Highly Saturated Color Photos/Film

In another thread someone mentioned that de-rating film would result

in more saturated photos. So I de-rated my 800 speed film (Fujicolor

Press) to 500. I have taken a couple rolls like this, and I have

noticed the difference in daytime/outdoor shots. But I mainly shoot

live bands in small, dark clubs and bars, and these photos don't come

out as saturated as I would like them. I would like my colors to be

super rich! My setup is a Pentax ZX-5n body with a 28-200 3.5/5.6

Sigma lens. I also use a Sunpak 266d flash TTL set at 400 ISO. Is

there anything I can do, or am I asking for the impossible?

A one stop push will give it a bit more punch.

High speed print films have plenty of contrast, but they don't have much color saturation. Pushing will increase contrast and give you some more speed to work with. Pushing will not give you stronger color.

 

If you're going to rely on the lab to make prints for you vs. doing your own scanning and adjust per taste with Photoshop, there aren't many options. Maybe shoot Fuji 1600 at EI 800, but I can't imagine that being any more vivid than Fuji 800.

 

One suggestion is looking for a digital mini-lab like a Fuji Frontier, or any shop willing to handle slides. Shooting Provia 400F slide film and pushing to 800 *will* yield much more intense images than Fuji Press 800 - that's a given. The problem is only the digital mini-labs are capable of making prints from slide films without spending a small fortune or doing your own scanning.

Use a Tiffen Enhancing filter, it's like a super-warmer.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with Scott.

 

Pushing color negative film will increase contrast overall and increase color saturation.

 

There are limits, but it will work.

 

Ron Mowrey

Rating Fuji Superia/Press 800 at 640 or 500 won't increase its saturation. What it might do is reduce the grain (which is already pretty fine) to approach ISO 400 levels. That's good for travel and landscape photography (for which I rate it at 640). For your application you'll probably need all the speed you can get. So you should probably rate it at 800, but be sure your exposure takes shadows into account. Since you're using flash, the warm ambient lighting might not be an issue (one-stop overexposure can yield better results with tungsten lighting if you want to correct for that in printing).

 

<p>Especially at EI 640, Press/Superia has as much saturation as you could expect from any color negative film. If that's not enough, the only way I know to increase it is with digital scanning. Doing that, I can get pseudo-Velvia saturation (like <a href="http://www.tedsimages.com/text/steeplm.htm">this</a>) or saturation that's less intense but still more vivid than reality (like <a href="http://www.tedsimages.com/text/korbcrn.htm">this</a>). I used Superia 800 (rated at 640) for both of them. If you can't scan and digitally process the film yourself, perhaps a good lab with a digital printing machine might be able to increase the saturation of prints.

Ron is correct; Scott is wrong.

If you're already shooting at 500, why not try Ultra Color 400, which

I find more saturated for most colors (especially red and yellow)

than Press 800. Moreover Press 800 tends to burn out (whiten) blue

more than UC400 when overexposed. Alternatively, if you're having

prints made on a digital minilab, you could ask the operator to

crank up saturation. If you can do that on a Frontier, I'd recommend

NPZ over Press 800 because its color balance doesn't go so whacky

when saturation is enhanced. In any case, pushing your film is more

laborious and expensive than switching film or minilab, guaranteed.

Wow Joe. That was helpful.

I would get a fast lens - you sure don't need 200mm in a small club - I find that 105mm is usually on the long side in small clubs - I use a 105 1.8, a 50 1.4 and a 28 2.8 and when I use my sb28, a 70-210 F4. When you use the flash you can use much slower film for a better saturated look. IMHO, under those green, red and blue spots, desaturation makes the skin tones look better.

In his Mar/Apr 2001 review of higher speed pro films, Ctein stated:

"I was surprised how little effect push processing had on saturation,

considering how it significantly changed the results for contrast...

Portra 400NC and VC ranked last; excessive contrast reduced overall

saturation by pushing too many colors too close to white or black."

