PDA

View Full Version : Why do my colors stink?


JeremyLangford
12-18-2008, 16:09
I have a picture that I took along time ago with my Minolta SRT-101 SLR and a 50mm f/1.4 Rokkor. I used Fujifilm C41 color film and had it developed at Wal-Mart.

I have been using C41 color film for about 2 years and have always had it scanned at Walmart until I recently got my own flatbed scanner (Epson V500).

Anyways, I am not happy with the colors of this picture. Here is the Wal-Mart scan.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/3739/wmsdo6.jpg

And it here it is scanned with a Nikon Coolscan V.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9808/cssxc5.jpg

First off, It bothers me that there is a huge color difference between the Walmart scan and the Nikon Coolscan V scan.

Now, heres some pictures taken by film photographer Ryan Russell (http://ryanrussell.net/)

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/1727/2005l06gb4.jpg

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/6379/2006l12dy9.jpg

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6294/2006l12exa2.jpg

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/7060/2007m12ub8.jpg

His pictures were taken in the same exact place as mine were. However, the colors of his pictures are outstanding in my opinion while mine, especially on the Coolscan V scan, are absolutely crappy in my opinion.

I am thinking that this may be because he used slide film and I used C41 film. Could this be why? If so, then I am going to stop using C-41 and start using E6.

Any thoughts will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

charjohncarter
12-18-2008, 16:17
The light is florescent which is green and comes out green in digital and color films. The Walgreen scan may be set up to just scan no correction, while the coolscan may have auto correction programed in. As to the slide and C-41 issue I don't know. But using E-6 or C-41 you are in a very difficult color correction photo location.

Pablito
12-18-2008, 16:19
Given the light source, you're not going to get natural color. All C41 films are balanced for daylight. Some films do better in fluorescent or tungsten than others, what I mean is that some films respond better to color correction. I don't think the examples you posted show particularly good color, skin tones are greenish yellow. Slide films are harder to control because you need to use color compensating filters. At least with C41 you can do color correction more easily. BTW, I think the Nikon scanner did the best job of anything you show.

Prosaic
12-18-2008, 16:20
What software do you use?

rogue_designer
12-18-2008, 16:42
Make sure that the Nikon software is not auto adjusting to remove the cyan shift caused by the fluorescents.

He also has a bit of a blue/green transfer or cross processing look to his - it could be a combination of the film he used, and the way he processed it to get that particular tone. Slide film would boost the cyan saturation.

If I recall correctly, didn't fuji add another color layer on the neg films to add correction for fluorescent? That could be part of the problem.

JeremyLangford
12-18-2008, 17:16
I think that the Ryan Russell shots resemble the colors found in that escalator the best. Thats how I remember the colors looking. Even if its not the most natural, thats how I want my colors to look. I think they look great.

On the Coolscan V scan, the wall looks gray. If the wall was really gray, I would not have bothered taking the picture. I took it because I loved the light blue/green color of the tiles.

I think that the Walmart colors are better than the Coolscan at recreating the actual colors. But I don't know what they did to get them so much better. Still, they both stink compared to Ryan Russells in my opinion. (I didn't scan the Coolscan scan myself. I had to mail it to an RFF member to scan for me because I had no way of testing a Coolscan scanner.)

But the main reason I posted this thread is because I don't think there is any way to get my colors as good as Ryan Russells. I know some of you don't like his colors, but I do. No matter what I do in Photoshop, my colors seem to stay bland.

rogue_designer
12-18-2008, 17:27
I'll reiterate...

He could be shooting slide film, or processing his specifically. You may well be limited by the film you chose.

And - until you have control over the scans, you won't know.

rogue_designer
12-18-2008, 17:32
Here is your image with some *tweaking*

http://www.streetlevel-photography.com/wmsdo6_modified.jpg

Two layers added - one is a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer - set to colorize, and bumped over towards cyan - set at 40% opacity.

On top of that, is a duplicate of the original, blending mode is set to "overlay".

Closer? I can send you the photoshop file, if you'd like to see what was done.

maddoc
12-18-2008, 17:58
↑↑↑ that looks pretty good to me !! (at least on my monitor)

When I used the Coolscan V ED, I always found the colors to "neutral" maybe due to the LED - light ?

This "subway" shot was taken using Fuji Film (C-41, Fujicolor Pro 160S Professional), self-developed and scanned with the Epson V700:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/3111808723_2675b28e5d.jpg

35mmdelux
12-18-2008, 18:08
nice foto Gabor.

jeremey -- you need to figure out what kind of light you'll be shooting in and use appropriate film or photoshop it. Many great photogs have a film they prefer and shoot as is and correct later. think about it -- if your travelling worldwide you probably dont have film for flourescent or tungsten specifically.

JeremyLangford
12-18-2008, 18:27
One thing I found is that if I take the Wal-Mart scan into Photoshop and perform an "Auto Color Adjustment" then it comes out looking almost exactly like the Coolscan V scan (The wall turns gray). This should lead me to believe that when the Coolscan V scanned the negative, it performed an automatic color correction that the Walmart scanner did not right?

Leighgion
12-18-2008, 18:53
To be precise, it's not the scanner itself that'd perform automatic color correction, but the software. Removal of color casts is a pretty common auto fix which, as this thread shows, isn't always desired.

Whenever you're scanning anything and care about the exact results, you have to be at the helm dictating things. This is especially true of C41 film, since there's no "straight" way to render the colors. What's better and worse is completely subjective.
This one of the reasons why slide film was traditionally the choice of serious photographers shooting color: a developed frame of E6 is a finished image.

The colors that Ryan Russell got can't be narrowed down to just one factor, but his choice of film is unquestionably part of it. Not just that he shot E6, but exactly which E6 film makes a difference too.

You don't mention what C41 film you're using, but not all are created equal by a long shot. There's color negative films that, even considering the uncertainly in the printing or scanning, push out much richer colors than others.

Al Kaplan
12-18-2008, 19:33
Doesn't anybody these days ever shoot a grey scale and color control strip anymore? It's not like you're still "wasting" film. It gave you a series of greys from white to black and a series of color patches. You could either shoot them in the same light as your subject or include them along the edge of the frame where it would be cropped out later. All the various grey patches and colors were standardized. You adjusted color and density as needed to attain the proper colors and tones in the print.

It made it possible to know exactly what those colors should look like.

35mmdelux
12-18-2008, 19:43
Doesn't anybody these days ever shoot a grey scale and color control strip anymore? It's not like you're still "wasting" film. It gave you a series of greys from white to black and a series of color patches. You could either shoot them in the same light as your subject or include them along the edge of the frame where it would be cropped out later. All the various grey patches and colors were standardized. You adjusted color and density as needed to attain the proper colors and tones in the print.

It made it possible to know exactly what those colors should look like.


Thanks for the FYI, Al.

Al Kaplan
12-18-2008, 19:55
No problem! I'm constantly amazed by just how much of what was once common knowledge has fallen through the cracks. You don't even need an official genuine Kodak grey scale and color patches. Make your own. Include it in a frame, then try to match it on your monitor.

I suspect that a lot of these color gremlins would scurry back under the carpet if people took the trouble to shoot with filters so that the color balance of the image hitting the sensor was uniform, or at least close to correct.

charjohncarter
12-18-2008, 20:15
Right Al!! Besides that green look is goofy. Only a photo magazine guy would like it.


And Jeremy, I don't know about you but I don't see green when I'm in a fluorescents lite building, car park, or escalator.

Al Kaplan
12-18-2008, 20:31
An 80B filter will cost you two stops and get you pretty close to daylight balance in tungsten light. Get an FL-D for flourescents, but keep in mind that flourescents vary a lot, especially in how much green they have. The FL-D was designed to give "acceptable" color with a variety of flourescent lights.

We don't notice the green because our eyes and brain do the color corection when we're in that sort of lighting.

JeremyLangford
12-18-2008, 20:34
Right Al!! Besides that green look is goofy. Only a photo magazine guy would like it.


And Jeremy, I don't know about you but I don't see green when I'm in a fluorescents lite building, car park, or escalator.


I saw green because the tiles are a light blue/green color. And in my scan by the Coolscan V, they are gray.

MikeL
12-18-2008, 20:40
Jeremy, as I mentioned in your other thread, you are happy with the Walmart scans. I'd stick with them and not fight it.

kaiyen
12-18-2008, 20:54
Jeremy,
I truly, honestly mean no offense by this, but you're starting to sound like a broken record. Have you digested any of the comments about the software doing some autocorrect? Have you even indicated what software you are using? It's like you're posting without reading any of the responses. Or, since you kinda-maybe say that you're using the Nikon software, have you learned how to turn off the auto color correction?

allan

JeremyLangford
12-18-2008, 20:55
Jeremy, as I mentioned in your other thread, you are happy with the Walmart scans. I'd stick with them and not fight it.

Not only do they crop out important parts of the frame, but there can also be a couple of wierd scan lines going through the frame sometimes.

JeremyLangford
12-18-2008, 20:59
Jeremy,
I truly, honestly mean no offense by this, but you're starting to sound like a broken record. Have you digested any of the comments about the software doing some autocorrect? Have you even indicated what software you are using? It's like you're posting without reading any of the responses. Or, since you kinda-maybe say that you're using the Nikon software, have you learned how to turn off the auto color correction?

allan

I said above that I did not scan the Coolscan scan myself. I had to send it to a fellow RFF member because I have no way to test a local Coolscan scanner.

navilluspm
12-18-2008, 21:08
I have discovered that if you use vuescan, you can scan as a TIFF DNG format (I know this sounds crazy, but that is what it is called - as opposed to the RAW DNG format of vuescan).

I love this feature becasue it will turn the negative into a positive, keep all the ICE cleaning and Photoshop Elements will read it as a "RAW" file in which you can do all the exposure and color correcting you want. This might help you get the colors you are looking for, if you use your own scanner.

BTW The reason I called this TIFF DNG format is that the setting I am talking about is under the TIFF menu and NOT the RAW menu

kaiyen
12-18-2008, 21:20
my fault, I didn't see that. Still doesn't make sense why you aren't accepting the fact that you have so many variables at play, yet you have apparently made at least a few final judgments. You have light/color temperature, software color correction, different film stock, etc.

I said above that I did not scan the Coolscan scan myself. I had to send it to a fellow RFF member because I have no way to test a local Coolscan scanner.

rogue_designer
12-18-2008, 21:23
Doesn't anybody these days ever shoot a grey scale and color control strip anymore?

I shoot one at the start of studio sessions, once I get my lighting set. But I almost never take one out in the field, unless I'm shooting a building for assignment (and I'm spending the time with a view camera and spot metering).

They are a terrific tool. I wish more people used them. Especially the people I end up doing retouching work for... would make my job alot easier.

Andrew Howes
12-18-2008, 21:57
I shoot one at the start of studio sessions, once I get my lighting set. But I almost never take one out in the field, unless I'm shooting a building for assignment (and I'm spending the time with a view camera and spot metering).

They are a terrific tool. I wish more people used them. Especially the people I end up doing retouching work for... would make my job alot easier.

I always do this with digital, the advantage there is the custom white balance at time of capture. It comes out very close to dead on every time. Properly profiling the camera for each type of light gets it even better. You really need to do this with each film and your scanner to get it looking right. Sometimes a scanner comes with various film profiles but nothing like doing your own. (I have never done it, I dont do any serious colour film anymore). I think until you scan or print your own colour film, you dont realise what it takes to get good colour.

Colour space is another thing to look at, if you are scanning in adobe rgb, it may look dull and grey in web or some photographic printers which are closer to srgb.

Chris101
12-18-2008, 22:22
Just curious Jeremy, what number do you see?

http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/images/spectra/ishihara/plate21.jpg

charjohncarter
12-18-2008, 22:25
Exactly Kaiyen, everybody has their own idea of what is great. But to reproduce it and to control it, so it can be reproduced, is a different matter.

amateriat
12-19-2008, 00:35
There's your light source to sort out, and then there's your film:

http://mysite.verizon.net/bwbenton/Photo-mine/jeslyn1a.jpg
Jeslyn, Williamsburg, 2005.

(Technical: Hexar RF, 28mm f/2.8 M-Hex, Fuji Press 800 @ EI 640)

The choice of film, and its handling, are important. Judgement of the lighting at hand counts a lot, too. I've found Fuji Press 800 relatively forgiving in relatively crazy (i.e. mixed-lighting) conditions. Being able to overexpose a bit under these conditions helps a good deal, too; borderline underexposure will make a dicey situation that much worse.


- Barrett

JeremyLangford
12-19-2008, 05:19
Just curious Jeremy, what number do you see?

http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/images/spectra/ishihara/plate21.jpg

twenty one

rogue_designer
12-19-2008, 05:23
So I take it that you don't need the .PSD file then?

