color balance

<p>I recently went to this site. http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp.<br>

It has a list of data for many different lenses including the color balance. Unfortunately this list does not include my Canon FD 300mm f/2.8 FLUORITE. I have been told that this is a "COLD" looking lens and that I should use a sky light filter to warm it up. I use a sky light drop in filter on this lens along with a UV filter on the front. I have four pictures in my gallery taken with this lens using Kodak Portra 400 film and my trusty Canon F-1n. Can someone tell from looking at the pictures if this lens looks cold, warm or in between.<br>

Raphael Vazquez</p><div></div>

Interesting subject!

 

I'm not sure it's possible to discern between the color cast of your original film image and what may have been introduced

during the scanning process. The lack of any true white reference points makes it even more difficult! If I had to guess you

have too much green in this final scanned image because the hippo's mouth coloration looks very dull and flat, not the

healthy pink I would expect.

 

That database also confirms my experience with the FD 400/4.5 SSC having an extremely bluish cast. Interesting.

<p>I agree with Rick, it’s very hard to discern color tint when viewed over an electronic device (laptop, table, phone, PC, etc.). Each monitor could render colors a bit different. And the scanning process is guaranteed to introduce other color variations. Looking at the picture you attached, it looks just fine to me. </p>

<p>And if you are dissatisfied with the color, its very easy to use photo software to change the tint of a picture. I do it all the time.</p>

<p>Back on FD lenses, there’s a mention on the Canon Museum website about Canon using the appropriate optical glass and coatings to give FD lenses a uniform “look” and to minimize color differences. Personally, I can’t say I’ve ever noticed a big difference between FD lenses when it comes to color. The exception being my FD 35/2.0 and Aspherical 55/1.2, which look decidedly warm because of their thorium elements. But, color-wise, my other FD lenses look pretty much the same.</p>

Raphael, using the color negative film further complicates your color cast research, because you don't have a "true color"

reference to start with. I have scanned many color negs myself, a real challenge that did not always return a satisfactory

result. It reminds me of that old saying about waking up on a different planet each morning!

<p>Do a shot incorporating a printed color chart in the picture (like a Gretag) and you can get a definitive answer.</p>

<p>In this age of digital color no one can really rely on the color of a lens to produce any predictability of color balance characterization. The time you took to question this about a len's color character it's much faster to just fix it in post like I did with your image in ACR/LR.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's the ACR edits...</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for the explanation. I am really impressed by what Tim did to adjust the color of my photo. Shows me how much I am behind the times. Any suggestion as to the best hardware available to do this kind of digital processing.</p>

<p>Raphael</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Any suggestion as to the best hardware available to do this kind of digital processing.<br /> Raphael</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did those edits on a 2010 Mac Mini ($800 back in 2011) in oldy OS 10.6.8 hooked to a ($330) 27" LG LED sRGB display calibrated with ColorMunki Display, editing with CS5 Photoshop/ACR ($200 upgrade) or LR4 ($138 complete app)... both imaging apps I bought on CD.</p>

<p>You can get all the equipment used for much less now and maybe more newer computer versions for just a bit more comparatively.</p>

<p>You may even get away with using computer OS supplied or other third party imaging apps that are much cheaper than Adobe software. But you do need to work on a calibrated display. Forget working on any mobile device. The screen size does not make for a pleasant editing experience especially working on the kind of image you posted here.</p>

<p>Most digital cameras now take close to finished results requiring very little if not any editing more so than film and lab processing and scanning.</p>

<p>Regarding Jim's comment about the Canon museum's comment about balancing lenses so they all have the same look, I'd like to add an observation. One that dates back to my introduction to 35mm photography, which happened when I purchased a Caon AE-1 and nFD 50/1.8 some 34 years ago. I clearly recall looking through the lens book that came with the outfit, in which there were sample photos taken with each of the lenses shown. My impression back then, as a total neophyte, was that the "Canon Look" was a cool one. The lenses in that book did not project warmth, as I recall, they projected a certain controlled coolness. Honestly, I found it to be quite a compelling look way back then and I've since wondered on occasion if that was indeed Canon's vision, or if I was reading too much into a small sample of images found in that booklet. Maybe not, eh? Maybe that indeed was Canon's "Look" back then.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As far as I remember all the range of Canon FD lenses were coated to have a matching colour balance based on the FD 50mm f1.4 standard reference lens.</p>