You asked:<br><i>I would like my colors to be super rich! My setup is ... a 28-200 3.5/5.6 Sigma lens. <br>Is there anything I can do, or am I asking for the impossible? </i><p>

Personally, I wouldn't expect 'super rich colors' with such a zoom lens. On the other hand, if the 'small, dark clubs and bars' have poor lighting, what do you expect to record on film???<p>

So, don't blame the film. You said it: you're asking for the impossible ;-)

Maybe you could just scan in your negs and up the saturation in Photoshop?

Thank you all for your very helpful and enlightening answers! I think I will keep de-rating my film to step up the contrast and use filters to enhance the saturation. The digital scanning would be the easiest way to fix this, of course, but I'm all about the purity of the print. I like to think that not allowing myself to touch up my photos will make me a quicker-thinking, more creative photographer in the future. :)

Since the brevity of my earlier response caused some consternation, allow me to elaborate a little bit.

 

To the extent that push processing increases contrast, you will seen higher graininess and higher saturation. These are conclusions from first principles. From subjective studies, apparent sharpness will increase slightly. All this assumes that camera exposure remains at the same EI (same position on the characteristic curve) which perhaps explains the apparent discrepancy observed by Ctein. High speed films will generally lose saturation very quickly with underexposure because of the way they've been designed.

Just for argument's sake, try a roll of Kodak Portra 800 at ISO 800 and have it printed

on Kodak paper. I think the light in clubs & bars is quite challenging, but Portra 800

handles colors quite well. Pushing Kodak 400UC 1 stop is also another choice.

Nothing wrong with your rig and Kodak 800 can handle the extra light from the flash.

<I>Ron is correct; Scott is wrong.</i><P>No offense, but I feel like I'm talking to the staff at Walgreens and trying to explain thermal chromatic reciprocity. Just out of curiousity, how much experience do you have processing film under controlled conditions, how much 35mm and 120 professional print film have you pushed and then measured, and can you provide us first hand examples from perhaps 120 NPZ?<P>Push processing a print film increases it's contrast - <b>it does not increase color saturation</b>, which is fixed and based on the stupid dyes in the film in the first place. By over-exposing the film you simply force the dye layers to saturate to their physical limit, which with 800 print speed film isn't that much to begin with, unless you believe 800 speed print films have more saturation than 100 speed films cuz Pop Photo and Kodak's Max film marketing dept says so. I'll also take Ctein's conclusions over yours.<P>Portra NC 160 for instance has a higher Dmax color density than *any* 800 speed print film if you care to test it, which shows just how crappy the saturation of high speed C-41 films are to begin with. By push processing high speed print films all you do is slam the dye couplers to their limit much the same effect as over exposing it.<P><I>These are conclusions from first principles</i><P>Based on the "Physics of Star Trek"?????<P></I>I've pushed and scanned so many professional rolls of 120 print film for clients and myself it must rank in the thousands, and pushing has *no effect* on color saturation because saturation is limited to the dyes built into the film. Increasing contrast tends to fool the layman into believing that they are getting more saturation, but it's not the case. This is why Agfa is able to get away with such a weak nasty film like Ultra 100 which is actually no more saturated than Agfa Portrait (Agfa's horrid dye technology at play), but because it has cranked up contrast amatuers think they are shooting the C-41 version of Velvia while the film is unable to discern bright orange from red. Shoot a roll of Gold 100 and then a roll of Agfa Ultra 100. Have print made on Kodak Royal paper and measure the reds, greens and blues with a densitometer. The Kodak film will show stronger absolute colors. Guess Ultra 100 isn't so saturated after all. <P>Letting C-41 film sit in developer doesn't alter the molecular structure of the dyes as you seem to be saying - it only forces every possible dye cloud in the emulsion to form, which with still produces a weaker absolute saturation in 800 speed print films than a slow speed portrait print films in the first place. <P>If you want to get stronger prints from 800 speed print films your options are limited to either finding a Frontier lab and having them manually crank up the saturation, shooting Provia 400F and pushing it (slide films are not limited to the dye envelope of C-41 print films), or doing your own scanning. Playing with various incarnations of 800 speed print film and processing will not produce that much of a pictorial difference compared to changing to a digital based out-put system, or shooting trannies. I used to shoot a lot of NPZ 800 in 120 format under available light, which still is the best 800 speed print film on the market, and if I needed more 'snap' in my images would choose other alternatives than pushing it.

