Pherdinand
the snow must go on
And by the way, the green cast on the Walmart scan is butt ugly, the highlights are totally out, and the blacks like the coat of the dude is pitch black.
Not so on the Coolscan version.
I like the Coolscan version much more.
Of course it's a matter of what YOU like more (but that doesn't necessarily mean the more color-correct image).
Not so on the Coolscan version.
I like the Coolscan version much more.
Of course it's a matter of what YOU like more (but that doesn't necessarily mean the more color-correct image).
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
Hi Chris,
I think posting colour blindness checks on this web side is highly irresponsible (apart from you post being rude in tone). If members who do not know so far that they are colour blind, see these test here, there will be no doctor or else to offer advise or comfort. People do not come here to find out about these type problems, they want to enjoy their photography.
Thanks for reading.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I would imagine that most adults would already know if they're color blind long before they started reading this forum.
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
Hi Jeremy,
Colour negative film seems pretty tough to scan. I have two scanners (Nikon IV and Epson 4990) which I run via their bundled software or vuescan. Having profiled my scanner with a couple of Wolf targets, I get good colour for slides out of the box. For negs, even with less challanging light than the one you show, it is a lot harder and I went for slides only these days. Using slides means your shooting conditions need to match reasonably well on the film (that is 5500K for most of them). If your light is different you must use colour balancing filters. The ability to correct a colour cast on a slide is limited, since some info you need has been clogged up in shadows or burnt away in the highlights.
Hope this helps.
Joachim
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
Who guaranties that all readers here are adults?
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Colors are for suckers anyway.
Black and White Photography All the Way!
Black and White Photography All the Way!
gertf
Established
A bit over protective there IMHO. He might actually have done them a favour!
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Or pushing/pulling the film to get a specific effect depending on exposure.
R
ruben
Guest
Regarding the color results under fluorescent light, have we forgotten the fluorescent filter ?
Let me guess the pictures of Ryan Russell were not scanned at Well Mart.
Color doesn't sock at all. It's just a complex science to learn.
Cheers,
Ruben
Let me guess the pictures of Ryan Russell were not scanned at Well Mart.
Color doesn't sock at all. It's just a complex science to learn.
Cheers,
Ruben
charjohncarter
Veteran
I agree with Memphis. I thought it was clever. Of course, I go to breakfast with some guys that make this look like a Sunday stroll. So maybe I'm case hardened.
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
So basically my mindset has always been to let the scanner handle the color and exposure automatically, and Ill fix what it did wrong in Photoshop. Would picking the white-balance before scanning save me quality? Would it actually change how the picture is scanned or would it still scan it the same, and just edit the colors for me in the software rather than in Photoshop?
Andrew Howes
Established
funny you should say that. As a portrait photographer I come across the odd one every now and then
that only as they see their photos do they realise
that they are fat, old, ugly or a combination of the three.
:bang:
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Isn't that part of the appeal of photography as an "art?" It's about impressions, not necessarily reality. That's why, to me, when people shoot digital, and use white balance to get everything looking 'neutral,' the results are too sterile for my tastes.
When i look at old stuff from David Alan Harvey, for example:
http://davidalanharvey.com/#a=0&at=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=0&p=0
There's so much beauty in the variations of color temperature. I'm already used to seeing the way my eyes see/adjust for temperature. It's not interesting.
This isn't limited to photography. Go back to Van Gogh's "The Night Cafe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_Café
Maybe that IS how his eyes saw things... as he was nutso, but if that image had been painted with 'neutral white balance,' it would lose quite a bit.
For the OP :
I kind of agree that your scanning software seems responsible for automatically 'fixing' the color. Don't you see the image in a preview window before committing to a final scan? Do you have a series of adjustment parameters that allow you to tweak color and/or deselect any auto color features?
The other thing, though, is that if you're hoping to get the same kind of color as demonstrated in your sample, you're going to have to shoot in light with the same color temperature all the time. If you want colors like that in other types of light, you may have to resort to either cross-processing your film, or using Photoshop (or an equivalent) to tweak things after the fact. There are plugins, like Nik Color Efex Pro that have settings for emulating Cross Balance or Cross Processing, as well as things like Bleach Bypass. Try a demo, perhaps.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Dexter, of course imagination and creativity are the most important part of art. Artesmia Gentileschi was a nothing artist until she was raped by an assistant in her fathers studio, but after that she became a world best. And maybe that green look that I think is goofy will became the foundation of a world's best.
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
So basically my mindset has always been to let the scanner handle the color and exposure automatically, and Ill fix what it did wrong in Photoshop. Would picking the white-balance before scanning save me quality? Would it actually change how the picture is scanned or would it still scan it the same, and just edit the colors for me in the software rather than in Photoshop?
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
respectfully, how does this get to three pages without this getting spelled out?
As mentioned the reasons your two scans are different is because of what the scanner is set to see %18 grey as and how it is white balancing. But thats minor, the real and entire crux of the crucible is this:
Limiting this discussion to the display on monitors only, the reason (and the entire reason) why Ryan Russell's photos look the way they look is because of the time he sent in photoshop or whatever software he used to make them look that way. The reason why your photos look the way they look is because you spent no time in photoshop or whatver software you use to make them look like anything.
You guys can continue to discuss film and filters and anything else, but anyone that has remotely any experience editing knows that the discussion just ended.
Color film did not just print itself. You sent it to a place. And you could get crummy one light prints for $.99, you could get a really really good color lab to print the photo for $20 or you could learn the process and print yourself.
The process is in no way any different if you are scanning film for monitor display. You would be extraordinarily remiss to have the idea that the scanner scans the picture and you are done. The scanner provides you with a digital composite of the negative and it should be viewed as such, the same way you would view the film strip in your hand if you were standing in a darkroom waiting to drop your paper in the Colex. All you have is the material with which to make your image from. It is not the image... You've got to work with photoshop to "print" the file, I call it monitorizing, but you can come up with your own dumb pet name if you like.
