Pro160S rated lower for contrast?

Has anyone tried rating Pro160S lower for more contrast? In particular, for a

sunny seaside scene, I can shoot handheld at ISO100. I cannot get hold of

Pro160C or Reala, so I want to know if this is feasible.

 

I have tried using curves on the scans of Pro160S. Sometimes it works well,

sometimes there is too much resulting color cast. I am not thinking of using

slides due to costs considerations.

You live in a place where you can't obtain any higher contrast color negative films? That

seems very strange to me.

Charles, I am not joking. And even if I go to Singapore, it is the same for Fuji films. I am not familiar with Kodak films and I don't have much time to look into their films before my next shoot.

If you get a color cast with the curve, go into the individual color curve channels and correct it by going in the opposite direction. RGB is default, but there are individual channels selectable at the top.

 

Try using the contrast/brightness and/or color saturation. Use adjustment layers.

 

So far I shot one roll and it would not scan like normal where I just do a manual color color scan, and then correct it with the scanner color balance program, then do a final scan. So I tried automatic which previously never seemed to work well on other films, and I got a pretty close scan on all films.

 

Here are some pics from the first roll. You can download one with the download provision and see if results are differnt than your scans give.

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/R.Moravec/2006125FullersbergInColor

Brightness contrast control<div></div>

Here I grabbed the curve and pulled 1/2 way to upper left corner<div></div>

hue saturation pushed up high

 

All these examples are very extreme, much more than I would normally use. Only the curve shows a little color shift, easily correctable.

 

Call up a pic from my original Picassa albumn and check download. You can repeat my testing.<div></div>

Ronald, thanks for the tip. Seems awfully a lot more work than a slide shoot but should be handy for low contrast negs.

To make a negative more punchy, try creating a new curves adjustment layer. Don't modify the curve and just click okay. Now change the blending mode to "soft light" and lower the opacity- 20% is a good starting point. Let me know how it works for you.

According to <A HREF="http://filmscan.ru/articles/article07.html">tests

by a Russian film institute</A>, Pro 160S is an ISO 195 film.

Exposing it at EI 100 probably reduces contrast by filling in

shadow detail. I would bet US$20 you will have more luck increasing

contrast by underexposing 160S.

<P>

In Photoshop, there is also the Brightness/Contrast control,

but that's probably too easy.

You get the best contrast with negative film by using the correct exposure. You want to avoid blocking in highlights and excessive grain in the shadows. Negative film has inherently less contrast than reversal film. It's all done in processing the image.

 

The "correct" exposure is the trick, isn't it. One hears the term "expose for the shadows", which is a simplification. You need adequate density in shadows where you need details, but black is black whenever. Therefore, exposure is a matter of placement. One approach is to determine the grey card exposure, then "place" the darkest shadows with detail 2-3 stops below this point and let the highlights take care of themselves. If you don't have a grey card (why not?), you can use green grass, barn red, or other colors with approximately 18% reflectivity.

 

The use of Curves must be very subtle. If you are blowing highlights and oversaturating colors, use are using too much (as in all of these examples by Moravec). The best effect on contrast is in the mid-scale of the curve. Anchor the center, then adjust the toe and/or shoulder with points midway from the center to the ends.

Sorry, wrong format ... I'll try again.<div></div>

Thanks people. Well, I think color balance, curves and possibly color balance again is the route I would go. I did one looking like an Ektachrome shot. Not too bad.