whited3
Well-known
yep, this thread jumped the tracks. I feel like you two just debated creationism vs evolution 
from an artistic / user point of view I can certainly agree with Edge that the final print is a mere arbitrary interpretation. But i've got to technically side with P_Smith that a film is designed with a specific look intended by the manufacturer all the way to print. Just for fun: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_support_h61_h61b.pdf
It's the manufacturer's intended baseline "look" P_Smith is talking about. A baseline made to be broken perhaps, in Edge's defense. Hell I bet a lot of print labs threw caution to the wind regardless of the specs.
The good thing though, is all this number junk is either standardized and/or parameterized into end to end workflow so us artistic type never have to think about it.
Can't quite be certain... but I swear you two are talking about the same end goal.
from an artistic / user point of view I can certainly agree with Edge that the final print is a mere arbitrary interpretation. But i've got to technically side with P_Smith that a film is designed with a specific look intended by the manufacturer all the way to print. Just for fun: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_support_h61_h61b.pdf
It's the manufacturer's intended baseline "look" P_Smith is talking about. A baseline made to be broken perhaps, in Edge's defense. Hell I bet a lot of print labs threw caution to the wind regardless of the specs.
The good thing though, is all this number junk is either standardized and/or parameterized into end to end workflow so us artistic type never have to think about it.
Can't quite be certain... but I swear you two are talking about the same end goal.
edge100
Well-known
yep, this thread jumped the tracks. I feel like you two just debated creationism vs evolution
from an artistic / user point of view I can certainly agree with Edge that the final print is a mere arbitrary interpretation. But i've got to technically side with P_Smith that a film is designed with a specific look intended by the manufacturer all the way to print. Just for fun: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_support_h61_h61b.pdf
It's the manufacturer's intended baseline "look" P_Smith is talking about. A baseline made to be broken perhaps, in Edge's defense. Hell I bet a lot of print labs threw caution to the wind regardless of the specs.
The good thing though, is all this number junk is either standardized and/or parameterized into end to end workflow so us artistic type never have to think about it.
Can't quite be certain... but I swear you two are talking about the same end goal.
And just like in that debate, one side really is right and one really is wrong.
k__43
Registered Film User
Stop trolling!
Photo_Smith
Well-known
It's a shame, when someone won't even consider the others point of view. I've found it easier to put him on ignore because to be deliberately ignorant is just stupidity.
To understand that negative films can have characteristics like Ektar has cyan sky etc and to then state there is no correct rendering?
Does he think that everything is up for interpretation and the people who design the films don't match scene rendering with output rendering?
It's all just an accident and up for individual interpretation?
Some people go though live with a fixed viewpoint, and despite not being able to put any evidence to their point of view 'beat their chest I'm right' everyone else is wrong.
WRT to negative films Kodak has some very good science, of course most of the recent information is based on digitising Cine negative film, and yes they have developed a method for scanning to maintain colours, and a special colour negative space called ROM RGB tailored for scanning digital output.
Of course how measure that space where no correct rendering exists is a mystery
To understand that negative films can have characteristics like Ektar has cyan sky etc and to then state there is no correct rendering?
Does he think that everything is up for interpretation and the people who design the films don't match scene rendering with output rendering?
It's all just an accident and up for individual interpretation?
Some people go though live with a fixed viewpoint, and despite not being able to put any evidence to their point of view 'beat their chest I'm right' everyone else is wrong.
WRT to negative films Kodak has some very good science, of course most of the recent information is based on digitising Cine negative film, and yes they have developed a method for scanning to maintain colours, and a special colour negative space called ROM RGB tailored for scanning digital output.
Of course how measure that space where no correct rendering exists is a mystery
Wburgess
Established
Well hasn't this all been fascinating!
I'm with photo_smith here and I think edge would be also if he understood what was being said.
I just don't buy the argument that slides are any different to negatives in the way that you can change the colour balance of either, both are not set in stone. You can mess both up equally when you scan/print.
In both cases the film has a measured target, the negative has a longer way to get there, but still has been designed to a specific requirement. And this provides consistent colour, which to me is important.
I'm with photo_smith here and I think edge would be also if he understood what was being said.
I just don't buy the argument that slides are any different to negatives in the way that you can change the colour balance of either, both are not set in stone. You can mess both up equally when you scan/print.
In both cases the film has a measured target, the negative has a longer way to get there, but still has been designed to a specific requirement. And this provides consistent colour, which to me is important.
