JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
Not only do they crop out important parts of the frame, but there can also be a couple of wierd scan lines going through the frame sometimes.
Why do my colors stink?
- Thread starter JeremyLangford
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 78
- Views 6K
Not only do they crop out important parts of the frame, but there can also be a couple of wierd scan lines going through the frame sometimes.
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
I said above that I did not scan the Coolscan scan myself. I had to send it to a fellow RFF member because I have no way to test a local Coolscan scanner.
navilluspm
Well-known
- Local time
- 2:33 PM
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 434
I have discovered that if you use vuescan, you can scan as a TIFF DNG format (I know this sounds crazy, but that is what it is called - as opposed to the RAW DNG format of vuescan).
I love this feature becasue it will turn the negative into a positive, keep all the ICE cleaning and Photoshop Elements will read it as a "RAW" file in which you can do all the exposure and color correcting you want. This might help you get the colors you are looking for, if you use your own scanner.
BTW The reason I called this TIFF DNG format is that the setting I am talking about is under the TIFF menu and NOT the RAW menu
I love this feature becasue it will turn the negative into a positive, keep all the ICE cleaning and Photoshop Elements will read it as a "RAW" file in which you can do all the exposure and color correcting you want. This might help you get the colors you are looking for, if you use your own scanner.
BTW The reason I called this TIFF DNG format is that the setting I am talking about is under the TIFF menu and NOT the RAW menu
kaiyen
local man of mystery
my fault, I didn't see that. Still doesn't make sense why you aren't accepting the fact that you have so many variables at play, yet you have apparently made at least a few final judgments. You have light/color temperature, software color correction, different film stock, etc.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
I shoot one at the start of studio sessions, once I get my lighting set. But I almost never take one out in the field, unless I'm shooting a building for assignment (and I'm spending the time with a view camera and spot metering).
They are a terrific tool. I wish more people used them. Especially the people I end up doing retouching work for... would make my job alot easier.
Andrew Howes
Established
I always do this with digital, the advantage there is the custom white balance at time of capture. It comes out very close to dead on every time. Properly profiling the camera for each type of light gets it even better. You really need to do this with each film and your scanner to get it looking right. Sometimes a scanner comes with various film profiles but nothing like doing your own. (I have never done it, I dont do any serious colour film anymore). I think until you scan or print your own colour film, you dont realise what it takes to get good colour.
Colour space is another thing to look at, if you are scanning in adobe rgb, it may look dull and grey in web or some photographic printers which are closer to srgb.
Chris101
summicronia
Just curious Jeremy, what number do you see?
charjohncarter
Veteran
Exactly Kaiyen, everybody has their own idea of what is great. But to reproduce it and to control it, so it can be reproduced, is a different matter.
amateriat
We're all light!
There's your light source to sort out, and then there's your film:
Jeslyn, Williamsburg, 2005.
(Technical: Hexar RF, 28mm f/2.8 M-Hex, Fuji Press 800 @ EI 640)
The choice of film, and its handling, are important. Judgement of the lighting at hand counts a lot, too. I've found Fuji Press 800 relatively forgiving in relatively crazy (i.e. mixed-lighting) conditions. Being able to overexpose a bit under these conditions helps a good deal, too; borderline underexposure will make a dicey situation that much worse.
- Barrett
Jeslyn, Williamsburg, 2005.
(Technical: Hexar RF, 28mm f/2.8 M-Hex, Fuji Press 800 @ EI 640)
The choice of film, and its handling, are important. Judgement of the lighting at hand counts a lot, too. I've found Fuji Press 800 relatively forgiving in relatively crazy (i.e. mixed-lighting) conditions. Being able to overexpose a bit under these conditions helps a good deal, too; borderline underexposure will make a dicey situation that much worse.
- Barrett
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
Just curious Jeremy, what number do you see?
twenty one
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
So I take it that you don't need the .PSD file then?
There are lots of ways to get the color tones you want. But in general, you'll need more control over scans. And you'll need to choose the film and the processing appropriately (for each shoot). Or be willing to do some serious post processing in PS to achieve it.
There are lots of ways to get the color tones you want. But in general, you'll need more control over scans. And you'll need to choose the film and the processing appropriately (for each shoot). Or be willing to do some serious post processing in PS to achieve it.
Sparrow
Veteran
Just curious Jeremy, what number do you see?
I see no number there, and I'm not colourblind!
Please explain?
angeloks
Well-known
Well, I can see why he said 21, but I'll agree with you, I don't really see a number there ! And I'm definitly not colorblind unless there are some new colors around...
Chris101
summicronia
Interesting that you see 21 Jeremy! This is plate 21 in the Ishihara test. A deuteranope (like myself) sees a clear 73, protanopes and anomylous colorblind persons will see 7, 3, 2, 5 or 3 and perfect trichromats (non-colorblind people) see no numbers at all. It doesn't say what it means if you see 21! 😱
I see ... nothing! Here are 3 more with explanations, so folks can calibrate their eyes:
(normal=8, colorblind=3)
(normal=7, colorblind=nothing)
(deuteranope [no green] =3, protanope (no red&rare)=5, trichromat=35)
Chris101
summicronia
Oh, shït it does - I thought it was a smiley face! 🙂
That's hilarious, but the folks who would really laugh, can't see it. 🙁
That's hilarious, but the folks who would really laugh, can't see it. 🙁
IK13
Established
Interesting.
And somehow made me feel like I have a problem with my perfect color vision...
And somehow made me feel like I have a problem with my perfect color vision...
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
Thats why I said 21. I was hoping that the filename would be the correct number.
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
No thanks. I can get a finished product that I am okay with in Photoshop. I was just wondering why the initial scan from the Coolscan V looked so bad. And after reading your comments I realize that I probably need to start using Vuescan and edit the white balance before scanning. (I have always just let the scanning software do that for me, which is probably why I am not happy with the color corrections it does.
When you say choose the processing, are you mainly just talking about cross processing?
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Dude.
It's all a matter of scanning.
C41 can be scnaned in a million different ways, and a half.
Go shoot a roll of slide film and get it developed. Look at it with a loupe (a wide angle lens will do the trick). Then scan it and compare. Adjust the scan to match the colors.
If you can't get the colors this way right, then you either didn't try hard enough to adjust the scan, or you indeed have a problem with your scanner.
It's all a matter of scanning.
C41 can be scnaned in a million different ways, and a half.
Go shoot a roll of slide film and get it developed. Look at it with a loupe (a wide angle lens will do the trick). Then scan it and compare. Adjust the scan to match the colors.
If you can't get the colors this way right, then you either didn't try hard enough to adjust the scan, or you indeed have a problem with your scanner.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
By the way, C41 also can give back very good colours, it's just more difficult to start scanning with colour negatives.
