Exactly. The hybrid workflow is precisely what makes it possible for average photographers to do things which would be extraordinarily difficult in the darkroom, such as... matching negatives and slides.
Exactly. The hybrid workflow is precisely what makes it possible for average photographers to do things which would be extraordinarily difficult in the darkroom, such as... matching negatives and slides.
Again, what constitutes an acceptable "match" is a relative expression. For a certain
class of images of hue families, a fairly straightforward workflow might be perfectly good. But then you up the ante or encounter a new chroma scenario, and the old rules
don't work so well. It was exactly the same situation back when chromes were printed onto RA4 via interneg - fairly easy to get routine commercial-quality results, but a nightmare to finetune, even in those exceptional circumstances the lab was willing to put in the extra work. Getting "snap" reminiscent of a chrome form a modern neg using
PS curve control is easy enough, and getting overall color response isn't all that hard,
but it may take quite a bit of advanced use of the tool kit to match certain hues which might be to particular images. There a pros and cons all over the place.
Sure. There are also variations in both negative and reversal emulsions, as well as development variations. You can't sit back and push a "match" button. You may have to do some selective hue adjustments in addition to Curve work. I can do a 90% match in under a minute, while a 99.99% match might take an hour or two.
But make no mistake. You can produce two matching prints, to whatever degree of precision you desire.
How can you match a negative to a slide if the color separation of subtle hue and brightness differences isn't recorded on the neg in the first place?
It's one thing to get a meaningful response from all the patches of a color checker over a range of f-stops. It's another thing to get enough separation from two tones that are very close. It has been my experience in professional drum scanning that if the separation is lost in the statistical dye cloud fluctuations that we see as grainy texture then the scanner captures virtually the same RGB pattern. There is nothing you can do in Photoshop to recover that tonal separation.
In direct comparison reversal films have better color separation than most color negs. Transparency films use a large density range to capture a narrow exposure range. Slight tonal differences in a subject are transferred into larger density differences than on color neg film where a huge exposure range is compressed into a smaller density range. Once the density differences fall below the threshold of the grain fluctuations you're losing tonal separation.
I've seen excellent color separation from Ektar. Portra 400 NC-3 on the other hand was very muddy in that regard. None of these films separate tones as fine as a digital sensor of the same size. But you can increase the probability of tonal separation by choosing a larger format and thereby increasing the capture area.
-Dominique
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHOriginally Posted by SCHWARZZEIT
Read every page of this thread and then ask this question again.
I'm resurrecting this thread (minus the semantics debate) simply because I've finished enough definitive testing to come to some answers which might be practical
to most people using current Kodak color neg films. My anticipation regarding the
characteristics of film responses based upon the dye curves allowed me to cut to the
chase very quickly, identify the major potential problems, and start objective tests
for distinct remedies. At the core of the question was whether or not negatives can
be made to resemble chromes simply by contrast tweaking. As anticipated, it all
depends. Even after you null out the orange mask, once you significantly alter the
contrast you begin reshaping the geometry of the three respective dye curves, not
only per individual peak, but also in relation to one another. The way this occurs is
quite a bit different from how modern chrome films respond and is also at a practical level somewhat different between specific neg film. I was particularly
concerned about reproduction characteristics Portra 160VC versus its successor,
Ektar 100. ... (next post) ...
As I expected, the main problem with Ektar is in specifically how blue becomes
reproduced. The question is definitively not whether this film can render a good blue
or not, but the fact that its complement, the yellow dye layer, is present to some
extent in virtually every hue in an image, and a problem here will affect the image
overall. This is a bit easier to deal with in analog fashion simply because a range of
formats can be more universally accommodated using a standardized set of procedures. With scanning, the smaller the image the bigger the problem, because
your statistical sample of minor but significant changes in the dye curve slope can
be incorrectly interpolated readings versus actual neg content. In other words, with
something small like 35mm the importance of a very high quality scan because much more important than just dynamic range or detail acquisition. I conducted
scanning experiments only so far as to confirm this fact, and will leave it to others
to address PS questions of correction .... (next post) ...
My way of looking at the name of the game is to identify the sweet spot in how these films perform and optimize in that regard. And again as expected, Ektar is
very impressive once yet hit this sweet spot, and will best mimic the effects of a chrome film, but is more finicky than the more generalized Portra films per se.
In particular, you need to start out on the right foot in the first place regarding blue
balance, because once the relation between the respective dye curves is messed up,
it will be quite difficult to correct either analog or in PS, simply because you've
altered the relative geometry of the curves and not just their exposure density relative to one another. In this respect, modern color neg films are still quite distinct
from the way current chromes respond. The most important practical tip in this regard is that if you encounter a situation where your color temp meter would call
for correction, apply this correction on the spot. Don't expect Ektar to forgive you
like old-school Vericolor. For me it's as simple as packing along an 81A and 81C
filter and using them religiously when needed. The improvement seen in actual
prints, not only in balance but in broad-spectrum color purity, is significant. I hope
this helps someone.
This is my fourth post or paragraph in sequence, so please read the previous three
to understand the practical implications. Once can certain ignore all this as get from
point A to point B, but having a film like Ektar around is like owning a Porsche and
only knowing how to drive it like a Chevy. With a bit of forethought these newer
color neg films can be optimized to give them an exceptionally useful niche, and if
needed behave much like chromes, but not without knowing some tricks.
(Fifth post after interruptions between layers of paint drying on the front door): The
importance of simply recognizing the principle that curve geometry changes as you
change contrast (either PS or analog masking) will spare you from a rude awakening
if you happen to establish a protocol for one format and then try to apply it in the
same way to a different size format. With film masking, you might simply have to change the development time of the final mask if you have a straight-line technique.
But digitally, you might have to significantly back up your procedure and establish
some new rules. Just sticking with LF film would make life relatively easy, but if you go back and forth between this and a small camera, you will probably need to recalibrate the entire workflow, starting with the scan. Should be worth the
extra effort. These new films are wonderful.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks