jpberger
Established
"Unless you're wet printing" not really, uniform colour casts are easy to deal with in wet printing-- it's the one area of the process where you have maximal control. But the thing is, are we talking about a colour cast or just that stuff that's reddish (like skin) gets too red? If this is the case, a filter will just mess up the other colours. The Ektar reds are hyped up by design-- it's first and foremost a landscape film. The new (or old) portra160 should be ideal if you want a less saturated lower contrast slow film.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I would say it's most likely due to scanning/post-scanning treatment. Of course, if it's totally trash development, then you will get funky colors. 99% of what I've seen of complaints with this film and 'color casts' are due to the adjustments made while or after scanning.
I probably wouldn't use a warming or cooling filter on negative film. Maybe a tungsten correction filter if you are shooting under tungsten, but for slight warming/cooling, you should be able to easily do this while wet printing or in Photoshop, with no affect on the final quality. In fact, unless you have a reference shot of a gray card without your warming/cooling filter to set your initial color balance from, you'll likely correct out the filter's effects without even realizing it.
If you are talking about a selective 'too red, blue, or green', wherein only the reds are too hyped, etc., well then that's probably more to do with the design of the film. But I always assume the phrase 'color cast' means over the whole tonal range unless it is qualified with a 'in the shadows' or something.
bensyverson
Well-known
I'm always so confused when people say a color negative film has a certain color cast.
In wet printing, you follow the filtration guidelines from the manufacturer, and fine tune from there.
In scanning, you apply color correction to remove the orange mask, and fine tune from there.
Either way, once the image is properly balanced, all current color negative films are impressively neutral. Statements like "Ektar reds are hyped up by design" are just inaccurate. Just look at the data sheets. In terms of color sensitivity, Ektar is virtually identical to Portra 160. The difference has to do with contrast, not color.
I guess people think they can just slap the film in their scanner, press "SCAN" and come out with a perfect image. If you do that, you'll get a "color cast," but it's due to ignorance, not film choice.
In wet printing, you follow the filtration guidelines from the manufacturer, and fine tune from there.
In scanning, you apply color correction to remove the orange mask, and fine tune from there.
Either way, once the image is properly balanced, all current color negative films are impressively neutral. Statements like "Ektar reds are hyped up by design" are just inaccurate. Just look at the data sheets. In terms of color sensitivity, Ektar is virtually identical to Portra 160. The difference has to do with contrast, not color.
I guess people think they can just slap the film in their scanner, press "SCAN" and come out with a perfect image. If you do that, you'll get a "color cast," but it's due to ignorance, not film choice.
Last edited:
Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
So, where can I look for info on Proper Scanning Technique? Maybe that's been my problem the whole time?
David Charlwood
Established
I have been using this film since it first came out and I totally agree with Roger Hicks' comments.
jpberger
Established
dct
perpetual amateur
Agree. I did my first roll of Ektar 100 and I am really pleased about the fine resolution and the natural colors. My lab does the development and the scan on Noritsu QSS-3201 equipment. The resulting scans (off this first roll), was very neutral.
I have no developing and no scan equipment. For wet printing I go back to lab again.
http://www.pbase.com/dct/image/133547595
No further post processing, I only reduced the size for uploading. This is the quality I got from the lab.
What do you think about the color balancing? (there are a few more pictures labelled Herisau, from the same film roll)