Flowers, color films and crayons

[imaginator]

I've found flowers to be very difficult subjects, especially ones with

bright saturated colors. I'm trying to make film choices based on how

they deal with these strong colors, not just colors in general, but

specific colors... like which films should be avoided for subjects

with strong reds, or which films work well for yellows, and so on.

Several discussions have mentioned using color crayons as a reference

test subject. This doesn't make sense for some situations (like

portraits) but seems ideal for checking strong color response of films

(like for saturated flowers) I also shoot a grayscale chart, but would

like to try the crayons... any ideas on the best way to do this? Shoot

them in the package (no lid) or melt a bit of each color on paper? One

thing that bothers me is they are shiny, but so are many flowers. Any

other suggestions (besides MacBeth chart) By the way, I will be

scanning all the films, so I'm mostly interested in how they scan.

Another thought: what about the UV factor? How can I test this?

Fluorescent crayons? (note to moderators: this cover both color slide

and color prints films, but the catagories forced me to choose one or

the other... hint, hint)

[scott_eaton]

MacBeth charts are worthless for checking film other than for criteria that doesn't go above and beyond a test strip. Note for how many years Pop Photo and other rags concluded the superiority of amatuer print films merely by looking at MacBeth charts. Macbeth charts and grey scales don't come close to testing the dynamic range of film, nor it's full color gamut. It's a single 2-D measurement in a 3-D color space.

 

A box of crayons or colored modeling clays places color film under a lot more stress than a Macbeth Chart. When you start testing Kodak films side by side with Fuji you will be stunned how most Kodak films can't render even a child's box of Crayons correctly without distorting or blocking the reds and other bright colors. This plays directly into how these films behave with flower/macro/landscape.

 

Portraiture obviously doesn't require the huge gamut that shooting a box of crayons does. Case in point is Kodak Portra NC and EPP which are an exellent films for skin tones, but will only perform medium decent with the crayon test.

 

Still, a film that can handle the large gamut of a box of crayons is going to handle middle gamut subject matter like skin tones just as well. Case in point, NPH and Reala.

 

Crayons aren't any more shiny than human skin if you ask me. That's why I like them as a test target.

 

For a really extreme gamut test, get some of that bright nylon yarn sold at craftshops. Easily the most intense Red/Blue/Green/Yellow commercial dyes I've ever seen. A color film that can hold detail in that bright red nylon yarn without blocking is going to be the exception and not the rule. Provia/Astia and NPS are the only color film on the market than can handle it.

[rowland_mowrey]

Jeffrey;

 

While crayons may be good test objects, they vary a lot from lot to lot and between manufacturers. Therefore, you cannot use them for an exact reference.

 

Scott makes the mistake everyone makes about a Macbeth chart. You don't take a picture of it, you take a picture of your normal scene, and include a Macbeth chart in the scene to calibrate the colors. This is called standardization. There are other, better methods for checking the color range and tone scale of a film.

 

So, it depends on what you want to achieve. Do you want a picture that you can standardize on? Do you want to test for color gamut etc? Or do you want both? I suspect you want both. Take a picture of the crayons with a checker or some other equivalent chart so that you both exercise the film, and are able to establish a reference.

 

You say you include a grey scale. Most people don't know that it is possible to get a neutral grey scale with some films and yet have severely distorted color, and it is also possible to get a distorted grey scale and very good color. That is why the checker is useful. It shows you which situation you have with a given film.

 

It is also quite useful to detect any variations in the processing of your film, and process uniformity. These are points that the 'so called' experts tend to dismiss, but I often include such a test. It is a common practice to use checks and balances this way to verify your picture / film / process quality.

 

No one takes pictures OF a checker, they take reference pictures of a normal scene but CONTAINING a checker. Even Scott should know that.

 

Hope this helps you out a little.

 

Oh, you don't have to worry about UV as long as you use a UV filter outdoors. It should have a slight yellow tint to properly block the UV found outdoors.

 

Also, regarding the comments about some films vs others and color rendition, you might try taking some pictures with different films, and then you should compare them directly to the original with similar or identical lighting. I have done that. It is interesting, when you do that, to find out how poor our memory for color is and how adaptive the human eye is to illuminant. Most people want garish colors. I have participated in hundreds of picture comparisons involving thousands of pictures, and I have watched subjects pick innacurate color renditions which are always biased to the garish. But, there is one exception!

 

Scott is right. Flesh is a memory color. EK films are made to reproduce flesh tones as accurately as possible in the films he cites. We have the best memory for flesh, and reproducing it well is a must.

