I'm sure the development of specific color films involved far more than that, Alan. Certain compromises are always involved due to the inherent limitations of dye choice, coating methods, dye cloud structure - it's been evolving all along, all in the meantime having certain respective markets in mind.
I am with Alan.
Film or sensor are just an intermediate medium in the process of producing of an image (not many project slides nowadays).
The ultimate decision of how the image should look is up to the photog (or editor, or printer) and not to film manufacturer.
Color and color accuracy is an extremely subjective thing. Even with pure digital there are flaws. And at the end of the day, with many types of photography achieving color accuracy from photographed subject to final image is not really important (not talking about repro as even mega-$$$ digital with its ICC management is no silver bullet). Less so how the final image was made.
duplicate
Last edited by Alan Klein; 7-Jun-2021 at 05:11.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Here are two Velvia 50 shots taken minutes apart of the same subject with two different lenses. Which one has the correct Velvia colors?
Attachment 216446Attachment 216445
#1 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alankl...7625476289859/
#2 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alankl...7625476289859/
Last edited by Alan Klein; 7-Jun-2021 at 05:14.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
No possible way to accurately-properly assess color rendition of these images via the web due to a remarkably long list of variables, from monitor settings, digitizing-scan of the film, viewing conditions and ...
Previously discussed on post# 20.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ght=elinchrome
Compare that film/system testing methodology to visual via digital file on a monitor.
Bernice
Originally Posted by Alan Klein
That's my point. Color rendition to match the original or other similar pictures are not important. The photographer should adjust based on their aesthetic interpretations, not what some manufacturer designed into the film. That design is only a start point.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Importance of color rendition becomes a value judgement and perception of any given individual. There are absolute points of reference and metrics of measure to assure absolute color fidelity. This was the accepted color photography industry standards and standards creative artist working in photography stuck to and held to. "We" understood these rules, and understood them well. Knowing and understanding these "rules" allowed massive bending of these "rules" with equally massive control over bending these "rules".
What has changed is the user base for color transparency (positive) film.
That link to post# 20 on testing film via a certified McBeath color chart, Precise-accurate studio strobe lighting, same film lot, Speciality E6 processing lab, color densitometer testing for density of R_G_B, then apply the needed CC filters to move the color rendition to neutral was common and standard practice for any color photographer that was serious about accurate and proper color rendition back in those days. Color viewing was done using broad spectrum 5000K lighting (Not white LEDs) There were few if any exceptions.
Today, the majority of color transparency film users are making images outdoors under extremely varied lighting, very questionable E6 processing, control of exposure is not going to be within 1/10 f-stop, processed film scanned into a digital file, then subjectively evaluated under essentially un-controlled conditions.... video monitors and all... Essentially a free-for-all color judgement process touted as "artistic license"..
These are the same factors that continues to make Fuji Velvla a high demand color transparency film to this day..
It is also why Fuji's most accurate and IMO best ever made color transparency film Astia died over a decade ago.
Folks tend to fantasy -vs- harsh reality.
Bernice
Color temperature doesn't matter unless you are doing work that requires it to.
The natural world doesn't need accurate color temperature - the film gives you exactly what color was there based on the light reflected and its proportion, with some characteristics of the film included. Whether a "white" looks "white" (reflecting all colors in equal proportion) doesn't matter whatsoever when you are trying to capture the color of the light actually reflected from your subject. Seems obvious but I have seen people ask about using a blue filter during sunset to get the "white balance" right. Missing the point there...
Since the vast majority of LF photography today is in this category of non-critical personal work rather than commercial/scientific work, all this about color temperature, accuracy, CC filters, etc. is rather pointless. Somewhat more important is the processing, age of film, etc. if you want repeatability and a result as expected given experience. Otherwise it's all good and usable regardless with some caveats, especially once scanned and edited later, as all E-6 must be since printing it traditionally is dead for all but a few people worldwide.
Some Velvia, before it was called "50", very old and developed at home in a 3-bath kit:
Yep, Velvia false color..
Matter of preference, not necessarily "artistic preference"... for some it is, for others it is not.
Bernice
Color temperature doesn't matter unless you are doing work that requires it to.
The natural world doesn't need accurate color temperature - the film gives you exactly what color was there based on the light reflected and its proportion, with some characteristics of the film included. Whether a "white" looks "white" (reflecting all colors in equal proportion) doesn't matter whatsoever when you are trying to capture the color of the light actually reflected from your subject. Seems obvious but I have seen people ask about using a blue filter during sunset to get the "white balance" right. Missing the point there...
Since the vast majority of LF photography today is in this category of non-critical personal work rather than commercial/scientific work, all this about color temperature, accuracy, CC filters, etc. is rather pointless. Somewhat more important is the processing, age of film, etc. if you want repeatability and a result as expected given experience. Otherwise it's all good and usable regardless with some caveats, especially once scanned and edited later, as all E-6 must be since printing it traditionally is dead for all but a few people worldwide.
Some Velvia, before it was called "50", very old and developed at home in a 3-bath kit:
Nope, just "Velvia" color. That's all that needs to be said, and we all get it that you don't like it (which is totally fine).
As I said, the film imparts its characteristics. That's neither a positive or negative, pun intended. Some people choose oil, watercolor, acrylic, etc., either pastels or more saturated colors depending on their intent, needs, etcetera - and yes this is always an artistic choice, if one chooses for it to be so.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks