Is it the processing, the film or ME????

[bwillis]

just ret'd from yellowstone w family. took bunch of shots w Voightl r2m, using 50mm and 28mm for landscapes. had good conditions for most part. focusing is good, exposure seems good, but pix really not that great at all.

many are very cool in color. lots of v. colorful sites (such as geysers) are really just a puddle of mush in terms of color. way disappointing.

i live in small south georgia town and wonder if this is a processing issue as you would think, unless i'm a total dummy, i'd get some really good shots, given the equipment, the prep, the world class sites, but really did not.

once i get these scanned and can work with in lightroom, may improve but that's a lengthy process.

oh, btw, used kodak porta nc 160 film

 

[Trius]

It's hard to tell without seeing some examples. What did you get from the lab? Prints? Scans?

The cool bias might be high UV, a UV or skylight filter might have helped.

Did you fly, and if so did the film go through multiple xray scans?

It's quite possible it's the processing, too.

 

[bmattock]

What made you choose Portra NC? That's not a film known to have colors that pop. Used mostly for weddings. It's great for skin tones and has lots of latitude, so it doesn't blow out white wedding dresses of muddy up black formal suits.

 

[nikon_sam]

What made you choose Portra NC? That's not a film known to have colors that pop. Used mostly for weddings. It's great for skin tones and has lots of latitude, so it doesn't blow out white wedding dresses of muddy up black formal suits.

I have to agree with Bill...why this choice of film???
Try a roll of slide film and see if its the camera, the light or you...
Sometimes I shoot knowing that the light sucks...but if I wish enough I know that the shots will be brilliant...they're not...and I know better...If the light isn't right even the best film won't help that much...
I love Velvia 50 ASA because if the color is there it will capture it...😎

 

[Edward Felcher]

"unless i'm a total dummy"

 

[bmattock]

"unless i'm a total dummy"

Aren't you a piece of work? Hello, Copake.

 

[Edward Felcher]

The man asked a question and wanted an answer, in his own words, no less.

 

[bmattock]

I thought sneaking back under a different name was against the rules. Silly me.

 

[visiondr]

Portra NC does not, by definition, produce muddy, washed out colours. Here's a shot with it. Tell me if the colours look unsaturated and I'll shut up. BTW, the green area behind the boy is slightly washed out as it was in reality because of some fairly strong backlighting.

 

[visiondr]

"unless i'm a total dummy"

That was a nice thing to say – and constructive too.

 

[payasam]

C-41 processing is pretty much standardised all over. Little to go wrong. Prints or scans, whichever it was, are another matter.

 

[Nikon Bob]

If you are going by the way prints look they can be incorrectly printed. Do not go by that. You will likely find that out when you scan them and do a little work in PS or whatever post processing you use. There can be a world of difference. I have use Porta NC a long time ago when it was introduce, freebee samples, and found the colour not as popping as the Fuji I was used to but it was far from muddy. Relax and scan.

Bob

 

[Nikon Bob]

"unless i'm a total dummy"

That is about as useful comment as I have not seen on here in a long time.

Bob

 

[Rhoyle]

I'm sure it was the printing. While Portra NC doesn't really pop, it should give you at least decent color. There are an infinite number of possibilities when it comes to scanning and printing. Unless you have custom scans done where the operator (let's assume for the moment that he/she is good at this task) does all the adjusting for each exposure (costing a forturne) a machine scan and print will probably use the same settings as whatever roll went in before yours. Have them printed again, bringing your original prints, and tell them how you want it done differently. Also, make sure you use a UV filter in high altitudes.

 

[40oz]

IMHO, it's the film. It seems great for portraits and indirect lighting, but I've found it very unsatisfying for scenery/direct sunlight. It has it's uses, but general photography isn't one of them. IMHO.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[bwillis]

thanks for those of you trying to be helpful. that film was recommended by about my only resource locally. in their defense the film was recommended with regard to skin tone and color. i won't use it again, especially for nature type shots

the processing has usually been good, but i'm on about my 12th or 13th roll of film so i'm a bit unsure about some certain aspects of processing, well a lot actually.

a friend looked at and immediately thought processing/printing, so i should be able to salvage via lightroom

i also used a polarizing filter which should take care of the UV light and also flew with the film in a heavy duty xray proof bag so i don't think the film got ruined.

here's to hoping i can get these pixs straightened out. i know i'm learning w this RF, but my 10 yr old took better pix w a p&s digital!

 

[clintock]

If the paper says 'Fuji Crystal' on the back, that may be the problem. If costco, they may reprint for you if you complain, portra should look good.
I have had not the best luck always with portra on Fuji Crystal paper, which seems the default paper nowdays.
If the minilab operator had the rig set for the usual fuji superia xtra hyper saturated stuff, the normal saturated kodak won't look right at all.