Color correction

[benjamin_kim2]

<p>https://www.pinterest.com/dariotoledo/kodak-portra-s/</p>

<p>I've been working on editing film negative files for a year but I still couldn't achieve what others did. I even used color checker for accurate color with photoshop but it still doesn't look like portra film color. Basic infos, all technics, alternative solutions, and more. But never solve the problem at all.</p>

<p>I use hasselblad X5 scanner with 3f scanning. </p>

<p>I really wanna how film labs scan films and do color correction. I searched google and sites for a year and I don't wanna hear some comments about more googling. I've done everything as I can. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>This might be what you're looking for...</p>

<p>

[Colin O]

What is your "best attempt" at scanning Portra film and the resulting image appearing as you imagine it should appear?

 

Alternatively, can you show an image you scanned that turned out looking "unlike" Portra?

[SCL]

<p>Maybe, like me, you have a slight color deficiency in your eyes (depending on which eye I use, I see things warm or cool), making it hard to determine the exact result you are aiming for.</p>

[benjamin_kim2]

<p><img src="https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/12402025_1040812072631696_3594634596443037329_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[benjamin_kim2]

<p>Tim Lookingbill/ That's not what I'm talking about. Im dealing with real film negatives not photoshopped film like images.</p>

<p>Stephen Lewis/ I don't think so. Then I couldn't even see the difference between mine and other's portra pics.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Tim Lookingbill/ That's not what I'm talking about. Im dealing with real film negatives not photoshopped film like images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does the Hasselblad X5 scanner software provide multiple choices of Portra film profiles or other film profiles you can apply that render the image closer to what you want? Have you tried other scanning software like Silverfast and VueScan?</p>

<p>Your film purist attitude can't let you see the pixels from the silver halide. It's all digital once you hit the scan button. Good luck getting help here.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Fiddled around in CS5 ACR's White Balance, Split Tone, HSL and adjusted contrast and got this...</p><div></div>

[benjamin_kim2]

<p>Tim Lookingbill/ That looks worst than mine. Hasselblad scanner doesn't support both program. They have all profile but it doesn't help to get the color right.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Sorry I couldn't help. Hopefully someone who has experience operating a Hasselblad scanner will chime in. Never even knew they made scanners.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Benjamin, I don't know exactly how the labs dial in their color correction, but I've been told, at least at the ones I use, that when involving people they balance for skin tones.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Mini-labs tend to maximize channel contrast, producing gaudy, over-saturated results. When scanning, that's a fairly reliable starting point, using Levels/Auto, for general photography. Balancing for skin tones is usually the best for portraits, but may have unintended results. In the above image "corrected" by Tim, highlights in her coat have a decidedly green hue. Green/Blue balance is always very touchy.</p>

<p>Use of color chips and calibration software attempts to render the image as it would appear in sunlight. That's perfect for portraits and products photographed under controlled conditions in a studio, but often unuseable in other conditions, like open sky, overcast (as in the example) or twilight.</p>

<p>As a matter of physics (or mathematics), you can only "balance" two of the three primary colors, red, green or blue. The last color is a wild card.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I am not quite sure what you mean by not looking like Portra?</p>

<p>Isn't this a typical issue with all color negative film - as it is a negative there is, strictly speaking no way of knowing what the image should look like as there is no reference standard. All you can do is best match it to a color checker. Are you saying that your image (shown above) does not match your favorite commercial lab's color output and you want to match that? Not all commercial labs will produce identical images of course. If that is the case, then I suggest the only real way to find out is to ask the lab what they did. They probably won't remember unless they keep it all on file. If you are talking about a wet print, then of course what they tell you will be not much use to you with digital files. Also what works for one image will not necessarily work for all. Are you expecting the raw scan file to be perfect without further Photoshop manipulation? That is a tall order.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>The OP wants the shot he posted he took under overcast light to look like the Portra samples in the pinterest link he provided which show a slightly muted brown/maroon split tone color style.</p>

<p>He thinks the Hasselblad scanner should deliver that look.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Here's the pinterest link fixed to hyperlink from this thread...</p>

<p>http://www.pinterest.com/dariotoledo/kodak-portra-s/</p>

[benjamin_kim2]