 

Ron Mowrey

[scott_eaton]

<I>It is also quite useful to detect any variations in the processing of your film, and process uniformity</i><P>Rowland is once again discourging us from taking pictures of real world scenes with targets consisting of a large gamut range so we don't realize how bad Kodak technology actually is. All Kodak die hards are like this - they beg and scream for you to stick to MacBeth charts because Kodak has engineered their films and papers to be superb at reproducing a 24 spot MacBeth chart of limited dynamic range. This is once again a big reason Kodak has been getting destroyed in terms of market share by Fuji.<P>If I take a picture of a box of crayons, and I want a neutral print, I don't need a stupid grey card or MacBeth chart to do this. Simply point the damn color color picker of your scanner at the grey/black/white crayon and click. Wow! That was difficult. If you've actually used a scanner and know how to operate it, this isn't a problem. <P><I>It is a common practice to use checks and balances this way to verify your picture / film / process quality. </p></i>

If you're using a professional print/slide film, linear neutrality isn't an issue in the first place, and if it is, there's nothing you can do about it. Processing variances with any lab are going to be greater than the greyscale balance variances of a typical professional slide/print film. Jeezus, the 18yr old teenager at Walgreens manning the mini-lab can comprehend that one.<P>Using a Macbeth chart to test color film is a lot like buying a pair of $10,000 speakers, and using a 1940's mono recording with little dynamic range to see how they perform. I can use that same mono recording to test two different sets of speakers and how close they match - big frikken deal, and this is what Rowland wants you to do. I want to see how those speakers can play a full orchestra from the highest notes to the lowest organ notes, because if those speakers can handle that, they can likely play soft jazz as well as R&B and classic rock as well. All a MacBeth chart does is confirm one speaker kinda matches another when listening to a constant 2000hz test tone.<P>

[will_legge]

Jeffery, I would test directly with flowers. The spectural response,

including UV and near IR, can be very different from crayons. The

colors are far more vivid than crayons as well. Also matamerism may

be an issue. While you may see two flowers as the same color, the

film may not because the spectural response between the eye and film

are different. So you may find reproduction of one color group

different from species to species and even within families.

 

As far as testing for specific UV responce with film, I would make

comparison photos with and without a UV cut filter. I know Fuji make

IR cut gel filters with different cut-off wavelengths, they may do

the same with their IR filters.

 

This is an interesting thing you are doing. You may find the answer

is a combination of film and filtering. Are you doing this in the

studio or under natural light. If you are using artificial light,

filtering the light sources may be another solution.

[bill_tuthill]

"Provia/Astia and NPS are the only color films on the market than can handle [RYGB color yarn without blocking up]."

 

Could this be scanner dependent? I agree about NPS, and would add

Reala, but Provia 100F blocks up reds on the Nikon LS-30 and HP S10.

Haven't tried Astia 100F yet, so I can't say. RDP3 sample on request.

 

Jeffrey, when testing with flowers (not in the middle of winter!)

I try to find one of each color. Usually red blocks up worst,

followed by yellow or magenta. California red sage is a good test

flower, with macro setup. The trouble with a MacBeth chart is that

it has no texture.

[rowland_mowrey]

Scott;

 

I said no such thing. You didn't read my post or simply didn't understand it.

 

I said "TAKE A NORMAL PHOTO OF A NORMAL SCENE AND INCLUDE A CHECKER FOR STANDARDIZATION". In addition, I said nothing about film type or manufacturer preferences. I don't care what kind of film you or anyone else uses.

 

I'm getting tired of your attitude when someone comes along who disagrees with you or knows more than you think you do! Maybe that rejection by EK is getting to you. Please do not misquote me or misrepresent my comments.

 

I can relate a story for you all to profit from. A customer got back the prints of their dog. A white terrier on a brown grassy lawn. Unfortunately, the picture was taken after the dog had fallen into a can of green paint. The printer had automatically rebalanced the print to give a white dog on brownish grass. This event was used as one of the lessons when I took a color engineering course internally at EK. In this case, it was a training issue with the technician, as we were being introduced to how to judge color negatives.

 

A Macbeth checker in one of your pictures would prevent such a problem. It would lend authority to both the lighting and the process, as well as the films condition with respect to LIK and overall keeping. If that isn't obvious to you Scott, then you shouldn't be posting here.

 

And, if you think that problem is only limited to color negative, no, it is not. Reversal processors may feel that they had a process error such as insufficient reversal, or contaminated solutions. It could also be a problem with film keeping or LIK of the image.

 

Any professional can compare your test print to their checker and calibrate your work mentally. You cannot do that with crayons universally as I pointed out above. Crayons are not made to the 0.02 or so tolerance in color and density that the checker is. Crayons also may have rather high illuminant sensitivity that the checker does not have. Therefore, as illuminant changes the hues of the crayons are subject to change. The comments about UV above come to mind!

 

Scott, it is amazing how little you really know, and also how much you think you know about all aspects of photography. Go back and read "An Introduction to Color" by Evans, Hansen, and Brewer. It might help you. In it, they include several color photographs to illustrate this type of problem, ie - color calibration and standarization.

