Better? But still struggling...

[10987435]

So I've shot, developed, and scanned two more rolls. The weather around here is not the best, so most of the shots are under cloudy skies. I'm not sure if that's contributing to my struggles, or if it's issues with the camera (light leaks) or if it's my shooting technique (under exposing or over exposing, perhaps), or if it's my developing or scanning. I got some shots that aren't horrible, but none that I'm really satisfied with. None of them look natural. I know it's possible to get natural-looking shots...just not how to get them.

 

Some of these look even more off now that I've got them out of Lightroom. Don't mind the dust...these are just for learning, after all...

 

Any thoughts or suggestions? I think I need to go in search of someone in town that could help me...

 

[rodeo_joe1]

OK. Your previous thread prompted me to gather examples of why, IMO, it's best to remove the orange mask during camera copying.

 

Firstly, here's a well-exposed and processed negative, copied with the camera white-balance set to that of the light source:

And here's its inversion in PS.

Now let's look at its RGB histograms to see the amount of correction needed.

Note how the red and blue histograms are pushed all the way to the left and right 'walls' of the graphs? The red histogram appears severely clipped, and that's not good.

 

Here's the same neg shot with the camera WB adjusted to compensate for the orange mask:

And its inversion.

Not quite there, but a lot closer to the finish line!

Here are its histograms.

Nothing is touching the sides and the peak of the histograms align pretty well.

 

A contrast adjustment is about all it takes to get a near-perfect result.

 

The negative was copied in RAW mode in each case BTW.

 

I prefer correction by filtering my flash illumination with a resin full blue CC filter. This brings the overall colour of the mask to near-neutral, and entails a much smaller camera WB alteration from daylight.

Edited February 1, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[rodeo_joe1]

P.S. I think you still have a Blix issue, and the film isn't being fully bleached and fixed. The yellow patches would be indicative of that.

 

However, most of the images you've posted could be greatly improved by the use of the curves tool.

Here's what I managed to do with your blue ducks, using just the limited editor on my phone:

[Jochen_S]

Since you are using LR, why not get an XRite passport color checker & LR plugin to automate things further? - OK, 80€..wasted frames and it won't last forever but I believe it gets us quite far?

[rodeo_joe1]

You don't need an expensive colour checker, a simple greyscale card will do; since all that's needed is to remove colour casts across the tonal range from shadows to highlights. You might even find a grey paint-sample swatch for free in a DIY store. I did, years ago.

 

If you can get close to a neutral greyscale from black to white, the colour will take care of itself.

 

However, colour balancing one film, or one frame, in one lighting condition and at one exposure setting, doesn't guarantee that the rest of the film will need the same correction.

 

There's even less guarantee that following films from a future processing session will need the same correction.

[glen_h]

You don't show units on your histograms, but from:

 

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4051_Portra_160.pdf

 

it is less than 3 density units from Dmin(red) to Dmax(blue), (at least as far as the graph goes.)

 

The density difference from red to blue is about 1.0, closer to 0.7 on the left, and 1.1 on the right.

 

For JPG, you only have 8 bits, so will be somewhat limited by the density difference, but

raw should have enough bits to hold it.

 

For comparison, Dmax-Dmin for Ektachrome is about 4 density units:

 

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4000_ektachrome_100.pdf

[rodeo_joe1]

Glen, it's not really about whether the data is contained in the RAW file or not. It's whether that data can be readily 'squeezed out' during post-processing.

 

If you try to manipulate a curve to bring that first red histogram away from the lefthand wall of the graph, you end up with a ridiculously steep slope at the shadow end. Likewise with prying the blue curve away from having bunched-up highlights.

 

There's also the issue that RAW conversion automatically adds a non-linear tone curve to the overall image. If each of the RGB channels sits on a different part of that tone curve, then re-balancing the three curves is made far more difficult than it need be.

 

The point is; that neutralising the mask colour obviates any need to drastically stretch or shrink any part of those histograms, and the whole process of getting a decent positive is made much easier. Often to the point where simply clicking on 'Auto Colour' in PhotoShop gets you a very acceptable result.

 

Filtering out the deepest mask colour doesn't alter the function of the mask BTW. There's still less mask density where the cyan dye is produced and strongest. So it still performs its purpose of preventing colour contamination and effectively strengthening the cyan (red forming) image.