Wburgess
Established
This is what got me.
Of course it does! Why do labs go through calibration every morning to read negatives correctly?
You can always venture away from the look that was intended and measured by the manufacturer, but definitely there is an intended 'normal' or 'correct' look to any given negative film.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Thanks WBurgess-someone who can 'see' at last. If edge is correct, I wonder how those darn clever Fuji Frontiers balance the colour of each different film to the paper standard (PBL) of course if their process is evaluative rather than objective how do they code the Frontier software to do the morning MBL set-up?
Ank those engineers at Kodak when they made Portra VC versions they made it 15% more saturated than standard renderings, if there were no way to measure or no standard rendering how did they know what the percentile value was?
Is it all just a guess?
Ank those engineers at Kodak when they made Portra VC versions they made it 15% more saturated than standard renderings, if there were no way to measure or no standard rendering how did they know what the percentile value was?
Is it all just a guess?
edge100
Well-known
Ok, for the last fricken time:
The manufacturers have a standard, which is accepted as the 'normal'. I am not disputing that.
But if someone asks "what is Ektar supposed to look like in print?", we can only answer that question with respect to what the manufacturer intends, NOT WITH RESPECT to any actual characteristics the film may have. The final product is an interpretation of the inherent characteristics of the film.
This is not the same with a slide. When I project a Velvia chrome, it looks like what it looks like precisely because of the characteristics of the film. If you scan it, you have a reference to match that scan to, WHICH ACTUALLY EXISTS IN THE REAL WORLD AND ISNT JUST SOMEONES ARBITRARY ASSESSMENT OF 'CORRECT'.
Ektar, Portra 160/400, 400H, etc...they don't look like ANYTHING (except an orange neg) until we interpret them. This could be done according to a precisely calculated manufacturers algorithm, or any other interpretation. Neither is "correct".
This is really not hard to grasp.
The manufacturers have a standard, which is accepted as the 'normal'. I am not disputing that.
But if someone asks "what is Ektar supposed to look like in print?", we can only answer that question with respect to what the manufacturer intends, NOT WITH RESPECT to any actual characteristics the film may have. The final product is an interpretation of the inherent characteristics of the film.
This is not the same with a slide. When I project a Velvia chrome, it looks like what it looks like precisely because of the characteristics of the film. If you scan it, you have a reference to match that scan to, WHICH ACTUALLY EXISTS IN THE REAL WORLD AND ISNT JUST SOMEONES ARBITRARY ASSESSMENT OF 'CORRECT'.
Ektar, Portra 160/400, 400H, etc...they don't look like ANYTHING (except an orange neg) until we interpret them. This could be done according to a precisely calculated manufacturers algorithm, or any other interpretation. Neither is "correct".
This is really not hard to grasp.
edge100
Well-known
It's a shame, when someone won't even consider the others point of view. I've found it easier to put him on ignore because to be deliberately ignorant is just stupidity.
To understand that negative films can have characteristics like Ektar has cyan sky etc and to then state there is no correct rendering?
Does he think that everything is up for interpretation and the people who design the films don't match scene rendering with output rendering?
It's all just an accident and up for individual interpretation?
Some people go though live with a fixed viewpoint, and despite not being able to put any evidence to their point of view 'beat their chest I'm right' everyone else is wrong.
WRT to negative films Kodak has some very good science, of course most of the recent information is based on digitising Cine negative film, and yes they have developed a method for scanning to maintain colours, and a special colour negative space called ROM RGB tailored for scanning digital output.
Of course how measure that space where no correct rendering exists is a mystery
As a matter of fact, everything IS open to interpretation.
I have no doubt that companies have very good research on how to achieve specific looks from various films. Nothing I've said disputes that.
But these are just Kodak/Fuji's preference. Why are they right? Because they made the film? How arbitrary is that?
When someone asks me "What is Portra 400 supposed to look like?", I will continue to answer "Whatever you want it to look like, unless what you're really asking is 'what does Kodak WANT Portra 400 to look like', in which case I have to ask 'why do you care what Kodak wants?'"
The fact that so many people are agreeing with you immediately suggests an answer to the question: why is there so little originality in photography?
Pete B
Well-known
It would be nice to think that if you sent a C41 film to any lab, you would get the same result i.e. Kodak sends thir perfect algorithm for their film to Fuji to input into their Fuji Frontier. However, I suspect that doesn't happen; the Fuji Frontier operator doing the best he can. This is probably why I have a pro lab preference, rather than just sending it anywhere.