<p>I know that there aren't no standard color but at least each films have their own color tone and style. I never said that Hasselblad scanner can deliver that look. And did I even expecting raw files to be perfect without editing? Really? I can't even get similar or closer to what people usually get. And nobody ever answered this: HOW? </p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>Balancing for skin tones is usually the best for portraits, but may have unintended results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Edward - that's exactly what I've found and in the one photo it did make quite an impact, I had them re-do it the way I had gave it to them because the skin tones weren't the most important part of the image for me. This was part of learning to communicate with the lab. At the time I didn't know it was their standard practice.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I know that there aren't no standard color but at least each films have their own color tone and style.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How do you know this? Have you scanned color negative print film to know for sure? Or are you relying on prints from independent labs that controlled input and output?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I never said that Hasselblad scanner can deliver that look.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, you never said that, but you expected it to and now see it is not and asking here for answers. It appears no one here has any experience with that scanner. Why not contact the scanner manufacturer?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And did I even expecting raw files to be perfect without editing? Really? I can't even get similar or closer to what people usually get. And nobody ever answered this: HOW?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keep in mind there is no color target to build an ICC profile of color negative film because it involves removing the orange mask which requires very sophisticated algorithms to make it look right so the scanner manufacturer must supply their best guess. There is NegPos created by CF systems that can remove the orange mask and render reasonably accurate to scene results (not color styles).<br>

http://www.c-f-systems.com/Docs/NegPosManual123.pdf<br>

From this search http://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&q=NegPos+for+color+negatives <br>

Then there's this color target and explanation why color negative film can't be ICC profiled...</p>

<p>http://www.hutchcolor.com/PDF/Cneg.pdf</p>

<p>If you want a color style I suggest you learn to use a gradient map to get what you want.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Here's a Kodak Portra color negative film comparison from a UK film lab... http://ukfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/</p>

<p>I'm not seeing the same look you show in the pinterest link so it appears there's no standard look to Portra outside of showing an accurate to scene appearance. I think this is as authoritative as one can get on the subject.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Benjamin: Is this what you are calling the "Portra Look"?</p><div></div>

[david_henderson]

<p>I don't get this conversation at all. Every time you develop Porta at another lab etc it will be slightly different. If printed on different papers it will be different. If you scan it, it will be different dependent on scanner, software, set-up and of course not forgetting and post work done after the scan. And then the medium you choose to display the work will make its own contribution, including at least some of the screens that some of us are viewing the pictures on. I don't know what a "portra look " is except in very general terms and think that the people who refer it are in all probability talking about things that are not close to identical. And there is likely to be a difference between "a portra look" and "a look that you happen to like that started off as Portra."</p>

<p>Processing pictures IMO is about creating things that you like and, where appropriate, that your audience/market likes. You can either do this by altering what you do till you find it, or if you see something you like then find out from its producer how it's done down to the finest detail Then either follow that same route or copy it yourself, or use some hybrid of these. </p>

<p>There are lots of software routes to supposedly recreate the "look" of many different types of film. In general it seems to me that there are more people who criticise these than who praise them, testament to the fact that its extremely difficult to achieve a consensual approval even with a lot of resources and skill at their disposal. </p>

<p>I might add, just as a throwaway really that if I were to try and understand a "portra look" then I might be inclined to approach a lab who works with the fashion industry and ask them to process and print the work on maybe three or four of their commonly used papers. </p>

<p> </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Hot dang! Les, that's a good looking shot. Nice skin tone and all. It's almost like you shot it with a high end digital camera.</p>

<p>Oh, I said too much. :)</p>

[wogears]

<p>Nikon F-100, 85mm Samyang, Portra 160.</p>

<p>The so-called Portra look is one I have found difficult to emulate with digital originals. Overexposed Portra, carefully scanned and inverted gives the beautiful skin tones and lovely almost-blown highights.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Maybe in that case, Les, you could tell Benjamin what you did to get it. Assuming of course this is the Portra look he thinks is "Portra film color". I suspect he has left the conversation though.</p>

[benjamin_kim2]

<p>Lee/ Yes, that's what I'm looking for. </p>