Weird Tones digital vs film

[danielscheel]

Hi everyone!

 

I shot last week and I am getting these weird tones from digital which I dont get and you can see the diffrerence between digital and film.

Its like the film completely skips all orange tones.

 

What could it be?

 

DIGITAL:

http://i64.tinypic.com/1zzhsi8.png

 

FILM:

http://i63.tinypic.com/28vg0m9.jpg

 

Thanks!

 

Daniel

[tomspielman]

Was there a flash involved in this shot?

 

I think if you just adjust the white balance in your favorite photo editing software you can get a more natural skin tone in the film version of the photo.

 

Anyway, there are lots of variables. The exposure looks to be quite a bit different and I asked about the lighting because you don't see any shadow of her shoulder at all in the film version.

 

Which picture more accurately reflects what was in front of the camera?

[Karim Ghantous]

Maybe not the sort of comment you're looking for, but I like the first one better!

[rodeo_joe1]

Film has no Auto White Balance, and needs to be filtered for whatever light source it's exposed to. It comes balanced for 'Daylight' - which is a moveable feast itself - or Tungsten. And then there are two flavours of Tungsten - 3200K and 3400K - neither of which match common household incandescent bulbs that are closer to 2700K.

 

So you either need an expensive colour-temperature meter and a box of correction filters, or a digital camera to measure the Kelvin temperature and any green-magenta bias. Plus the box of filters.

 

IMO, if you have a digital camera that's sophisticated enough to get a CT reading from; then why the heck are you bothering with film? Unless you actually want its imperfections.

 

Anyway. Your film shot is very overexposed compared to the digital capture, and has a strong blue cast. The digital shot OTOH has an amber cast for some reason. So of course they're not going to look the same, and I suspect neither of them match the subject colour.

 

Assuming the background was neutral grey or black; I did a quick (digital!) adjustment of the film shot for colour and exposure.

Not perfect, but correcting the exposure and CT in camera would have given a much better result.

 

Neither is the digital shot any closer to neutrally colour balanced, judging by the BG and skin tone. I'm pretty sure that if the White Balance CT was reduced and the exposure increased, then it would be a far closer match to the film.

[Henricvs]

Digital has so many built in options to determine the colors that most folks don't even mess with them or even know how to adjust them. Film is different as one has to know before the shot, what you are going for on your negative. A very simple example is b&w film. One wouldn't expect color when using a B&W negative. ALso, using Velvia will give you a saturated negative with a cool temperature. Kodachrome, God rest it's soul, would give you saturated warm temperatures. If you are new to film, I suggest reading about it and learning the nuances of using it to get what you want. If you want to get better with your digital camera, learn the adjustments of your camera or shoot in raw and make the adjustments afterwards. Good luck.

[Greg M]

Hi everyone!

 

I shot last week and I am getting these weird tones from digital which I dont get and you can see the diffrerence between digital and film.

Its like the film completely skips all orange tones.

 

What could it be?

 

DIGITAL:

http://i64.tinypic.com/1zzhsi8.png

 

FILM:

http://i63.tinypic.com/28vg0m9.jpg

 

Thanks!

 

Daniel

 

Bad (really bad) use of film in some sort of way by the user....

 

You've either overexposed, not used the correct filtering to correct the image in post-processing, not used the correct color filter or (better) properly color-balanced film for the lights used to start with to avoid having to color-correct later, or (yes, again) overexposed.

 

You need to put in a little more extra work with fillm, which does not have an auto white-balance system there to help adjust to the light.