Which image do you prefer?

[deveren_fogle1]

<p>In the interest of trying to keep my workflow as much "in camera" as possible, I try not nor do I prefer images that look digitized. I understand if I was in the darkroom I would be color correcting with filters and whatnot so I at times color correct in Photoshop, but I sometimes feel I lose the film qualities that make film film, and digital well, digital. I'm posting two pics from Occupy Wall St. One where I just used an 81b warming filter, and the same image with some color correcting in PS. I just want to get opinions on which you prefer, and how much PS you do to your images to keep them looking fresh and filmy! :)<br /> I know it's a matter of taste, but I just want to do a quick survey... I try my hardest to challenge myself to stay as true to film as possible when I shoot with my Mamiya. I do the digital stuff when I shoot digital.</p><div></div>

[deveren_fogle1]

<p>#2 with some PS color correction...</p><div></div>

[greg_miller10]

<p>The first image is not at all what one would expect doing a conventional print onto light sensitive paper from a negative with a warming filter on the camera. I'm not certain why there would be any question that the second image isn't the superior or more correct, as the eye sees it, image. Digital or analogue issues aside the first image would only be desirable if you were trying to mimic the look of a photo taken under some strange mercury vapor lighting or similar. A look that could be effective if it were creating the intended mood but I don't think that's what you were looking for.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Sure that wasn't an 82A or B? And not an 81B?</p>

 

[bob_sunley]

<p>What film were you using, almost looks like tungsten balanced film shot in daylight, maybe? Or maybe your scanning default colour balance is really out to lunch. Or was the lighting really that blue?<br>

I only shoot film and colour balance in a darkroom, even your second image seems off a bit, but it is in the ballpark.</p>

<p> </p>

[deveren_fogle1]

I usually just scan raw and adjust after.

Yes, the pic was in total shade,

between two buildings. Yeah, the

second image I just quickly did an

action I developed for quick

comparison when editing, and to get

me close. Bob, what else would you

suggest to get it even closer. It was an

81b with 220 Portra 160nc. You're

right Greg I wasn't going for a mood

shot here, just street stuff. Thanks for

the responses...

[flatulent1]

<p>I shoot primarily film, and hate wasting my time post-processing when I could have got it right in-camera in the first place. But if I have something that needs correcting, or cropping, I just do it.</p>

<p>Judging the two images on their own merits, regardless of processing issues, the second image blows the first one away, and doesn't look at all phony.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I don't generally like images with color casts like the first one unless it informs the image in a meaningful way--which I don't feel this does.</p>

<p>I scan all my film and I don't generally correct for color balance on the camera unless in more extreme conditions--always did when I shot chrome film though. Here, I don't really see an 81b making THAT much difference as indicated above, I just have never seen such a big shift--which seems more like almost what one would expect from an 85b or maybe a 1/2 cto filter at least. In any case, I often shoot in tungsten and mixed light and the corrections while scanning make my life a lot easier then screwing around with filters and color meters. Like I said, if the light is way off or specific (like all tungsten), then sure, but those cases are not that often.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Why do you think you would lose image quality when you color correct? The #2 image is certainly better. When you make print in the dark room you have to color correct your image anyway. There is certainly nothing wrong with color correction with color film. I would do my color/exposure correction during the scanning process. The same thing I would do exposure/ color correction when making prints in the darkroom</p>

[don_essedi]

It's just a cyan cast and easy to remove, as you've done -- possibly more than I might have, but you were there and know the light. Btw, I like the photo. Nice.

[scottelly]

<p>I like the full color one better. The blue cast just makes the photo look like there is something wrong with the photo. Maybe try converting to high-contrast black and white.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I am amazed you have to ask! #2 of course. The early one is just plain poorly (zero) corrected.</p>

[randall_pukalo]

No offense, but the first image is horrible. Reminds me of the many gross looking film shots seen on Flickr. This is not the "film look". It is either bad processing (chemical processing), or bad color correction during scanning, or both. The Film Look is beautiful - reference any photo mag or book from the 1990's or even early 2000's or earlier to see how film should look. The nasty color casted stuff, and ugly Xpro that is so common now is NOT the "Film Look." Definitely go with the second image,and take another look at your lab - they may have very low volumes now and not keep their processes and chemistry up to specs.