 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Film and Labs / March 2005intense greens: how to?
I took some photos last summer of a view in a forest that didn't come out as expected. It was sunny but the trees were quite thick. I was using a 1.8 50mm lens on an Elan 7 with fuji film. Speed was about 125 but I don't recall the stop. A seen composed almost entirely of brilliant greenleaves and mosses with browns came back quite lack luster and almost (color) washed out. Would this likely be technique, film or just poor kodak processing? Thanks Daryl > I took some photos last summer of a view in a forest that didn't come > out as expected. It was sunny but the trees were quite thick. I was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > luster and almost (color) washed out. Would this likely be technique, > film or just poor kodak processing? It's almost certainly poor processing. The color you see in color prints is partly a result of color rendition in the negative and partly a result of filtering in the photofinishing equipment (or of digital processing in the latest equipment). Scenes with a limited range of colors, as you describe, seem to be particularly tricky for automated digital equipment to handle. If it's practical, I'd say to send it back to the photofinisher and insist on reprints done right. Alternatively, you could try taking the negatives to a local pro lab. Either way, show them the originals and describe what you want; they should be able to produce something better. Another option is to scan the negatives yourself; that'll at least confirm that the colors in the negatives are OK. Of course, this assumes you've got a film scanner, which I suspect you don't, or you'd have tried it already. Scanner software can also be confused by these sorts of scenes, for the same reason that automated photofinishing equipment can be. Of course, with a little experience, you can override those settings yourself.  SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking Was it negative film or transparency film? > > I took some photos last summer of a view in a forest that didn't come > > out as expected. It was sunny but the trees were quite thick. I was [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > http://www.rodsbooks.com > Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking It was negative film. Plain Jane Fuji 200 print film. Normal shots of beach, skyline, etc... all looked pretty good it was just the forest pics that were disappointing. Also thanks to Rod. Good info. No scanner yet... but I am leaning that way. If one has a scanner would you recommend staying with print film or going to slide(transparency)? Thanks again. Daryl > Also thanks to Rod. Good info. No scanner yet... but I am leaning > that way. If one has a scanner would you recommend staying with print > film or going to slide(transparency)? You're welcome. As to the slide/negative issue with scanners, there are advantages to both approaches, particularly when you get down to discussing specific films (if you really like film X's color rendition, say). In my experience, it's easier to get the right colors when scanning slide films, but negative films have greater exposure latitude, which is a big plus. Negative film is also less expensive, particularly if your regular photofinisher offers an option to develop the negatives only (without making prints). On the whole, then, my own preference is to use negative films for scanning. Others might have other opinions, though. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > It was negative film. Plain Jane Fuji 200 print film. Normal shots of > beach, skyline, etc... all looked pretty good it was just the forest [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks again. > Daryl The automatic printers that most amateur and some pro labs use are set up to counter-act strong color casts. This means that if you take a photo in the shade, where the illumination is usually excessively blue (and sometimes green from the surrounding foliage) the printer will ffset this by making the print yellower. Unfortunately, this also tends to offset any strong color. So, your negatives are being printed to reduce the green 'cast' that the printer sees. Sounds like an underexposed neg to me, does the neg look thin? Gaz. >I took some photos last summer of a view in a forest that didn't come > out as expected. It was sunny but the trees were quite thick. I was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks > Daryl |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.