Provia 100F and Velvia 50

[SergeyT]

Except Natural "sun light" varies LOTs depending on the time of day, color temperature shift causing color shifts in the color transparency film which is a fixed-given for color transparency film. Add to this, lighting ratios difficult to control adding another factor-variable to image colors rendered on any color transparency film.

For some none of this is of any importance, others not tolerable in any way. Much about knowing precisely what will change the designed color rendition, density-saturation of any given color transparency film... then making choices that meet a specific image goal.

Bernice

Makes me wonder how we arrived to such specifics from a question about film DR ?

Speaking of colors...
Sure, there are many factors that impact color rendition, but when it comes to outdoor photography, especially the nature photography, many of so-called color accuracy( fidelity) issues become mostly irrelevant. I do not think that such thing as color fidelity is a strong point in film photography. Fidelity to what, film manufacturer's intent, paper manufacturer's intent, one's beliefs or "artistic vision"?

[Drew Wiley]

I distinctly recall 1/2 stop underexposure advice for Kodachrome from certain very successful pros - namely, those who gained their reputations and made their living in slide show competitions! Talk about a past era! And their advice really worked for that. But once you tried to turn some of those same slides into color prints, or decent halftone reproductions - well, that was a different story entirely - basically, a boot in your rear from the printing department.

It was also popular to pull chrome films back then, at least Ektachromes and early Fujichromes, for sake of just the opposite, easier printing. And if one could tolerate a bit of highlight crossover risk, it did work. But with tighter manufacturing tolerances later on, both lines of film got a lot more demanding on spot on processing. Yes, a bit of pushing still works, if someone thinks they really need to fool around with that; but as most of you have probably already noticed, pulling chromes doesn't work so well anymore.

[Drew Wiley]

Sergey - color? I'm obsessed with it. I encounter all kinds of subtle complex hues in nature I've been trying to reproduce with film and paper for decades. Why can any reasonably skilled watercolor painter mix up those hues in a mere minute, but no photographic medium ever invented can come close? Now everyone just wants saturation. Well, saturate what? Just Kindergarten colors? The fact is, color photography is crippled, and we have to live within its limitations, and learn to see like a certain film and printing medium sees. That sure as heck doesn't keep me from trying. And anyone who babbles on that they can fix anything in PS and then print it in inkjet probably can't differentiate subtle hues to begin with. But we all need a challenge.

And I don't particularly appreciate your remark that in "outdoor" or "nature" photography color fidelity issues are "irrelevant". Are you advocating that everything done outdoors is supposed to fall under the umbrella of some "colorful" postcard stereotype? I doubt you meant that. Nothing we do with film can be rightly termed "realistic". But it sure would be nice to have a lot more leverage over nuance, like black and white photography makes feasible. Anyone can create noise with color film.

[Bernice Loui]

DR = Density Range ?

If yes, color transparency density range is directly tied to a color transparency film's color rendition/color shift dependent on exposure aka Density Range.

This has already been noted previously during this discussion. Or why these specifics appeared again in this discussion about Density Range, essentially Density Range_ color rendition/color shift are all tied together.

Color rendition not relevant to "nature photography", if this assertion or claim is true why? Under the guise of "artistic expression" or what folks want to
see -vs- the colors nature really IS _?_

~Or another example of why Fuji Velvia remains is demand and why Fuji Astia died years ago. If this claim holds correct and true, it goes back to why fantasy and want to believe is of far greater value than truth and reality.

As previously discussed on post# 33.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-and-now/page4

Get serious about achieving proper/accurate color in outdoor "nature" scenes? Use a Minolta/Konica/Kenko color meter IIIF and a set of GOOD cc filters, used them properly with outdoor lighting conditions with color transparency film that has been gray card tester per post# 33.

When the colors were recorded horrid on film back then it was up to the print makers to "fix it" which makes their life a living hell. There folks who worked HARD to record proper color using cc filtration to equalize the differences in light color temperature and absolute on exposure with absolutely consistent and high quality E6 processing. This usually resulted in a color transparency the printer folks liked to work with.. instead of struggling with.

Today, folks have image software as their means of fix these "color issues".. question is, what are their points of reference for color?
Know color light therapy has become an effective therapeutic device... color.


For those who have any interest of what color printing folks had to or forced to deal with back in the day, watch these Tim Hall videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mss_EnQsq0o&t=2223s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5x7TDsHRV8&t=3758s


Bernice

Makes me wonder how we arrived to such specifics from a question about film DR ?

Speaking of colors...
Sure, there are many factors that impact color rendition, but when it comes to outdoor photography, especially the nature photography, many of so-called color accuracy( fidelity) issues become mostly irrelevant. I do not think that such thing as color fidelity is a strong point in film photography. Fidelity to what, film manufacturer's intent, paper manufacturer's intent, one's beliefs or "artistic vision"?

[SergeyT]

Drew,
I do not think you read me ever advocating for "fix everything in post" or "saturation is king".
BTW,
* I know at least 4 ways to deal with "saturation" or vibrancy without touching the saturation feature of PS.
* Saturation feature allows to increase saturation beyond 100% (as far as one wishes to go actually) and decrease by only a 100%

I am against over-complicating things. If one starts to account for all the factors and variables in outdoor conditions the likelihood of exposing film gets down close to 0.

Bernice ,

My point about color accuracy with film (especially slide film) that at best, the attempts (color filters to match the color temp of light, exposure at +/- 1/3 of a stop, etc) leave the photographer with a slide (film) that meets the indented criterias of the manufacturer (may include Product Managers, Engineers and in best case an Artist or two as consultants). Such exposed and developed piece of film, no matter how closely it meets these technical criterias, is nothing more than an interpretation of the actual scene ; and the interpretation rules are set at the time of production by the manufacturer. In other words, photographer gets what someone else "baked" into the film properties. Are these baked-in colors an accurate representation of the colors and relationship between them in the photographed scene? I hope that we can agree on the answer. Otherwise everyone will be shooting one type of color film of a given sensitivity.
Now, since we are dealing with someone's interpretation of colors (and that someone - the manufacturer, is not present at the time of exposure) , what is wrong with having more than one interpretation by deviating from the "ideal" camera settings or filtration at the time of exposure? Do such deviations necessarily (and always) devalue the resulting photographs , compared to the ones made from "perfectly" exposed\filtrated film?

[Drew Wiley]

No color film ever invented handles all hues accurately; and none ever will. But thankfully, there's still enough of a selection to choose the one most compatible with our own chosen subject matter and method of reproduction. Each has it's own distinct "signature", and it's important we understand the difference between what the film sees and our eyes do.

[Bernice Loui]

Sergey,

Ever done work with color transparency film as previously discussed in highly controlled studio strobe lighting situations then apply much the same to outdoor situations?

Color accuracy and precision and contrast rendition and saturation and hue can be FAR better than believed. And no, it is not any where as "subjective" as one might believe. Proof are in the color transparencies sitting here in storage boxes... which MUST be viewed with 5000 Kelvin light sources and room that does not impose it's color into the viewing area. Color rendition in film can be a LOT less subjective than most believe or know. That generation of folks directly involved with color film had a greater appreciation for color film than most would believe or know.. unless you've spent time with them doing this kind of color work.



Bernice

Drew,
I do not think you read me ever advocating for "fix everything in post" or "saturation is king".
BTW,
* I know at least 4 ways to deal with "saturation" or vibrancy without touching the saturation feature of PS.
* Saturation feature allows to increase saturation beyond 100% (as far as one wishes to go actually) and decrease by only a 100%

I am against over-complicating things. If one starts to account for all the factors and variables in outdoor conditions the likelihood of exposing film gets down close to 0.

Bernice ,

My point about color accuracy with film (especially slide film) that at best, the attempts (color filters to match the color temp of light, exposure at +/- 1/3 of a stop, etc) leave the photographer with a slide (film) that meets the indented criterias of the manufacturer (may include Product Managers, Engineers and in best case an Artist or two as consultants). Such exposed and developed piece of film, no matter how closely it meets these technical criterias, is nothing more than an interpretation of the actual scene ; and the interpretation rules are set at the time of production by the manufacturer. In other words, photographer gets what someone else "baked" into the film properties. Are these baked-in colors an accurate representation of the colors and relationship between them in the photographed scene? I hope that we can agree on the answer. Otherwise everyone will be shooting one type of color film of a given sensitivity.

Now, since we are dealing with someone's interpretation of colors (and that someone - the manufacturer, is not present at the time of exposure) , what is wrong with having more than one interpretation by deviating from the "ideal" camera settings or filtration at the time of exposure? Do such deviations necessarily (and always) devalue the resulting photographs , compared to the ones made from "perfectly" exposed\filtrated film?

[Bernice Loui]

Then comes the entire topic of color blindness or Ishihara color plate test.
https://colormax.org/color-blind-test/

Know men tend to have a higher rate of color blindness than women.
"1 out of 255 women and 1 out of 12 men have some form of color vision deficiency."
If interested in why, can share some current science based knowledge on this topic.

Color hue test:
https://www.alanranger.com/blogs/tak...ne-colour-test


Just two of many color perception factors that vary among individuals, difficulty with this reality of the human condition, an individual's perception of color is often projected upon others.. which might not perceive the same colors in the same way as another individual. Yet, there are absolute color points of reference that have been worked out over many decades of work on this specific topic by many individuals in this area of Art, Academia, and more.

~How does this figure into the discussion of color accuracy and precision and contrast rendition and saturation and hue _?_


Topic of color is a LOT more complex than most wanna know or believe.
Bernice

[Kiwi7475]

Designing, building, and testing a plane is a LOT more complicated than most wanna know too, but most of us just need to go from point A to point B.

Similarly, the need for exact accuracy and control is something most folks don’t need to get into , or honestly, care for most practical uses, such as portrait or landscape photography.

As usual, discussions here just end up making the most unnecessary turns away from what the OP was asking for.

[Bernice Loui]

If you're taking a aeroplane ride, lots that one does not need to know. If you're flying the aeroplane, lots the pilot must know.
~This is the difference here.

Once you're done the work and know very well what is possible and what is not possible at all, it is not possible to "un-learn" that knowledge, experience and all related to that. Being from a generation of Fotographers that HAD to learn this and know it extremely well, how does one "un-learn" or discount it's value?

Myopia is not always a good thing as expanding one's knowledge, learning from others with hard earned knowledge, experience, wisdom and more... is worth _?_


Bernice

Designing, building, and testing a plane is a LOT more complicated than most wanna know too, but most of us just need to go from point A to point B.

Similarly, the need for exact accuracy and control is something most folks don’t need to get into , or honestly, care for most practical uses, such as portrait or landscape photography.

As usual, discussions here just end up making the most unnecessary turns away from what the OP was asking for.