At any rate, you can take either of those scans and with some work completely get them to look similar to the other photos you posted. He's not doing anything crazy, he's just printing the photo for a monitor. You havent even adjusted the black in your scans and nothing is going to pop until you get that done.
The look of his photos have very little if nothing to do with the type of film he used, the color temperature of the film he used or the fact that he used film at all. If you know what you are doing with photoshop and you have a halfway decent scan to start with, it'll get you there.
I should probably have more patience with this subject but its becoming more and more irritating to me to see photo finishing turning into the work for graphic designers the same way its becoming more and more irritating to see graphic designers who can turn a camera on calling themselves photographers. 30 years ago when you got a crappy print there wasnt a lot of mystery to why. You either didnt have the best neg in the world or there wasnt a lot of effort put into the print or it was just a one light. Today, there is extreme mystery when it comes to scanning and people really need to get educated on the photo finishing side of things for monitors. If you scan it and are happy with the look, wonderful. But if you are not its because there is A LOT of post work which needs to be done that is sadly understated by far too many people. There is also this odd elitism I notice on photo forums where people wave this flag of "no photoshop, just scanned" kind of sentiment as if the process is optional and somehow there crummy scan somehow best represents their camera negative compared to the guy who spent forty minutes dialing in the color and contrast for the photo. In my mind this equates to someone standing next to a colex bragging, "yeah, I didnt even use any magenta filter for these prints" as if thats a good thing to be proud of.
anyway, sorry to rant. short answer, photos just dont appear on a monitor looking like ryan russels work, they might have looked similar to your scans when they were imported. This stuff takes some work. Its not at all hard to do or to learn, its just simple and basic print technique but have no illusion, it *needs* to be addressed.
As mentioned the reasons your two scans are different is because of what the scanner is set to see %18 grey as and how it is white balancing. But thats minor, the real and entire crux of the crucible is this:
Limiting this discussion to the display on monitors only, the reason (and the entire reason) why Ryan Russell's photos look the way they look is because of the time he sent in photoshop or whatever software he used to make them look that way. The reason why your photos look the way they look is because you spent no time in photoshop or whatver software you use to make them look like anything.
You guys can continue to discuss film and filters and anything else, but anyone that has remotely any experience editing knows that the discussion just ended.
Color film did not just print itself. You sent it to a place. And you could get crummy one light prints for $.99, you could get a really really good color lab to print the photo for $20 or you could learn the process and print yourself.
The process is in no way any different if you are scanning film for monitor display. You would be extraordinarily remiss to have the idea that the scanner scans the picture and you are done. The scanner provides you with a digital composite of the negative and it should be viewed as such, the same way you would view the film strip in your hand if you were standing in a darkroom waiting to drop your paper in the Colex. All you have is the material with which to make your image from. It is not the image... You've got to work with photoshop to "print" the file, I call it monitorizing, but you can come up with your own dumb pet name if you like.
At any rate, you can take either of those scans and with some work completely get them to look similar to the other photos you posted. He's not doing anything crazy, he's just printing the photo for a monitor. You havent even adjusted the black in your scans and nothing is going to pop until you get that done.
The look of his photos have very little if nothing to do with the type of film he used, the color temperature of the film he used or the fact that he used film at all. If you know what you are doing with photoshop and you have a halfway decent scan to start with, it'll get you there.
I should probably have more patience with this subject but its becoming more and more irritating to me to see photo finishing turning into the work for graphic designers the same way its becoming more and more irritating to see graphic designers who can turn a camera on calling themselves photographers. 30 years ago when you got a crappy print there wasnt a lot of mystery to why. You either didnt have the best neg in the world or there wasnt a lot of effort put into the print or it was just a one light. Today, there is extreme mystery when it comes to scanning and people really need to get educated on the photo finishing side of things for monitors. If you scan it and are happy with the look, wonderful. But if you are not its because there is A LOT of post work which needs to be done that is sadly understated by far too many people. There is also this odd elitism I notice on photo forums where people wave this flag of "no photoshop, just scanned" kind of sentiment as if the process is optional and somehow there crummy scan somehow best represents their camera negative compared to the guy who spent forty minutes dialing in the color and contrast for the photo. In my mind this equates to someone standing next to a colex bragging, "yeah, I didnt even use any magenta filter for these prints" as if thats a good thing to be proud of.
anyway, sorry to rant. short answer, photos just dont appear on a monitor looking like ryan russels work, they might have looked similar to your scans when they were imported. This stuff takes some work. Its not at all hard to do or to learn, its just simple and basic print technique but have no illusion, it *needs* to be addressed.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
damn do I come off heavy handed sometimes, sorry, dont intend to do that.
easy response, you can fix your scans to look like the ones you posted by adjusting the gamma, levels and color balance, thats certainly what the photographer did to make those colors pop the way they do. hopefully some of the info in my post is helpful to you.
cheers
easy response, you can fix your scans to look like the ones you posted by adjusting the gamma, levels and color balance, thats certainly what the photographer did to make those colors pop the way they do. hopefully some of the info in my post is helpful to you.
cheers
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
Your response helped a lot. Thank you.
My mindset has always been to let the scanner handle the color and exposure automatically, and I'll fix what it did wrong in Photoshop. Would picking the white-balance before scanning be the best thing to do and save me quality? Would it actually change how the picture is scanned or would it still scan it the same, and just edit the colors for me in the scanning software rather than in Photoshop?
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
WoolenMammoth, that was a very good post.
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
Anyone know the answer to my question right up there?^