do with the chrome... but I'm interested in whether people prefer the restrained, detailed look or the blown, high-contrast look.

    I have extra shots taken there with the Ektar with more exposure and they can be fiddled in post to provide much more dynamic range. That's not the point of this comparison though; I was just wondering how obvious the differences in film behaviour were to people. Here's a (different) comparison where the extra dynamic range has actually been put to use: E6, C41. There's also the issue that adding more dynamic range inherently drops the overall contrast unless you apply HDR techniques (a dodge and burn, basically), so getting more shadow detail will inherently reduce the drama in the clouds.
    Last edited by polyglot; 11-30-2011 at 05:26 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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