valdas
Veteran
That is quite obvious...
edge100
Well-known
Not, apparently, as obvious as one might imagine.
Also, that's what 'tautology' means. Oh well...it is what it is.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
A negative can in some instances give a positive result take Kodak 5072 which makes transparencies from negs.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e24/e24.pdf
In the end a negative is just half the process and the paper C type or otherwise is matched to the character of the film to enable neutral results (a reason why we don't have soft-hard C type paper) – thats what we should aim to do with scanning be as neutral as possible with our rendering to give natural results (within personal taste)
Nobody is saying negatives are positive,or should (or can) be treated as such; but rather the dye sets in negatives like slides are given certain characteristics and that overall character isn't for interpretation, just local adjustment of that to personal taste.
Given an Ektar 100 exposure with a normal value printed on C type paper won't give you the same results as Portra WRT colour, contrast or tone.
The confusing thing for some is they can't see the process neg-positive as a whole, they understand transparencies as they have less steps.
In a way edge is correct final rendering is up to individual interpretation, but only to a small degree (with traditional processes). Hue, saturation and luminance are built in to films in the form of RGB records, those interpretations are subtleties in rendering that are built in dye sets.
Those tiny changes in rendering are not a large as the built in dye sets, otherwise we would just buy one film and print it differently to obtain all possible outcomes.
Negative film has a character just like slide film.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e24/e24.pdf
In the end a negative is just half the process and the paper C type or otherwise is matched to the character of the film to enable neutral results (a reason why we don't have soft-hard C type paper) – thats what we should aim to do with scanning be as neutral as possible with our rendering to give natural results (within personal taste)
Nobody is saying negatives are positive,or should (or can) be treated as such; but rather the dye sets in negatives like slides are given certain characteristics and that overall character isn't for interpretation, just local adjustment of that to personal taste.
Given an Ektar 100 exposure with a normal value printed on C type paper won't give you the same results as Portra WRT colour, contrast or tone.
The confusing thing for some is they can't see the process neg-positive as a whole, they understand transparencies as they have less steps.
In a way edge is correct final rendering is up to individual interpretation, but only to a small degree (with traditional processes). Hue, saturation and luminance are built in to films in the form of RGB records, those interpretations are subtleties in rendering that are built in dye sets.
Those tiny changes in rendering are not a large as the built in dye sets, otherwise we would just buy one film and print it differently to obtain all possible outcomes.
Negative film has a character just like slide film.
edge100
Well-known
Did you miss the part where I said that all films have a unique character? Perhaps if you hadn't ignored me...
Also, hasn't my stock risen? A page back, I was an idiot.
Mark C
Well-known
It certainly does. I remember when Reala came out; I'd been shooting and printing color negs for a long time, but that was the first color neg film I really liked. It was a real revelation of what was possible.
edge100
Well-known
I feel like we've all just agreed that Boston is north of New York City. 3 pages for us to determine that, gasp, some films look different than other films.
WAS THAT EVER IN DOUBT?!?
The point of contention - for those following along - is whether a particular neg film has a de facto 'normal' look (hint: no).
Ranchu
Veteran
I don't agree with this either/or between numbers and looking at the print. Neg film does have a look if you don't remove it at the scanning stage, hint.
What I think is happening is that when you map to the output as colorperfect does, you ignore the 'primaries' of the dyes and they are assumed to be the primaries of the output space, or some other arbitrary (or not) ones. I believe Epsonscan, since they know their light source and filter responses they are able to maintain the color management accurately, even with the orange mask. That's why I use it. I can't prove that, but that's what I deduce and what I see. I think.
What I think is happening is that when you map to the output as colorperfect does, you ignore the 'primaries' of the dyes and they are assumed to be the primaries of the output space, or some other arbitrary (or not) ones. I believe Epsonscan, since they know their light source and filter responses they are able to maintain the color management accurately, even with the orange mask. That's why I use it. I can't prove that, but that's what I deduce and what I see. I think.
Denverdad
Established
Chalk me up as another user of ColorPerfect; starting with a linear scan captured via either VueScan or NikonScan software on my Nikon scanner.
If I may Patrick, I have a suggestion for why your initial ColorPerfect conversion seemed so "off". When an image first opens up in the plugin there is a small box that can be toggled between "L" or "G" to indicate whether it is interpreting the data as a linear file or gamma encoded. You want the L to be showing. At first I couldn't understand why you were getting that dark and contrasty result since for more me it opened up looking basically normal. But I found that if I toggled from L to G, I got pretty much just the result you were showing. So maybe that is all it was! (By the way the option to choose L or G is only available when you first open up the file, going away as soon as you make any adjustments).
I will be the first to agree that ColorPerfect is not the most intuitive software, and like a lot of others I struggled with it at first. But once I got over the initial learning curve I found that I really liked it a lot. In fact nowadays when I go back to my old Photoshop-only processed images that I thought were really good, I find that I can almost always get much more natural looking results by using the plugin. So my feeling is that it is well worth the effort to stick it out and see if you can make ColorPerfect work for you. For reference, the author has a series of tutorials available here on Youtube, which I have found quite useful.
Jeff
If I may Patrick, I have a suggestion for why your initial ColorPerfect conversion seemed so "off". When an image first opens up in the plugin there is a small box that can be toggled between "L" or "G" to indicate whether it is interpreting the data as a linear file or gamma encoded. You want the L to be showing. At first I couldn't understand why you were getting that dark and contrasty result since for more me it opened up looking basically normal. But I found that if I toggled from L to G, I got pretty much just the result you were showing. So maybe that is all it was! (By the way the option to choose L or G is only available when you first open up the file, going away as soon as you make any adjustments).
I will be the first to agree that ColorPerfect is not the most intuitive software, and like a lot of others I struggled with it at first. But once I got over the initial learning curve I found that I really liked it a lot. In fact nowadays when I go back to my old Photoshop-only processed images that I thought were really good, I find that I can almost always get much more natural looking results by using the plugin. So my feeling is that it is well worth the effort to stick it out and see if you can make ColorPerfect work for you. For reference, the author has a series of tutorials available here on Youtube, which I have found quite useful.
Jeff
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Which is precisely the point of my post. The numbers are part of the chain without them colour consistency would be impossible, that's why the numbers matter and the reason why we have batch numbers and CC filter corrections printed on C type Paper and interneg film.
Kodak and Fuji are helping us by providing a baseline or foundation to build on rather than mandating a rigid system, those are obviously up for interpretation; both in hue and density– but that doesn't negate the fact they do have aim baselines.
Prolabs have a set of aims for each film type, and back in the day they had channels for each film that were set at those numbers using references for each film-by hand.
Now those are worked out by computer sensors straight from the film and tested to a reference neutral MBL (film channel) PBL (paper channel) and LBL (Master balance)
Of course a negative is only part of the process, traditionally C types being the other which have now been largely replaced by scans.
The purpose of a scan should be to get all (or most) of the colour information from the negative which is harder than slides because we have no IT8 type system.
I think people who scan should try wet printing, it will give you a better idea of the relationship between negative and print and how to make a fine quality finished output.
edge100
Well-known
WHICH IS ARBITRARY. You calibrate to give a specific, pre-determined 'neutral'. But this 'neutral' is not 'correct'. 'Correct' is what the photographer wants.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
LOL No. Correct is the values that exist in the film governed by dye set, exposure, development etc–the films character.
What the photographer wants is just a rendering and evaluative rather than objective.
You can place colour checkers in a scene and print to those; obviously if you're copying artwork say in a gallery and can't take the original to your darkroom for colour matching? so there is and can be a correct rendering. Take an image of a Monet painting your personal idea of what the colours look like might not be 'correct' in that instance.
But I guess you're dancing on a pin head here, your individual perception is obviously correct for you personally-but not a scientifically measured property of the emulsion.
Give a negative to 10 different people you'll get 10 different renderings! All correct WRT to the user preference but possibly not to the film-like making Velvia desaturated...
Sheesh- all pretty basic stuff.
What the photographer wants is just a rendering and evaluative rather than objective.
You can place colour checkers in a scene and print to those; obviously if you're copying artwork say in a gallery and can't take the original to your darkroom for colour matching? so there is and can be a correct rendering. Take an image of a Monet painting your personal idea of what the colours look like might not be 'correct' in that instance.
But I guess you're dancing on a pin head here, your individual perception is obviously correct for you personally-but not a scientifically measured property of the emulsion.
Give a negative to 10 different people you'll get 10 different renderings! All correct WRT to the user preference but possibly not to the film-like making Velvia desaturated...
Sheesh- all pretty basic stuff.
edge100
Well-known
Aren't you ignoring me? You stink at it, BTW.
You're wrong. The film has a characteristic; no doubt there. Ektar tends to give cyan skies, and 400H gives pastel colours when overexposed. But this is true if, AND ONLY IF, the films are printed/scanned in a specific way. There is no ACCURATE look of any given neg film because there is no objectively CORRECT look against which to reference. All references for translating the film into print - even manufacturer recommendations - are arbitrary and have no relationship to anything but someone's preference.
Unlike Velvia (which you inexplicably reference with respect to this discussion), for which there IS a CORRECT look: THE SLIDE ITSELF.
You're wrong. The film has a characteristic; no doubt there. Ektar tends to give cyan skies, and 400H gives pastel colours when overexposed. But this is true if, AND ONLY IF, the films are printed/scanned in a specific way. There is no ACCURATE look of any given neg film because there is no objectively CORRECT look against which to reference. All references for translating the film into print - even manufacturer recommendations - are arbitrary and have no relationship to anything but someone's preference.
