Awful colors with Fuji Pro 160S

[bk_waas]

I contacted the firm that scanned the negative. Note that they did this as a "proof scan" of the entire roll of film. It was not a custom job. This was their reply: "After talking to the technician, he said that because it is just a standard machine scan, everything is calibrated but there is no general tweaking going on. On our monitor, parts of the image seem neutral and parts (like the grass) seem yellow. How is your monitor calibrated? if we pulled opposite, the dirt in the background would go blue in order to neutralize the green grass."

[garethspics]

Bill. I use Nikonscan3. I haven't felt the need to go for anything more specialised but I am not a pro.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I use this film quite a bit, but I print in a darkroom. The colors tend to look natural once the color balance is correct.

 

If you want scans, you really should buy a Nikon scanner. That way you can tweak images until they look the way you want.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

And welcome back, Scott.

[jtk]

The rocks SHOULD look blue at that altitude unless the camera had a warming filter, and even that is unlikely to have created neutral background. There appears to be nothing wrong with the scan, other than low resolution...and that has nothing to do with color.

 

The look of the scan on the monitor is not important, what counts is the color-corrected, possibly contrast-corrected, and always sharpened file. Type of scanner isn't particularly important to color.

[bk_waas]

Thanks, John. There was no warming filter. Only a UV filter to protect the lens.