Why do my colors stink?

[JeremyLangford]

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.



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



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/)









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]

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]

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]

What software do you use?

[rogue_designer]

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]

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]

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]

Here is your image with some *tweaking*



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]

↑↑↑ 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:

[35mmdelux]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Al Kaplan

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by charjohncarter

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by MikeL

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]

Originally Posted by kaiyen

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]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by JeremyLangford

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]

Originally Posted by Al Kaplan

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.