Awful colors with Fuji Pro 160S

[bk_waas]

I shot the attached picture recently, and the colors are awful. I'm puzzled.

The negative was scanned by a highly regarded pro shop in Washington, DC. I

used a Nikon N80 and a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 lens for the photo. Why does this

picture look so bad?<div></div>

[larry_wilson1]

I wouldn't say it looks awful. True, the colors may be a little off, but nothing a little tweaking in Photoshop wouldn't cure.

[robert lee]

Does the negative look denser than usual? I think the frame may have been significantly overexposed. The shadow cast by the cow is rather light, and the sand (?) in the background looks almost blown.

 

If the negative looks okay then it's just a bad scan job, well regarded lab or not.

[aaron_muderick]

Perhaps the colors of 160C would be more to your liking?

[keith_lubow]

It's fine.

[Ed_Ingold]

Fuji Pro160S is a pretty mellow film with a long dynamic. So is 160C, compared to Reala.

 

This image looks a too contrasty, exacerbated by the broad, nearly washed out horizontal band across the center. The grass looks oversharpend and there is not detail in the earth under the grass. I suspect the operator used the "automatic" level settings which maximizes each channel, usually to your detriment. I presume the pro shop returned a JPEG or an 8-bit TIFF. If so, you have no room to make any significant adjustments.

 

This is the main reason we buy good scanners and learn how to use them. Once you understand the skill and experience it takes to get a good scan, you will have more sympathy with the shop operator (not that you'll go back for more).

[garethspics]

The scanner looks like it has clipped the highlights. It is very unlikely that the film has failed.

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't see clipped highlights. It looks good to me. How is your monitor calibrated?

[User_502260]

I shot a roll of 160S in one of my Bronica SQ-A bodies with a 50/3.5 PS lens on Sunday. The lighting was mostly sunny with a few clouds goiny by. The roll was processed on Monday. The processer scanned the negatives and made digital 5X5' prints. I think the color is very nice. Some people like to use a more contrasty film in flat light situations. Even a film like 160S will work well in low contrast situations as long as you give adequate exposure. With good scanning you can then make any necessary adjustments.

[roger_smith4]

There's no subsitute for your own scanning and processing- you'd be amazed at the shots which look bad at first ending up looking quite acceptable.

 

With that said, I like muted colors but 160S is too muted for me and I far prefer Reala and 160C. In really dull places you might consider a slide film like Sensia.

[bill_tuthill]

I couldn't scan either 160C or 160S very well on my old HP Photosmart.

Vuescan gave even worse results than HP software; its NPC and NPS

profiles were way off, and generic was wrong too. Whereas both films

scan OK, though not stunningly so, on a Fuji Frontier.

 

You downsampled this in Photoshop. Do you know what kind of scanner

the lab used? If not, post the original so we can examine EXIF.

Also, how did the print look? Better?

[jeff_drew4]

From Fuji site: "Suited especially to portrait photography."<p>

My interpretation is that would be lower contrast, neutral gray pallette, and better suited for controlled or hazy day lighting.<p>

I have had wonderful results for weddings & parties with this film as scanned in a Fuji channel. You may need to choose a more vivid film and/or tweak the scanned image to produce the "punch" you are seeking.<p>

[jtk]

Get the cow out of there and the picture will look fine.

[bk_waas]

Folks, I very much appreciate all of these comments, and if anyone has more to say, I'm eager to hear it.

 

I'm relatively new to photography, so I'm trying to figure out whether the source of any problem is:

 

* the use of low contrast film per se

 

* the film itself (I bought it from Ritz, which failed to refrigerate it--stupid of me, I know, I know, but I needed to buy the film that day)

 

* the pro lab "economizing" on labor expended to do the scanning job for a customer who is obviously not a pro

 

I realize that the photo itself is very boring. But of all the pictures on the roll, this shot does the best job of illustrating the flatness of the colors.

 

I may have made a mistake by using 160S for this kind of picture. But this was shot in the Indian Himalayas at an altitude of at least 10,000 ft. So I thought it might be a good idea to use low contrast film. But this may not have worked so well, eh?

