Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,748   Posts: 1,515,713   Online: 919
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 59
  1. #31
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,871
    Images
    65
    If you look at the technical data sheets you will see a huge similarity between Ektar and Portra. I suspect that they use the same dye sets, but different emulsions. If so, then it would be difficult to explain what you observe.

    PE

  2. #32
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    I find my CanoScan 9000F can certainly look blue with this film underexposed. I find it difficult to correct.


    Ektar blue underexposure by Harry Pulley, on Flickr

    Exposed properly it looks great however.


    Ektar normal exposure by Harry Pulley, on Flickr

    Yes, of course I'll RA-4 print them to see how I can do there. Just quick scans for sharing, that's all these are. Won't be any digital output from these...
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  3. #33
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,053
    Images
    12
    I don't think it's just scanners, I think there really is something going on in the blue channel. While I've no doubt that there's a lot of (chemical) similarity to Portra, there's clearly not in terms of colour sensitisation and saturation.

    I've looked at a couple of shots with what should be an approximately black background and there's a big sheet of yellow in the negative that's visible against the mask, i.e. you can see the frame edges. When picking the black point, I find it works best if you include this extra little bit of yellow (i.e. subtract some blue) and it all comes out pretty well. If you take completely-blank film as the mask colour then you can get the weirdness in blue.

    Perhaps there's a stop or so better sensitivity in the blue, so the R & G will drop off the toe first? I'm totally speculating there, but there is a visible difference between the shadows of Ektar and Portra negs.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,180
    My experience with this film is that when it was first released the pictures I saw online (and still see now) had very odd colours and quite cyan skies. When I optically printed my first roll it looked nothing like what I saw online and initially I thought my process was wrong and perhaps the chemistry was shot but I think I've found this film to be much more 'normal' than online examples indicate.
    Steve.

  5. #35
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,871
    Images
    65
    The underexposed example in post 32 can be corrected nicely in PS, but is nevertheless underexposed. It is always best to overexpose any color negative film (or B&W film for that matter) by about 1/3 stop. I use ISO 100 for Portra 160 and ISO 320 for any 400 film. This goes along with the charts that I posted a few months back regarding the first acceptable good print and which was taken from Haist.

    PE

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    It's very easy actually to get good colours. Do not use VueScan, it's a joke. Dumb film profiles and a load of pointlessly convoluted controls. All you need to do is hit the colour balance option in Epson Scan or whatever basic scanning package.


    Colour balance fixes any perceived problems with sky and shadows too, it only takes 30sec - 1min. Though we should stop talking about this here.
    So we are all going to register at a different forum to continue this discussion?

    Anyway, I use Vuescan. I agree with you, the profiles are ridiculous. On the other hand, its semi-straightforward to get a raw scan out of it, and from there inverting and color correcting in Photoshop isn't all that hard and gives much superior results. Better than NikonScan in my case. Of course, this assumes that a) you are will to do some work to get your final image and b) you have Photoshop or some other capable program with curves (lightroom doesn't cut it).

    It's not automatic, but an action in Photoshop can easily be written that does most of it for you, and all you need to do is step in at a couple spots and make some adjustments.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North America just north of that sharp right turn North America makes on the Atlantic coast.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by swilf View Post
    I have a little experience with the film, and it was very hard to get decent colors with conventional scanning software. There's nothing wrong with your scanner, of course. I advise you to get raw scans from VueScan and then invert them in PS using Curves or ColorNeg.

    There are problems with the film after all. Or maybe just features. Color of pale sky usually shifts to cyan. There is blue cast in shadows (I must admit that sometimes it does look great). The blue cast is severe in case of underexposure, so you may try to underrate it a bit.
    I shoot film because I don't want to buy more and more software. I don't own photoshop because I shoot film and don't need photoshop to project my slides. I shoot slides to avoid all of these problems. If I want to shoot Ektar as I do sometimes I have it processed and printed by a shop that can do it properly. If it is not coming out of the scanner right that is because it wants to be printed, not scanned.
    Last edited by bblhed; 05-08-2011 at 12:24 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
    "Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"

    Me

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by bblhed View Post
    Just using the "I'm feeling lucky" button in Picasa gave me this.



    I have a feeling this is what you are looking for.
    On my opinion it looks a bit too red still... (maybe more autumn like). In my case it was a spring day, actually.
    Last edited by babaluma; 05-09-2011 at 12:49 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14
    Hallo everybody,
    I finally played with vuescan again and got this result with adjusted blue and red part:


    I still don't thing colours are correct...

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by hpulley View Post
    I find my CanoScan 9000F can certainly look blue with this film underexposed. I find it difficult to correct.


    Ektar blue underexposure by Harry Pulley, on Flickr

    Exposed properly it looks great however.


    Ektar normal exposure by Harry Pulley, on Flickr

    Yes, of course I'll RA-4 print them to see how I can do there. Just quick scans for sharing, that's all these are. Won't be any digital output from these...
    Hi hpulley,
    thanks for a great example.
    What kind of film have you been using?

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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