Unlike Velvia (which you inexplicably reference with respect to this discussion), for which there IS a CORRECT look: THE SLIDE ITSELF.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
You seem very confused, and yes you're on ignore and yes I'm not good at ignoring but here is my last post.
You said:
The film has a characteristic; no doubt there. Ektar tends to give cyan skies, and 400H gives pastel colours when overexposed. But this is true if, AND ONLY IF, the films are printed/scanned in a specific way. There is no ACCURATE look of any given neg film because there is no objectively CORRECT look against which to reference. All references for translating the film into print
So you can see the film has a characteristic, and that is driven by the dyes. You're totally wrong about there being no objective standard for print film-there is and its called LAD.
You measure the negative on status M and read each LAD patch, there are three patches that govern correct output.
The first is the white reference patch and it reads Munsell N 9.5 (90%)
The second is the LAD reference which governs the films neutral balance R 0.80 G 1.20 B1.60
The last is black that should be 2.5% reflectance Munsell N 1.75.
All of those values are or need to be measured status M at the given densities on the curve.
You can use those values as reference when you print-which you derided as 'only being interested in numbers rather than prints' Well those numbers help me make prints! can't you see that?
Of course that is only true if the prints are scanned and printed with the LAD aim in mind and any other rendering is just as valid.
But you are very wrong if you think those aims don't exist!
I think that will have to be my last word on the subject because you seem to have a problem in understanding that photo engineers do have standards for measuring negatives, there very much are correct colours that we map to paper curves with quadrant diagrams.
That's how we make sure each film meets a standard -that standard therefore must exist.
Being unaware of the existence of the LAD doesn't mean that it doesn't exist
You said:
The film has a characteristic; no doubt there. Ektar tends to give cyan skies, and 400H gives pastel colours when overexposed. But this is true if, AND ONLY IF, the films are printed/scanned in a specific way. There is no ACCURATE look of any given neg film because there is no objectively CORRECT look against which to reference. All references for translating the film into print
So you can see the film has a characteristic, and that is driven by the dyes. You're totally wrong about there being no objective standard for print film-there is and its called LAD.
You measure the negative on status M and read each LAD patch, there are three patches that govern correct output.
The first is the white reference patch and it reads Munsell N 9.5 (90%)
The second is the LAD reference which governs the films neutral balance R 0.80 G 1.20 B1.60
The last is black that should be 2.5% reflectance Munsell N 1.75.
All of those values are or need to be measured status M at the given densities on the curve.
You can use those values as reference when you print-which you derided as 'only being interested in numbers rather than prints' Well those numbers help me make prints! can't you see that?
Of course that is only true if the prints are scanned and printed with the LAD aim in mind and any other rendering is just as valid.
But you are very wrong if you think those aims don't exist!
I think that will have to be my last word on the subject because you seem to have a problem in understanding that photo engineers do have standards for measuring negatives, there very much are correct colours that we map to paper curves with quadrant diagrams.
That's how we make sure each film meets a standard -that standard therefore must exist.
Being unaware of the existence of the LAD doesn't mean that it doesn't exist
edge100
Well-known
You seem very confused, and yes you're on ignore and yes I'm not good at ignoring but here is my last post.
You said:
The film has a characteristic; no doubt there. Ektar tends to give cyan skies, and 400H gives pastel colours when overexposed. But this is true if, AND ONLY IF, the films are printed/scanned in a specific way. There is no ACCURATE look of any given neg film because there is no objectively CORRECT look against which to reference. All references for translating the film into print
So you can see the film has a characteristic, and that is driven by the dyes. You're totally wrong about there being no objective standard for print film-there is and its called LAD.
You measure the negative on status M and read each LAD patch, there are three patches that govern correct output.
The first is the white reference patch and it reads Munsell 9.5 (90%)
The second is the LAD reference which governs the films neutral balance R 0.80 G 1.20 B1.60
The last is black that should be 2.5% reflectance.
All of those values are or need to be measured status M at the given densities on the curve.
You can use those values as reference when you print-which you derided as 'only being interested in numbers rather than prints' Well those numbers help me make prints! can't you see that?
Of course that is only true if the prints are scanned and printed with the LAD aim in mind and any other rendering is just as valid.
But you are very wrong if you think those aims don't exist!
I think that will have to be my last word on the subject because you seem to have a problem in understanding that photo engineers do have standards for measuring negatives, there very much are correct colours that we map to paper curves with quadrant diagrams.
That's how we make sure each film meets a standard -that standard therefore must exist.
Being unaware of the existence of the LAD doesn't mean that it doesn't exist
That standard has been set arbitrarily. This is not a fundamental property of anything (surely as as 'scientist' you understand this).