Scott;

 

How many color films have you coated and processed?

 

My film consumption with various processes was on the order of 2000 linear feet / week of 35 mm. I have processed so many variations of color film it pales in comparison to yours. Joe has done far more than I have.

 

Push results do depend on film but, in general, contrast and color saturation go up with push. The chemistry and physics are straightforward as Joe said, and he is a far greater expert than I am.

 

An increase in contrast can give the illusion of increased color saturation, or in fact, it can be real. Only by careful measurement can one be sure of the results. If you care to measure the results, I suggest undercut or double undercut exposures. Joe may care to add to this, but I doubt if it would help you.

 

Oh, BTW, when I was a teen, ray guns were SciFi items, but today Lasers Exist. Be careful, Star Trek science has a tendancy to become fact. You don't have all of the information out there, just qualititative observations.

 

Scott, chill out. You are going to have a stroke or something trying to impose your views on the rest of us. I know you don't like EK. I know you don't like EK people. Sorry about that. Quite frankly, physics works for Fuji as well as EK. Both films increase in contrast and apparent color saturation with push.

 

Joe is right, Scott is wrong.

 

Ron Mowrey

<i>"But I mainly shoot live bands in small, dark clubs and bars, and these photos don't come out as saturated as I would like them."</I><br><br>

 

I shot this pic in a small club with Press 800 exposed @1250 and pushed 1 stop and had it printed in a Pro Frontier shop.<br><br>

 

For me this is saturated enough. Tonality is not very good, but not too bad for a 50% crop of a 35mm high speed neg. If your prints are not as saturated as this example, you might want to look for a better lab.<br><br>

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2370248-md.jpg">

See which focal lengths you need (in my experience, two would suffice) and consider buying fast prime lenses in these focal lengths (pick up used manual focus gear if you're short on cash.) These will give you a considerable speed advantage over your slow zoom, enabling you to use slower films. Also, Press 800 looks very saturated printed on a Frontier, good printing makes all the difference. Maybe the conditions you shoot don't have so saturated colors?

Bernhard;

 

Good picture, and excellent example illustrating the usefulness of underexposure and push processing along with good saturation.

 

I have suggested elsewhere that often our subjective impression of low saturation in underexposures comes from the poor lighting that has forced us to use the underexposure in the first place.

 

You have shown that with good photography, that is not always the case. So, I ammend my statement to include the fact that poor use of underexposure can also lead to a flat and lifeless looking picture.

 

Thanks.

 

Ron Mowrey

Lady James,

 

It seems that everyone is arguing Film technology and missing some VERY important

points from your posts.

 

Your Lens is fighting you! A Fast Prime lens as suggested will help you a ton. A less

drastic Zoom like an 80-200 is nice and optically far superior than a 28-200.

 

Your FLASH is fighting you. Concert Photography is rarely done using a Flash. The Flash

washes out all of the color of the stage lighting that you are seeing as an audience

member.

 

So try to get a faster Lens (2.8 minimum), use 800 Film (Fuji NPZ looks better than Press

but costs more) and leave your flash at home.

 

jmp

Oops

 

One more thing. You mentioned using FIlters. They will just rob you of precious light.

Filtration isn't the problem here and will likely just mess things up more.

 

jmp

Thanks, John! But I think I would have a stroke trying to catch everything with a prime, or worse- trying to switch between my prime and my less drastic lens. I hear ya on the filters- I actually hadn't thought about the loss of light. As for the flash, I rather don't like club lighting. That's why I use it. I just don't like its effects at full power; it washes out the color of my subjects on top of washing out the color of all those silly red and orange lights.

 

Berhard, thank you for your photo! That is almost exactly the look I'm going for! What sort of camera/lens did you use? When you say exposed at 1250, you mean 1250 ISO, right?

 

As for the film debates/arguments, they're very interesting! I know that's not a nice thing to say, but I know very little about the technical aspects of film, so I don't even know where to begin asking questions. Now I kinda do.