 

There's also a secondary benefit to using optical filtering, rather than relying on a camera white-balance shift. Digital camera sensors are designed to be exposed to daylight colour temperatures, and the further away from ~ 6000K you get, the more the red or blue channel data has to be stretched. In other words, the effective ISO of the red or blue channels is increased to compensate, thus increasing noise and reducing dynamic range in whichever channel is 'pushed'.

Edited February 2, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[glen_h]

Yes, my choice is to use scanners designed for color negatives, where all that went into the design.

 

Even with just brightness and contrast sliders, if I have to use them, it is hard to get things right.

So, yes, I am not surprised that it is even worse with color.

 

Well, I have an Epson 3200 that I bought used, and it seems to work fine, but the results, even

black and white, often need adjusting after scanning. And then, if I don't like the results, I don't

know if it is the film, the scanner, or me.

 

 

This one is on old VPL without a filter, with a Brownie 2F. It could be the film age (which I don't know), the lack of filter, the scanner, or me adjusting the color after the scan.

 

If I tried, I might have gotten the dress closer to white, though maybe everything else would be worse. I might have used the automatic one on this.

 

I have used a DSLR for slides, but not negatives.

[AlanKlein]

Joe, I flipped the negative in Irfanview. Then hit AutoColor in 2020 Adobe Photoshop Elements. Added a little brightness and contrast and got this. I didn't do anything special regarding the orange mask. Took about a minute. What do you think?

[rodeo_joe1]

The Curves tool is your friend Glen.

Even allowing for dye fading and shifting, are you certain that dress was white and not pink Glen? Because it's definitely not the same colour as the clouds.

Joe, I flipped the negative in Irfanview. Then hit AutoColor in 2020 Adobe Photoshop Elements. Added a little brightness and contrast and got this. I didn't do anything special regarding the orange mask. Took about a minute. What do you think?

[ATTACH=full]1328101[/ATTACH]

If you like blue sand and roof slates, it's fine.

[Dave Luttmann]

[ATTACH=full]1328120[/ATTACH]

The Curves tool is your friend Glen.

Even allowing for dye fading and shifting, are you certain that dress was white and not pink Glen? Because it's definitely not the same colour as the clouds.

 

If you like blue sand and roof slates, it's fine.

As the water on the sand is reflecting skylight...it should be blue...and is thus more accurate.

[10987435]

Rodeo_joe|1, thank you very much for the time you put into your responses. I appreciate your advice and expertise.

 

By what you're saying, I'm beginning to wonder if I somehow messed up the mixing of the blix powder, or if, (as a very last possibility), the kit was somehow defective. I hear many people comment on the smell of the blix, but frankly, my batch has little smell. Again, I can't imagine what I could have done wrong, but considering I've tried various processes and had the same issue throughout, I do wonder if that's the source of the problem.

 

That being said, I think I need to stick to my original plan and send off a roll to TheDarkRoom or some other lab that will develop and scan the images and return the negatives. I can scan the negatives myself and see what it takes to get it to look similar to the lab's scan. That way I can know if I'm struggling because the developing is off, or the scanning...or the picture taking itself if the pictures come back horrible from the lab.

[glen_h]

Normally blix shouldn't cause problems, other than underblixing, which can be fixed by doing it again,

possibly with fresh solution. (And stabilizer again, too.)

 

As it is usual to go direct from developer to blix, there might be a few seconds where bad blix

could affect development in an unusual way.

 

Assuming fresh and properly stored film, bad developer or development conditions would be

more likely to cause problems such as off color.

 

Contaminating developer with even a small amount of blix might do it, though.

 

But yes, having another lab do it is a good test.

[10987435]

Well...I followed a new tutorial I found online and I'm definitely getting closer! Thoughts? Still not great, but I'm at least getting closer to acceptable results.

[rodeo_joe1]

As the water on the sand is reflecting skylight...it should be blue...and is thus more accurate.

Does it look more accurate?

Most of the sand is dry, with only small puddles of water on it, which in the correct version, can be seen to be blue.

[glen_h]

(snip)

The Curves tool is your friend Glen.

Even allowing for dye fading and shifting, are you certain that dress was white and not pink Glen? Because it's definitely not the same colour as the clouds.

 

Well, it was long ago (last summer), so I might have forgotten.

(It isn't someone I knew, just who happened to be there at the time.)

 

The Brownie 2F has the usual Brownie style waist level finder. Likely not as clear

as it used to be.

 

I have a type F, series VI, conversion filter which for some I held in front of the lens,

but I didn't have it out yet.