The BEST you can say is "film X has these characteristics when printed using condition Y." But the conditions themselves are user-derived; they are not part of the film itself, and they don't describe a normative, fundamental property of anything.
On the contrary, Velvia and Provia, when developed equivalently in standard E6 chemistry, have different looks IN THEIR FINAL FORM (i.e. The positive). There's no interpretation here; the slide looks like what it looks like because of the composition of the film, not because I've decided to make it look like that.
I suspect it's not your last word. You still be spewing this for some time to come.
willie_901
Veteran
A simple question.
If a scene's light is dominated by a single source with one color temperature, and if you have a proper gray card in the scene, will different negative films' formulations give different color rendering?
If a scene's light is dominated by a single source with one color temperature, and if you have a proper gray card in the scene, will different negative films' formulations give different color rendering?
edge100
Well-known
Of course. That's not (and has never been) in question here.
What is in question (for the umpteenth time) is whether A PARTICULAR FILM has any true, normative, and (for want of a better word) accurate rendering of the scene.
The answer is: no! The user must interpret the negative during the print/JPEG-making process. Whether this interpretation is done according to some industry-standard algorithm is immaterial; the fact remains that the end product is the result of both the characteristics of the film and the user input required to make a positive from that film.
k__43
Registered Film User
I find Mark's info quite interesting
I'm lucky I don't have to take pics of paintings that have to have an accurate color and such (so I can just mangle the curves to my liking) but I find technical info cool.
I think this discussion went out of hand here .. when do we get back to the topic?
I'm lucky I don't have to take pics of paintings that have to have an accurate color and such (so I can just mangle the curves to my liking) but I find technical info cool.
I think this discussion went out of hand here .. when do we get back to the topic?
Ronald M
Veteran
Color films have different rendering, contrast , etc. Manufactures take great pains to coat the emulsions so they color balance in daylight. It is not adjustable at a later stages.
One thing I learned in color darkroom is it not the coating that changes, but the base tint which is actually a filter. If I used the color meter on the space between frames, the film would magically be the correct color.
There needs to be a reference patch in a frame if you abuse the film by using daylight film in conditions other than daylight. This will give you something to get close, but it will never be right
The only way to get it right is to put a filter, warming in this case, over the lens as this is not daylight. This rebalances the the film to current conditions.
If you do not expose to 5500 K , daylight, the curves cross meaning the is a different color balance in the shadows as compared to the highlights. No single point balance can repair the damage.
The only thing that has a possibility to work is using levels and balancing each RGB layer individually. Use the black and white droppers and threshold on each channel.
A digital camera can correct for this as there is an white balance correction possible after the fact if you shoot raw. If you shoot JPEG, the information is lost and can not be recovered.
Nobody here can fix it for you as the information is gone as it is a JPEG.
I have forgotten if the Epson software will allow you balance each layer individually. You may not still be able to balance as a scan is not raw file with all the RGB info in place.
do yourself a favor and use some shade of warming filter to counter the cold window light.
one other thing to try which may or may not work and it a lot of work, scan twice one for shadows, once for highlight and combine like you would a manual HDR, ie stack in layers and mask off the incorrect part of the top layer. I would guess this is probably the best way to recover data lost.
I learned long ago not to do this to film as is is not fixable in the darkroom and trial prints are a pain. A film camera has no white balance control. That is built into the film or you need to filter it at time of exposure.
One thing I learned in color darkroom is it not the coating that changes, but the base tint which is actually a filter. If I used the color meter on the space between frames, the film would magically be the correct color.
There needs to be a reference patch in a frame if you abuse the film by using daylight film in conditions other than daylight. This will give you something to get close, but it will never be right
The only way to get it right is to put a filter, warming in this case, over the lens as this is not daylight. This rebalances the the film to current conditions.
If you do not expose to 5500 K , daylight, the curves cross meaning the is a different color balance in the shadows as compared to the highlights. No single point balance can repair the damage.
The only thing that has a possibility to work is using levels and balancing each RGB layer individually. Use the black and white droppers and threshold on each channel.
A digital camera can correct for this as there is an white balance correction possible after the fact if you shoot raw. If you shoot JPEG, the information is lost and can not be recovered.
Nobody here can fix it for you as the information is gone as it is a JPEG.
I have forgotten if the Epson software will allow you balance each layer individually. You may not still be able to balance as a scan is not raw file with all the RGB info in place.
do yourself a favor and use some shade of warming filter to counter the cold window light.
one other thing to try which may or may not work and it a lot of work, scan twice one for shadows, once for highlight and combine like you would a manual HDR, ie stack in layers and mask off the incorrect part of the top layer. I would guess this is probably the best way to recover data lost.
I learned long ago not to do this to film as is is not fixable in the darkroom and trial prints are a pain. A film camera has no white balance control. That is built into the film or you need to filter it at time of exposure.