Pete
Pete
Pete B
Well-known
I note, in this one example in the video, you don't try to stop your blacks being clipped by colourPerfect. Is this intentional?
If anyone wants to know how to do this, PM me.
Pete
edge100
Well-known
Pete B
Well-known
Why? I'm not criticising, it will save me time.
Pete
Pete
edge100
Well-known
Again, you are confusing 'relative' with 'absolute'; precision with accuracy (the 'scientist' can explain the difference).
Of course, you want to be able to send your film anywhere and get equivalent results. That necessitates SOME universal standard. No dispute on that from me.
But that 'precision' isn't the same thing as 'accuracy' which implies a TRUE correct profile, which doesn't exist (except, for probably the hundredth time, with a slide, where the correct reference is the actual slide).
To use an analogy,
Precision is when you throw three darts and hit treble 1 each time.
Accuracy is when you throw three darts and hit treble 20 each time.
edge100
Well-known
Because I didn't care about the little bit of black clipping under the car.
Pete B
Well-known
I wondered if it was just this image, where I agree it wouldn't make much difference, or if you usually avoid black clipping. I had a few frames where the blacks were quite blocked up until I started addressing it in ColorPerfect.
I enjoyed the video. It's just what I was looking for a couple of years ago. 2 years of trying every technique available, I settled on a workflow that is very similar to yours. If I'd seen your video back then I would've avoided a real emotional rollercoaster with a lot of heartache. I couldn't understand why there wasn't such a video available. There are plenty of web sites that imply all you need to do is address the clipping of each of the RGB channels, and click on a mid grey (like there's always going to be one) as if everything is going to be hunky dory, but it doesn't take long to realise these ideas only touch the surface of the problem.
Pete
I enjoyed the video. It's just what I was looking for a couple of years ago. 2 years of trying every technique available, I settled on a workflow that is very similar to yours. If I'd seen your video back then I would've avoided a real emotional rollercoaster with a lot of heartache. I couldn't understand why there wasn't such a video available. There are plenty of web sites that imply all you need to do is address the clipping of each of the RGB channels, and click on a mid grey (like there's always going to be one) as if everything is going to be hunky dory, but it doesn't take long to realise these ideas only touch the surface of the problem.
Pete
edge100
Well-known
Photo_Smith
Well-known
yep, this thread jumped the tracks. I feel like you two just debated creationism vs evolution
from an artistic / user point of view I can certainly agree with Edge that the final print is a mere arbitrary interpretation. But i've got to technically side with P_Smith that a film is designed with a specific look intended by the manufacturer all the way to print. Just for fun: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_support_h61_h61b.pdf
It's the manufacturer's intended baseline "look" P_Smith is talking about. A baseline made to be broken perhaps, in Edge's defense. Hell I bet a lot of print labs threw caution to the wind regardless of the specs.
.
That patch you show is indeed the standard LAD for print (as in Cine)
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_support_h61_h61a.pdf
Above is the one for negative the values are different but the idea is the same. They give both subjective and objective measurements. The woman is the subjective and the LAD patches are fixed within the standards for each medium.
The print CAN be an 'arbitrary' interpretation if you work purely in a subjective manner-by eye rather than by standard renderings it doesn't have to be as edge suggests as you posted standard proves-there is a standard.
I can tell you as a former Lab owner we use objective measurement, no Lab throws caution to the wind-that would be stupid and a waste of money.
All labs I know of use desitometry EVERY step of the way from film control strips on.
Labs need colour consistency their customers expect that and that's why we use aims-so we can have a standard and you prints should be able to be matched to and consistent from week to week (within tolerance)
That's not to say they won't take those standards and print warmer if a customer chooses that rendering-just that those standards do exist.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
It does in fact happen. The Fuji Frontier is an automatic printer it needs no buttons pressed and is calibrated to the international standard-the same one Kodak uses.
The machine even does self check 'bulls eyes' which are read on an inbuilt densitometer.
As a former Prolab owner I know the Frontier uses the same aims as we do I've owned two of them-that's how we match across different machines.
Using standards keeps our prints 'standard' the idea that everyone is printing to some arbitrary aim driven by individuals is crazy talk.
edge100
Well-known
It honestly like talking to a brick wall, with you.
Those standards are great: they help different labs maintain precision.
But precision is not accuracy, and those standards are arbitrary; someone made them up .