[timw4mail]

I bought 10 rolls of Fujicolor C200, and ran a test roll through my K1000.

Looking at the results, the film seems a lot more red-biased than I expected: Fujicolor C200 scans ? imgbb.com

Is this similar to other's experience with this film? (I didn't do the development or scanning)

[LesDMess]

I always suspect any perceived color/contrast issues from any color C41 film due to the scanning first.

[timw4mail]

I always suspect any perceived color/contrast issues from any color C41 film due to the scanning first.

The greens are really pronounced on the negatives, though, so it seems that would lead to some red-biased scans as well.

[wombat2go]

The hi rez images look rather natural on the Eizo here.

[LesDMess]

The hi rez images look rather natural on the Eizo here.

Monitors are my second guess!

---------- Post added 08-19-17 at 01:58 PM ----------

The greens are really pronounced on the negatives, though, so it seems that would lead to some red-biased scans as well.

Whenever I use a new to me film, the first thing I do is conduct an exposure range test of a known scene in controlled lighting. This gives me a baseline of the exposure latitude, contrast and color response of my whole system. My latest test was using Lomography 100 shown below.



Of course it is hard to determine what the real response is from color negatives, real world scenes and uncontrolled lightings.

[BigMackCam]

Whenever I use a new to me film, the first thing I do is conduct an exposure range test of a known scene in controlled lighting.

That is a *big* and varied box of crayons, Les. The mark of a pro... I'm still working with a set of 24 coloured pencils. Amateur stuff, clearly

[LesDMess]

That is a *big* and varied box of crayons, Les. The mark of a pro... I'm still working with a set of 24 coloured pencils. Amateur stuff, clearly

Ha ha! I am pro film for sure!

If they wouldn't give film so much latitude I wouldn't have to use up so many frames just trying to see how far it goes . . .

[murrelet]

I bought 10 rolls of Fujicolor C200, and ran a test roll through my K1000.

Looking at the results, the film seems a lot more red-biased than I expected: Fujicolor C200 scans ? imgbb.com

Is this similar to other's experience with this film? (I didn't do the development or scanning)

Here's my comparison of C200 with Kodak Color Plus. I carried 2 MEs loaded with each while testing. The same lab developed and scanned. Variation could be due to lenses or metering of the cameras. It's pretty obvious C200 is a very different film than Color Plus. Not bad, just different.

[timw4mail]

Here's my comparison of C200 with Kodak Color Plus. I carried 2 MEs loaded with each while testing. The same lab developed and scanned. Variation could be due to lenses or metering of the cameras. It's pretty obvious C200 is a very different film than Color Plus. Not bad, just different.

Hmm...maybe it's just lack of dynamic range on the scanner used.

I don't see my Zenitar-K 50/2 lens as affecting the color much...but this is the first roll of color film I've had scanned.

[Swift1]

In my use, I've usually found Fujicolor C200 to have a pale, almost silvery color palette.
I have noticed that typical lab scans (Frontier and Noritsu) tend to leave a noticeable red/magenta cast and too much contrast and saturation in C200 scans.

Here's a C200 scan that I did at home on my Epson V500



And the same frame, Frontier lab scan

[BigMackCam]

Hmm...maybe it's just lack of dynamic range on the scanner used.

I don't see my Zenitar-K 50/2 lens as affecting the color much...but this is the first roll of color film I've had scanned.

Tim, I don't scan film to my PC yet, so I'm going out on a limb here (and you'll have to forgive me if I'm making silly / inaccurate assumptions) - but, isn't scanning rather like digital photography, where the white balance temperature and (importantly) tint is, to some extent, camera - and, in this case, scanner - dependent? Less of an issue with the B&W photography you've done so far, but for colour film scans my immediate thoughts are that a white-balance temperature and tint adjustment are required on the scans (especially for 3rd-party scanning, where you have no control over the accuracy of profiling for the scanner). Of course, this in itself may remove some of the character of the film. Ideally, you'd have analogue-developed and analogue-printed photos to compare against, so you can make really accurate adjustments that you can save and apply to future scans...

[timw4mail]

Tim, I don't scan film to my PC yet, so I'm going out on a limb here (and you'll have to forgive me if I'm making silly / inaccurate assumptions) - but, isn't scanning rather like digital photography, where the white balance temperature and (importantly) tint is, to some extent, camera - and, in this case, scanner - dependent? Less of an issue with the B&W photography you've done so far, but for colour film scans my immediate thoughts are that a white-balance temperature and tint adjustment are required on the scans (especially for 3rd-party scanning, where you have no control over the accuracy of profiling for the scanner). Of course, this in itself may remove some of the character of the film. Ideally, you'd have analogue-developed and analogue-printed photos to compare against, so you can make really accurate adjustments that you can save and apply to future scans...

Yeah, sounds reasonable.