 

Ron Mowrey

[imaginator]

Scott, Ron, please... I appreciate the help from both of you, and you both make good points, but you guys need to let go of the "battle reflex". Just to clarify a few things: 1. obviously, doing test shots of actual flowers is the best method to nail down real world issues, but it's almost winter here, so I'm doing this in the meantime, hoping to narrow down my film choices. 2. I guess reference was not a good choice of wording (Ron, I don't want to carry the crayons with me all the time, or a chart... instead I will do these tests right here at home) 3. I will be using only natural light, including full sun, overcast and shade. 4. the purpose of all this is to find specific issues with specific films... and if need be, swap to a different film (mid-roll rewind) according to the subject (flower, ect.) it's an extreme approach, and I will probably only do this with difficult things like flowers. 5. about the UV... I'm talking about how some flowers react strongly to UV. it's not the UV itself, but how it affects the flowers appearance (on film) like some blue flowers. 6. all results will be judged from how the films scan, including slide and print films. 7. I am open to any suggestions, including any examples of this sort of thing done by others (specific to flowers and similar subjects) 8. most likely I will use warming filters for the overcast and shade shots, but would like to test both with and without the filters. 9. I am not concerned with perfect accurate colors like for a identification guide, but still want to avoid extreme color issues. 10. I'm interested in how this all relates to printing, as well as viewing on screen, but tend to treat each differently.

[chris haake]

While always shooting a "reference" frame or two with a card is a good way to get printers to check the colors, I don't think it's necessary for you to do. Just do a one-time setup wherein you do some reference shots under lighting conditions similar to your flower photography. Heck, go buy some cheap fake flowers (not dried real flowers, which are too dull in color), and test away in the sun. You could use crayons and/or charts in at least some of these shots to see how the films are behaving. Have fun!

[franka t.l.]

Unless you intend to shoot your flora always indoor with controlled lighting. Any of the testing method is of little use to gauge your need. I've been photographing Flora & Fauna for years, and the best way to test that is still shoot a roll with real flora under natural outdorr lighting ( and different one too if possible )

 

The problem with flowers with strong color had nothing to do witht the color reproduction, but more so with the graduation that can be reproduced with your lens / film combination. You will need a film with latitude and be able pull tonality in a wide range. That means no Velvia or alike.

 

If I need to do a color check, I have a Macbeth color chart, but that only gives color reproduction in those certain hues and do not actually tell me how well the film / lens reproduce color in between and in different intensity. The better option is to phtographing a fruit basket ( Think about Bananna, Orange, Grape fruit, & Apple, thrown in some Avocado & kiwi, some Grapes too ).

[rowland_mowrey]

I think that this photo captures the subtle colors of the flower just right. It was taken late in the season, so the light was low in the south, and the other flowers were dying, but this Dahlia just kept blooming. You can see two dead flowers on the same plant in the background.

 

Oh, I don't need a checker to tell me that my shot and the process were good. I had the flower for comparison.

 

Ron Mowrey<div></div>

[rowland_mowrey]

And, for the sake of argument, this picture was taken the same day, same camera, same lens, same lighting, same process - but the film was Vericolor III which had expired in about 1988 and had been frozen forever.

 

The picture is subtly off in tone scale and color. A chart in one of the frames on this roll, taken with the flowers would have shown me the exact direction this picture is off. I've been playing with it in Photoshop, but I cannot tell the reason for the shift. Is it crossover? Is it fog? Is it overall curve shape? Is it just a change in speed? I cannot really tell. A checker or a neutral step wedge would help with some of these answers.

 

Maybe these two pictures will give you some things to think about.

 

Ron Mowrey<div></div>

[imaginator]

Thank you all for your suggestions. I wasn't really thinking this out... Franka reminded me of what I really knew all along: graduations of tones. Crayons don't seem to be the answer after all (but still useful) My problem is that I usually can't go back and look at the original flowers because most of them are taken far from my home, and I'm not expecting totally accurate colors, just want to match certain films to certain subjects (not just flowers, but also other plants, mushrooms, ect.) Why go to all this bother? Like I said, I will swap films often, or use one film for all the "reddish" ones, then switch films and shoot all the "yellows", then another for the "blues". What I really need is three camera bodies, but that's too much to carry and I can't afford it anyway.

[imaginator]

Hey, sometimes I don't do a very good job of explaining my questions, and I also have this scientific approach to things, so just for fun, let me re-ask this in a different way: If you were taking pics of flowers and could have three camera bodies, each with a different film, what films would you choose, and why? (specific to certain flowers and/or colors)

[bill_tuthill]

Reala (for lowest grain and accurate color), Agfa Ultra (for high

midtone contrast and bright blues / purples) and 400UC (for greater

depth of field). Given one, I'd choose Ultra. But note that I don't

patronize a Frontier lab, in which Ultra works poorly, and don't have

a scanner that's good for slides. For me, Ultra is my slide film

in the sense that it provides more midtone separation than

portrait-oriented films.