 

FYI, the original scans are indeed 8-bit TIF.

[bk_waas]

Addendum: I thought it good to use low contrast film in that environment because the sun is extremely intense.

[aaron_muderick]

BK,

 

Refrigeration of color negative film is overrated IMHO. I wouldn't worry about that. With color negative film, the final look is all about the post-processing: scanning, adjustments, printing. You could rescan the negative using Silverfast and then use Photoshop to really make these colors pop.

 

Personally, I prefer a low-contrast film because it offers me more flexibility. If I need to, I compress levels and curves in post processing.

[bk_waas]

Bill, the lab used a Fuji Frontier scanner. Thanks.

[jtk]

Looks significantly Yellow overall: remove some Yellow or add Magenta and Cyan (which is Blue, the opposite of Yellow). That will fix the plants (unless they really were Yellow-Green) and/but it'll make the mountains Blue, which is expected at high altitudes, especially if one doesn't use a UV filter.

 

The mountain's rocks also look warm (brown here and there), which they wouldn't with a neutral rendition (rather than Yellow) even if you do like them this way.

[scott_eaton4]

<i>"Why does this picture look so bad"</i><P>

 

The over-all middle tones are pink - at least on my monitor. A million reasons.......<P>

 

First, the the reason the image is a bit bland is because you are using a wedding film to shoot scenics. All print film are inherently low contrast - just some more than others. <P>

 

The biggest problem here is the scan. Doesn't matter how 'highly regarded' the shop is. Sending a color neg out to be commercially scanned, even it it's a top notch lab, involves more variables in terms of color and contrast than color slides. The lab likely doesn't have profiles for 160S either, so the next the roll of film you send, even if it's a highly regarded pro film will come out a bit blue, or green. How is the scanner supposed to know what color the sand is? Where's the white point? If you sent them a neg of a bride in a white wedding dress, chances are it would come back better because well, 160S was designed for that sort of stuff.<P>

 

If you're going to keep shooting film and want it commercially scanned you'll need to either (1) get used to using Photoshop and correcting their images. Or (2) Switch to Astia slide film because *most* commercial labs will have a little better time getting the color right with slide scans than print film scans. Just the nature of the beast - deal with it. Or (3), get your own scanner.

[bill_tuthill]

Scott Eaton, welcome back.

 

BK Waas, I'm surprised a Frontier can provide TIFF scans! Anyway,

the RGB channels were not balanced in the scan. I did that using

Levels, than boosted saturation, especially green. Better, but that

is a pretty poor scan considering Frontiers (should) have a channel

for 160S. Sorry your Himalayan trip was ruined by bad film choice.

Mine was too, partially -- I shot one roll of Seattle Filmworks.<div></div>

[bk_waas]

Here's the TIF file, for those who requested a chance to look at it and the EXIF info:

 

https://home.comcast.net/~bkwaas/0005766-R01-049-23.tif

 

Bill, thanks for the empathy. Fortunately, most of the film I used on this trip was Velvia. I only picked up the negative film because I needed a few more rolls. Fortunately, that accounted for only 3 of the 15 rolls I shot on the trip.

 

What does it mean that a Frontier scanner should have a "channel" for 160S? I'm sure that if I can convince the shop that they did a poor job, they will re-scan the film.

[robert lee]

I took a look at the TIF file. The negative is likely just fine. The scan was poorly done.

 

I applied a quick contrast mask to your image. I wanted to bring out more details out of the sand. More adjustments can be done to further correct color and tonality. If the image is important, you'll want to rescan at 16bits before adjustments take place.<div></div>

[oskar_ojala]

I use this film all the time. As other said, the scan just looks bad.

[garethspics]

Looking again at this, I agree with Ikka that the highlights are not clipped. I was looking on an incorrectly set TFT at Work. However I think there is definitely something very strange going on, maybe a processing fault? I have only shot a couple of rolls of Pro160s but the negs have scanned perfectly on my Coolscan 4 with very little extra work required.

[bill_tuthill]

Gareth (or anyone with Nikon scanner): do you use Nikonscan or

Vuescan with 160S/160C, and if Vuescan, which profile?