There are lots of ways to get the color tones you want. But in general, you'll need more control over scans. And you'll need to choose the film and the processing appropriately (for each shoot). Or be willing to do some serious post processing in PS to achieve it.

Sparrow
12-19-2008, 06:11
Just curious Jeremy, what number do you see?

http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/images/spectra/ishihara/plate21.jpg


I see no number there, and I'm not colourblind!

Please explain?

angeloks
12-19-2008, 06:15
I see no number there, and I'm not colourblind!

Please explain?

Well, I can see why he said 21, but I'll agree with you, I don't really see a number there ! And I'm definitly not colorblind unless there are some new colors around...

Chris101
12-19-2008, 08:55
twenty one

I see no number there, and I'm not colourblind!

Please explain?

Well, I can see why he said 21, but I'll agree with you, I don't really see a number there ! And I'm definitly not colorblind unless there are some new colors around...

Interesting that you see 21 Jeremy! This is plate 21 in the Ishihara test. A deuteranope (like myself) sees a clear 73, protanopes and anomylous colorblind persons will see 7, 3, 2, 5 or 3 and perfect trichromats (non-colorblind people) see no numbers at all. It doesn't say what it means if you see 21! :eek:

color blind test

I see ... nothing! Here are 3 more with explanations, so folks can calibrate their eyes:

http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/images/spectra/ishihara/plate2.jpg
(normal=8, colorblind=3)

http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/images/spectra/ishihara/plate15.jpg
(normal=7, colorblind=nothing)

http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/images/spectra/ishihara/plate24.jpg
(deuteranope [no green] =3, protanope (no red&rare)=5, trichromat=35)

Chris101
12-19-2008, 09:02
Oh, shït it does - I thought it was a smiley face! :)
That's hilarious, but the folks who would really laugh, can't see it. :(

IK13
12-19-2008, 10:54
Interesting.
And somehow made me feel like I have a problem with my perfect color vision...

JeremyLangford
12-19-2008, 10:58
Interesting that you see 21 Jeremy! This is plate 21 in the Ishihara test. A deuteranope (like myself) sees a clear 73, protanopes and anomylous colorblind persons will see 7, 3, 2, 5 or 3 and perfect trichromats (non-colorblind people) see no numbers at all. It doesn't say what it means if you see 21! :eek:





Thats why I said 21. I was hoping that the filename would be the correct number.

JeremyLangford
12-19-2008, 11:03
So I take it that you don't need the .PSD file then?

There are lots of ways to get the color tones you want. But in general, you'll need more control over scans. And you'll need to choose the film and the processing appropriately (for each shoot). Or be willing to do some serious post processing in PS to achieve it.

No thanks. I can get a finished product that I am okay with in Photoshop. I was just wondering why the initial scan from the Coolscan V looked so bad. And after reading your comments I realize that I probably need to start using Vuescan and edit the white balance before scanning. (I have always just let the scanning software do that for me, which is probably why I am not happy with the color corrections it does.

When you say choose the processing, are you mainly just talking about cross processing?

Pherdinand
12-19-2008, 11:08
Dude.
It's all a matter of scanning.
C41 can be scnaned in a million different ways, and a half.
Go shoot a roll of slide film and get it developed. Look at it with a loupe (a wide angle lens will do the trick). Then scan it and compare. Adjust the scan to match the colors.

If you can't get the colors this way right, then you either didn't try hard enough to adjust the scan, or you indeed have a problem with your scanner.

Pherdinand
12-19-2008, 11:08
By the way, C41 also can give back very good colours, it's just more difficult to start scanning with colour negatives.

Pherdinand
12-19-2008, 11:11
And by the way, the green cast on the Walmart scan is butt ugly, the highlights are totally out, and the blacks like the coat of the dude is pitch black.
Not so on the Coolscan version.
I like the Coolscan version much more.
Of course it's a matter of what YOU like more (but that doesn't necessarily mean the more color-correct image).

joachim
12-19-2008, 11:22
Just curious Jeremy, what number do you see?



Hi Chris,

I think posting colour blindness checks on this web side is highly irresponsible (apart from you post being rude in tone). If members who do not know so far that they are colour blind, see these test here, there will be no doctor or else to offer advise or comfort. People do not come here to find out about these type problems, they want to enjoy their photography.

Thanks for reading.

Al Kaplan
12-19-2008, 11:34
I would imagine that most adults would already know if they're color blind long before they started reading this forum.

joachim
12-19-2008, 11:35
No thanks. I can get a finished product that I am okay with in Photoshop. I was just wondering why the initial scan from the Coolscan V looked so bad. And after reading your comments I realize that I probably need to start using Vuescan and edit the white balance before scanning. (I have always just let the scanning software do that for me, which is probably why I am not happy with the color corrections it does.

When you say choose the processing, are you mainly just talking about cross processing?

Hi Jeremy,

Colour negative film seems pretty tough to scan. I have two scanners (Nikon IV and Epson 4990) which I run via their bundled software or vuescan. Having profiled my scanner with a couple of Wolf targets, I get good colour for slides out of the box. For negs, even with less challanging light than the one you show, it is a lot harder and I went for slides only these days. Using slides means your shooting conditions need to match reasonably well on the film (that is 5500K for most of them). If your light is different you must use colour balancing filters. The ability to correct a colour cast on a slide is limited, since some info you need has been clogged up in shadows or burnt away in the highlights.

Hope this helps.
Joachim

joachim
12-19-2008, 11:36
I would imagine that most adults would already know if they're color blind long before they started reading this forum.

Who guaranties that all readers here are adults?

Pherdinand
12-19-2008, 11:37
Colors are for suckers anyway.
Black and White Photography All the Way!
:)

gertf
12-19-2008, 11:51
I think posting colour blindness checks on this web side is highly irresponsible (apart from you post being rude in tone). If members who do not know so far that they are colour blind, see these test here, there will be no doctor or else to offer advise or comfort.

A bit over protective there IMHO. He might actually have done them a favour!

rogue_designer
12-19-2008, 12:02
When you say choose the processing, are you mainly just talking about cross processing?

Or pushing/pulling the film to get a specific effect depending on exposure.

ruben
12-19-2008, 12:04
Regarding the color results under fluorescent light, have we forgotten the fluorescent filter ?

Let me guess the pictures of Ryan Russell were not scanned at Well Mart.

Color doesn't sock at all. It's just a complex science to learn.

Cheers,
Ruben

charjohncarter
12-19-2008, 12:55
I agree with Memphis. I thought it was clever. Of course, I go to breakfast with some guys that make this look like a Sunday stroll. So maybe I'm case hardened.

JeremyLangford
12-19-2008, 20:21
So basically my mindset has always been to let the scanner handle the color and exposure automatically, and Ill fix what it did wrong in Photoshop. Would picking the white-balance before scanning save me quality? Would it actually change how the picture is scanned or would it still scan it the same, and just edit the colors for me in the software rather than in Photoshop?

Andrew Howes
12-19-2008, 20:46
snip.. God forbid someone didn't know they were fat...

snip

funny you should say that. As a portrait photographer I come across the odd one every now and then
that only as they see their photos do they realise
that they are fat, old, ugly or a combination of the three.
:bang:

CK Dexter Haven
12-19-2008, 21:48
Right Al!! Besides that green look is goofy. Only a photo magazine guy would like it.


And Jeremy, I don't know about you but I don't see green when I'm in a fluorescents lite building, car park, or escalator.

Isn't that part of the appeal of photography as an "art?" It's about impressions, not necessarily reality. That's why, to me, when people shoot digital, and use white balance to get everything looking 'neutral,' the results are too sterile for my tastes.

When i look at old stuff from David Alan Harvey, for example:

http://davidalanharvey.com/#a=0&at=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=0&p=0

There's so much beauty in the variations of color temperature. I'm already used to seeing the way my eyes see/adjust for temperature. It's not interesting.

This isn't limited to photography. Go back to Van Gogh's "The Night Cafe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_Café

Maybe that IS how his eyes saw things... as he was nutso, but if that image had been painted with 'neutral white balance,' it would lose quite a bit.

For the OP :
I kind of agree that your scanning software seems responsible for automatically 'fixing' the color. Don't you see the image in a preview window before committing to a final scan? Do you have a series of adjustment parameters that allow you to tweak color and/or deselect any auto color features?

The other thing, though, is that if you're hoping to get the same kind of color as demonstrated in your sample, you're going to have to shoot in light with the same color temperature all the time. If you want colors like that in other types of light, you may have to resort to either cross-processing your film, or using Photoshop (or an equivalent) to tweak things after the fact. There are plugins, like Nik Color Efex Pro that have settings for emulating Cross Balance or Cross Processing, as well as things like Bleach Bypass. Try a demo, perhaps.

charjohncarter
12-20-2008, 08:12
Dexter, of course imagination and creativity are the most important part of art. Artesmia Gentileschi was a nothing artist until she was raped by an assistant in her fathers studio, but after that she became a world best. And maybe that green look that I think is goofy will became the foundation of a world's best.

JeremyLangford
12-20-2008, 16:08
So basically my mindset has always been to let the scanner handle the color and exposure automatically, and Ill fix what it did wrong in Photoshop. Would picking the white-balance before scanning save me quality? Would it actually change how the picture is scanned or would it still scan it the same, and just edit the colors for me in the software rather than in Photoshop?

WoolenMammoth
12-20-2008, 16:11
respectfully, how does this get to three pages without this getting spelled out?

As mentioned the reasons your two scans are different is because of what the scanner is set to see %18 grey as and how it is white balancing. But thats minor, the real and entire crux of the crucible is this:

Limiting this discussion to the display on monitors only, the reason (and the entire reason) why Ryan Russell's photos look the way they look is because of the time he sent in photoshop or whatever software he used to make them look that way. The reason why your photos look the way they look is because you spent no time in photoshop or whatver software you use to make them look like anything.

You guys can continue to discuss film and filters and anything else, but anyone that has remotely any experience editing knows that the discussion just ended.

Color film did not just print itself. You sent it to a place. And you could get crummy one light prints for $.99, you could get a really really good color lab to print the photo for $20 or you could learn the process and print yourself.

The process is in no way any different if you are scanning film for monitor display. You would be extraordinarily remiss to have the idea that the scanner scans the picture and you are done. The scanner provides you with a digital composite of the negative and it should be viewed as such, the same way you would view the film strip in your hand if you were standing in a darkroom waiting to drop your paper in the Colex. All you have is the material with which to make your image from. It is not the image... You've got to work with photoshop to "print" the file, I call it monitorizing, but you can come up with your own dumb pet name if you like.

At any rate, you can take either of those scans and with some work completely get them to look similar to the other photos you posted. He's not doing anything crazy, he's just printing the photo for a monitor. You havent even adjusted the black in your scans and nothing is going to pop until you get that done.

The look of his photos have very little if nothing to do with the type of film he used, the color temperature of the film he used or the fact that he used film at all. If you know what you are doing with photoshop and you have a halfway decent scan to start with, it'll get you there.

I should probably have more patience with this subject but its becoming more and more irritating to me to see photo finishing turning into the work for graphic designers the same way its becoming more and more irritating to see graphic designers who can turn a camera on calling themselves photographers. 30 years ago when you got a crappy print there wasnt a lot of mystery to why. You either didnt have the best neg in the world or there wasnt a lot of effort put into the print or it was just a one light. Today, there is extreme mystery when it comes to scanning and people really need to get educated on the photo finishing side of things for monitors. If you scan it and are happy with the look, wonderful. But if you are not its because there is A LOT of post work which needs to be done that is sadly understated by far too many people. There is also this odd elitism I notice on photo forums where people wave this flag of "no photoshop, just scanned" kind of sentiment as if the process is optional and somehow there crummy scan somehow best represents their camera negative compared to the guy who spent forty minutes dialing in the color and contrast for the photo. In my mind this equates to someone standing next to a colex bragging, "yeah, I didnt even use any magenta filter for these prints" as if thats a good thing to be proud of.

anyway, sorry to rant. short answer, photos just dont appear on a monitor looking like ryan russels work, they might have looked similar to your scans when they were imported. This stuff takes some work. Its not at all hard to do or to learn, its just simple and basic print technique but have no illusion, it *needs* to be addressed.

WoolenMammoth
12-21-2008, 15:28
damn do I come off heavy handed sometimes, sorry, dont intend to do that.

easy response, you can fix your scans to look like the ones you posted by adjusting the gamma, levels and color balance, thats certainly what the photographer did to make those colors pop the way they do. hopefully some of the info in my post is helpful to you.

cheers

JeremyLangford
12-21-2008, 16:24
damn do I come off heavy handed sometimes, sorry, dont intend to do that.

easy response, you can fix your scans to look like the ones you posted by adjusting the gamma, levels and color balance, thats certainly what the photographer did to make those colors pop the way they do. hopefully some of the info in my post is helpful to you.

cheers

Your response helped a lot. Thank you.

My mindset has always been to let the scanner handle the color and exposure automatically, and I'll fix what it did wrong in Photoshop. Would picking the white-balance before scanning be the best thing to do and save me quality? Would it actually change how the picture is scanned or would it still scan it the same, and just edit the colors for me in the scanning software rather than in Photoshop?

mabelsound
12-21-2008, 16:34
WoolenMammoth, that was a very good post.

JeremyLangford
12-22-2008, 10:16
Anyone know the answer to my question right up there?^

rogue_designer
12-22-2008, 10:39
Choosing the white balance, black and white points, etc. do affect how the slide/neg is scanned. Especially the black and white points. Generally it is not just an adjustment to the scanned data after the fact, but actually affects the data incoming.

JeremyLangford
12-22-2008, 12:33
Choosing the white balance, black and white points, etc. do affect how the slide/neg is scanned. Especially the black and white points. Generally it is not just an adjustment to the scanned data after the fact, but actually affects the data incoming.

Sweet, thanks.

JeremyLangford
12-23-2008, 17:44
Would the best way to get the most accurate colors from a C41 color negative be to scan as a positive and then invert/set black and white points in photoshop?

(I mean accurate to what the colors actually are on the negative, even if they are wrong due to the lighting not mathcing the white balance of the film)

IK13
12-23-2008, 18:40
When it comes to color film there's no such thing as "accurate" to start with!
Each film has a preset reaction curve. Heck, even the same kind of film from two different batches will be different.
Add the mentioned lighting.
Add the scanning and in case of a negative - compensating for the orange mask and inverting the colors and the "accurate" gets even further away.

So does that mean you're doomed?
Not necessarily. Yes, there's no absolute accurate, but there can be more or less accurate...according to YOU!
Color is much more about numbers then it is magic. As such it can be manipulated (provided you don't have channels going burnt or completely black). It's much easier to do that if you have a reference.
As R_D told you - if you can reliably pick white/gray/black points - it'll make your life a lot easier. Profiling your equipment and media helps a lot (though as far as media target go it's pretty much available for slides only).

Plug-ins like this one might also help http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html

P.S.
WoolenMammoth, I can't agree with you more !

JeremyLangford
12-24-2008, 08:49
When the scanner software compensates for a color negatives orange mask, is it basically just picking the black/gray/white points for you?

uhligfd
12-24-2008, 09:49
Jeremy,

you are repeating your question(s) at least a handful of times. What for, why?

The only way to get an answer is to do what WoolyM said so clearly: learn to work and game the color system. Period. No more questions. Just get experience, please! And do listen also, please.

rogue_designer
12-24-2008, 09:53
When the scanner software compensates for a color negatives orange mask, is it basically just picking the black/gray/white points for you?

No. It's just stripping out the orange. That can act like setting a new black point, but the black point doesn't affect color balance as much as the white and grey.

Re-read Wolly's post. Experiment.

JeremyLangford
12-24-2008, 10:38
I've read his post like 5 times. No matter how hard I try to make the Coolscan scan look right, I can't do it. The more editing I do, the more grain pops out, which makes it where I can't get the end result as sharp.

I think that I need more control over the scanning process.

With the Walmart scan, his face looks like the right color.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/3739/wmsdo6.jpg

With the Coolscan, his face is purple/red.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9808/cssxc5.jpg

I think that the Coolscan did too much correcting to get rid of the orange mask that it drained the scan of the aqua colored walls and left the whole thing with a purple/red cast that I can't get rid of.

rogue_designer
12-24-2008, 10:48
I think that I need more control over the scanning process.


That's the important part right there.

Either that, or be willing to deal with compromises in image quality (the grain popping, etc.) to get the tones you want.

However, I do think that with some serious editing, you can get where you want without the problems you describe.

JeremyLangford
12-24-2008, 10:55
I can pretty easily get a result I like with the Walmart scan.

(I did this one just now)

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/6913/bestwmsl8.jpg

But when it comes to the Coolscan scan, his face just stays extremely purple/red and the tiles on the wall do a really bad job of changing from their gray color into the real aqua color.

But after everyones help in the thread, I think that the problem is that I need more contol over the colors in the scanning software instead of letting the colors scan badly and then trying to fix them in Photoshop.

JeremyLangford
12-24-2008, 10:57
I think I might try E6 to see if it's an easy way out of all the trouble of C41 scanning.

MikeL
12-24-2008, 14:13
I think I might try E6 to see if it's an easy way out of all the trouble of C41 scanning.

Jeremy, I think you might find digital to be even easier. Have you thought about going digital and letting the camera software do the work (auto white balance, etc.)?

JeremyLangford
12-24-2008, 15:31
Jeremy, I think you might find digital to be even easier. Have you thought about going digital and letting the camera software do the work (auto white balance, etc.)?

The whole reason I started out in photography is because my dad bought a Canon 30d dslr. I learned a lot from using i but I quickly turned to film so I could have a cheap full-frame body and fast prime lenses. Once I turned to film I started to really love street photography and took a B&W class at my high school.

I love film just as much as you guys. I'm just still learning. Hopefully when I get as old as you guys (I'm 17), I won't have to ask so many questions.

Pherdinand
12-24-2008, 16:39
the older you get, the more questions you have.
:angel:

Pherdinand
12-24-2008, 16:40
by the way, E6 scanning is not much easier. It is more consistent, but it is a pain to get the high contrast of slide film through a less than top class scanner without blocked shadows and scanner noise.

JeremyLangford
12-24-2008, 17:20
the older you get, the more questions you have.

by the way, E6 scanning is not much easier. It is more consistent, but it is a pain to get the high contrast of slide film through a less than top class scanner without blocked shadows and scanner noise.

:angel:

That's discouraging

So is this the real reason all you guys love B&W?

amateriat
12-24-2008, 21:49
by the way, E6 scanning is not much easier. It is more consistent, but it is a pain to get the high contrast of slide film through a less than top class scanner without blocked shadows and scanner noise.

On top of this, you really need to be on top of your game, exposure-wise, with slide film as opposed to color neg, especially if you're metering manually (although you shouldn't always take autoexposure readings straight-on, either). One virtue of most color-neg emulsions is exposure latitude: you simply have more wiggle-room in situations where you might not have all the time you need to get your settings dead-on. With slide film, overexposure is your enemy; with color-neg, it can be your ally..

Slide scanning can be somewhat easier than color neg on account of the WYSIWYG advantage. Of course, if what you see on the light box isn't much to your liking, there's not much you can do in the mix. You have to start with a top-notch image on that little chip of film.

I used to shoot nothing but slide film once (and most of that was Kodachrome). Now, color neg accounts for about 80% of the color I do still shoot.


- Barrett

rogue_designer
12-26-2008, 12:02
set your white and black points - scan as a 16 bit tiff - open using Camera Raw. Tada!

It's not quite the same, obviously. The use of film precludes getting "raw" data. There will be limits and inherent casts set by the emulsion, exposure, etc.

Even with RAW, it's still better to get the exposure and whitebalance close than to have to make a massive shift in post processing. you can certainly do it, but you'll get color artifacting and hurt image quality.

Shoot more.

Pherdinand
12-27-2008, 06:18
About neg scanning:
i went through the ColorNeg pages following the link suggested here above, moreover i downloaded the plugin as well.
It is interesting, the guy is a bit arrognt by saying nobody else does it correctly but he does have a point here and there.
The plugin also seems to work quite okay, although it does not give those easy-and-perfect positives from the colour negative, as he says that in majority of cases it should. It is definitely easier though, than messing around in Photoshop with different channels to get to an acceptable positive.

He does have problems with the concept of color management and color spaces, though. He suggests to just scan and "assign your favorite color space" to the image, which is a total bullocks, since scanning gives an image in a certain color space and if you don't use that, it's a mess from the start and it can never be correct.
SO actually you have to make sure to scan into adobe rgb and work in that (it's the only color space his plug-in correctly handles, and he forgets to say this clearly) OR scan to any color space and CONVERT to adobe rgb (but not ASSIGN as he suggests - assigning a different color space breaks the image immediately).

So,with some precautions, the plugin might actually help handling C41 scans.