make me appreciate color film

Reala shouldn't be dull like that, especially given a one-stop push. Get some quality prints made or even some cheap scans on a Frontier, as IK13 suggests. I usually rate my Reala at ISO80, and the colours are rich and vivid but accurate and not overly-saturated.

Reala should look like this (Frontier scans):

101917572_8dff91cbfe.jpg


64109648_7fd08552ae.jpg


329742099_6df5295dc3.jpg
 
I'm inspired by autumm colours. I can not imagine it without color photos..

Two more that were shot in Korea in December 2007

7165184-md.jpg


7165185-md.jpg
 
Last edited:
Teus said:
OK, got my reala. EI 50 helps a bit, but results are fairly poor to my eyes. low sharpness and I can't get tonality right, even with editing. I probably need some modern glass: the old collapsible summicron's colors are ugly, my J-12 performs a bit better (and warmer).

samples from a dual scan III with auto exposure: http://satsuki.nl/teus/photos/tech/reala/reala.jpg

real world photos:

this leaves me fairly unhappy, digital captures require way less editing to look snappy. I should try some "ultra color" or so, in my SLR with 50mm f/1.8 AF (or f/1.2 with older coatings).what do you people think?
Click to expand...


Teus, to me, looks like these are a bit overexposed --> low contrast. I've seen a gorgeous Holga shot, so, the lens is likely not the problem 🙂

The beauty of film is that you get to choose and experiment with different formulas *and* sizes to see which one fits you.

I am partial to Kodak because so far, I haven't used Fuji stuff that much. As you can see in the examples in this thread, color films, when exposed and scanned correctly matches or exceeds digital in terms of contrast, sharpness, and especially tonal range.

If it's feasible in your area, try Kodachrome, sample (from a very outdated roll):

2196097874_77d4d0f380.jpg


Also try out the bigger Polaroids, sample (Polaroid 690, not expired):

2331993758_39b742648c.jpg


My favorite is Kodak Hi-def 200 ASA, sample:

1986472769_64e2ae9199_o.jpg


Kodak Gold 200 is not bad either, sample:

2316346425_599fc7b55d.jpg
 
Hans - I did not do any Photoshop work to those images, but I believe the Frontier scans may have been slightly tweaked during scanning. The first two images are shot with the CV 25mm f/4 lens, which is a fairly 'snappy' lens in terms of contrast. The third is with the CV 40mm f/1.4 SC.

Darkroom prints from these negatives come out quite similarly in terms of colour (a hair less saturated), but a bit more smooth.
 
sockeyed said:
Reala shouldn't be dull like that, especially given a one-stop push. Get some quality prints made or even some cheap scans on a Frontier, as IK13 suggests. I usually rate my Reala at ISO80, and the colours are rich and vivid but accurate and not overly-saturated.
Reala should look like this (Frontier scans):
Click to expand...
beautiful colors. did you give them any correction?
I'm scanning with a Minolta scan dual III. The black and white it scans is great. Only sometimes, flatly litten stuff with certain combinations becomes a bit murky.

shadowfox said:
Teus, to me, looks like these are a bit overexposed --> low contrast.
Click to expand...
bracketed photos: http://satsuki.nl/teus/photos/tech/reala/reala3.jpg

I might get some film scanned by a local lab or so, in case it's my scanner. The reala itself was still good till 2009 and was stored properly

IK13 said:
Teus, I hope you don't mind - I took the liberty to touch up quickly one of your Reala scans - just to bring some color and contrast back...
Click to expand...
thats kind of you. I'm not too good at correcting film scans like this yet, but I don't like editing something bad to start with :/
 
Teus,

It's not your scanner per se. Minoltas are fine scanners.
This is what you'll get without tuning/profiling your scanner for this (or more or less any) film. Commercial scanners are tuned to bump up the contrast and saturation a bit and frankly their "auto-everything" approach actually works fine 90% of the cases.

If I were you and I'd want to get a more or less "ready" jpeg directly from the scanner - I'd try to either tune up whatever scanning software you're using for the particular film you're scanning. I'd also be cautious about the clipping that the "auto" modes might introduce.

I would recommend though scanning to raw/tiff and then adjusting in PP. Profiling your film in the post process level instead of the scanner. It seems more involved (but not much really if you get the settings dialed right once), but will give you more control. Well at least that's the theory...
 
IK13 said:
It's not your scanner per se. Minoltas are fine scanners.This is what you'll get without tuning/profiling your scanner for this (or more or less any) film.
Click to expand...
I'll think about this, and try some other films first. There's also the strange colors the film has: faces go reddish quickly, and it would involve specific editing again to get this right
 
I went to a Reuters photographic exhibtion at the weekend showing photographs taken in Iraq since 2003. Some really great bits of work, but couldn't help noticing how they'd all be shot in JPG, and didn't enlarge gracefully at all. Some were shockingly poor quality, which I thought was a great shame.

I couldn't help but reflect on how different, and probably more impressive they might have looked if they'd been shot with film. Then, again, it's not an easy choice when you're in a war zone.
 
I'm going through a bit of a colour education myself and whilst I shoot a lot a slide (esp. Velvia, which back in the days of RSX I used to avoid like the plague) I'm edging towards C41 for ease of processing and scanning. Still experimenting with what stock I prefer (Sockeyed's Reala shots have sent me scurrying off to my film supplier) but I really like bog-standard Kodacolor Gold. Jessops give it away free when you process a film and it has a classic Kodak look that is sufficiently different to digital to make me want to use it (cheap and good is a good combination). For me the big benefit is:

1. No-one makes a digital camera that I actually enjoy using
2. No digital camera has the range of colour neg
3. I've yet to find a digital camera that handles skies properly to my eyes

I also like the fact that film stock makes such a difference. I'm not one for extensive post-processing and colour grading and I like the fact that Portra looks different to Reala, or Kodak Gold, or no-name drugstore film, etc.
 
Last edited:
got my roll of 160VC processed. exposed the film with my new light meter. learning now how to properly incident meter, exciting!

160VC isn't as forgiving like Reala, and is pretty wonky when colors start shifting through different exposures. but generally, great success: acceptable images to start with that require no unusual tricks to look right:

160vc_compare1.jpg


160vc_compare2.jpg


teus_08_035_401.jpg
 
Last edited:
No digital camera has the range of colour neg
Click to expand...

I would agree with this for the large majority of cameras, but my Canon 5D comes very close if I shoot RAW and process my images in Lightroom (and I'm a guy who loves colour neg film).

Warning! DSLR image to follow!!

2393073685_f32589d565.jpg


I chose this one because it has a pretty high dynamic range but doesn't blow the highlights and retains some shadow detail.

I still prefer the look of colour neg though.
 
srichmond said:
I couldn't help but reflect on how different, and probably more impressive they might have looked if they'd been shot with film. Then, again, it's not an easy choice when you're in a war zone.
Click to expand...

No doubt that'd be true in some cases, but it also must be considered that many of the shots would likely not have existed if digital hadn't been an option. The simple fact is, a compact digital P&S requires a great deal less care & feeding to keep by your side than a film camera. Pay a few hundred bucks and you can get a pocketable digital P&S with enough memory cards to match scores of rolls of film with very limited, if any, need to reload. That's true just of ordinary life, to say nothing of a war zone.

Better the JPG you have than the Kodak you don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom