Why do my colors stink?

MikeL said:
Jeremy, as I mentioned in your other thread, you are happy with the Walmart scans. I'd stick with them and not fight it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kaiyen said:
Jeremy,
I truly, honestly mean no offense by this, but you're starting to sound like a broken record. Have you digested any of the comments about the software doing some autocorrect? Have you even indicated what software you are using? It's like you're posting without reading any of the responses. Or, since you kinda-maybe say that you're using the Nikon software, have you learned how to turn off the auto color correction?

allan
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.

JeremyLangford said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Al Kaplan said:
Doesn't anybody these days ever shoot a grey scale and color control strip anymore?
Click to expand...

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.
 
rogue_designer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Just curious Jeremy, what number do you see?

plate21.jpg
 
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.
 
There's your light source to sort out, and then there's your film:

jeslyn1a.jpg

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
 
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.
 
JeremyLangford said:
twenty one
Click to expand...

Sparrow said:
I see no number there, and I'm not colourblind!

Please explain?
Click to expand...

angeloks said:
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...
Click to expand...

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! :eek:

memphis said:
color blind test
Click to expand...

I see ... nothing! Here are 3 more with explanations, so folks can calibrate their eyes:

plate2.jpg

(normal=8, colorblind=3)

plate15.jpg

(normal=7, colorblind=nothing)

plate24.jpg

(deuteranope [no green] =3, protanope (no red&rare)=5, trichromat=35)
 
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. :(
 
Chris101 said:
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! :eek:
Click to expand...

Thats why I said 21. I was hoping that the filename would be the correct number.
 
rogue_designer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
By the way, C41 also can give back very good colours, it's just more difficult to start scanning with colour negatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom