A question on ''GREENS''

jgredline · 07-28-2008, 10:51 PM

Hi folks.
All in all I have 5 film bodies. I have tried a atleast 8 different types of film and they all seem to have one thing in common. It is not big deal to me as it is one of the things I like about film...

It seems the ''GREENS'' come out quite soft. The farther away they are, the softer they get, even when the rest of the image is sharp...I don't quite remember, but I seem to recall that the Greens where a tough deal on film when shooting in bright light....What are your thoughts? Here are images from my last roll...Kodak HD 400 speed film...Or maybe I am tripping...

Looking over downtown alhambra.

Rail roads. Notice how sharp the overall image is, except the greens in the back ground.

The moss in the river bed.

The trees in the back ground.

Even the greens on the drawing.

These greens look ok to me, because I was close.

Yet, as I get farther away, the greens begin to look soft.

Here is a good example of the soft greens. I was shooting in the direction of the sun. Could this be it?

Yet, these greens look good...

And these greens look very soft, almost fake...or am I seeing things...I like the look, but wondering if this is normal.

Nesster · 07-29-2008, 03:26 AM

When you say soft greens, do you mean 'grey' as in desaturated, or 'soft' as in loss of detail? Reading what you write I think you mean the latter.

I'm not sure what's going on, I don't think I've seen/felt that before, LOL NOW I WILL, THANK YOU FOR THAT

I can think of a few things - you're used to seeing green one way and film treats it differently than the (over saturating?) digital, so your attention is drawn there. Leaves are one of the hardest things to resolve, they are nearly fractal, so any distance loss is more evident if you look closely, plus leaves can move.

How are these scanned, a drug store? What do you do with post processing? (Here's something you can try: dup the layer in photoshop, blend it in 'soft light' and back down on the opacity.) I played with the first photo a bit in photoshop, I'm not sure I understand what you're seeing?

Nico · 07-29-2008, 05:11 AM

Hi, except for the church pics, they all look cold to me. Good reference points are gray/neutral. If look carefully at the asphalt, concrete or stone you will see that it is slightly blue/cyan. Because there is sunlight you can add more yellow/red to start. You can push slightly more than you can see with your eyes (actual subject). It will still look natural. From there adjust the density for maximum saturation centered around the main subject. I made a copy of your pic and did a quick color correction. Added little yellow and little density. In the lab usually there are only YMC and density correction.

I think you failed to see the overall color/density but noticed the greens. I hope this helps a little.

Nico

Attachment 16088

Attachment 16090

jgredline · 07-29-2008, 10:33 AM

Nester, your edit looks great. I think you pretty much nailed it. It may just be that I am used to the digital deeply saturated greens. What I mean by soft is loss of detail. Like I said, I like them ; more in fact than digital. I am more curious than anything.

Nico, What do you mean by Cold?

Chris, I did just buy a 4 pack of Kodak Gold 100. I will be trying that next...

Like I said, I am not complaining. I believe the film truly captures what it sees as opposed to what it think it sees..If this makes any sense..

Nico · 07-29-2008, 02:31 PM

I should have said "the lab" instead of "you". Your comments must be about the prints and scans that you get back from your lab. I assume that you get everything done at the same place. If you are, their master channel calibration is off.

When I say cold I mean excessive blue and or cyan. It is hard to separate between blue and cyan. In otherwords lack of yellow and red. Reference to gray/neutral color was made because light colors anything close to 18% gray (card) will pick up color cast very easily. If you do not see the blue cast on the concrete right now probably it is going to take some time and practice for you to be able to see it. Most people notice when something is not right but can not tell why.

Nesster's pp looks better because of increase in constast. It still look cold to me. I did not increase contrast on my pp because it is not possible to do so with a mini lab machines.

I agree with Chris, Gold 100 or 200. Each film channel must be calibrated separately in the machine database. If the channel is not used often it's calibration will drift. It is possible to use the same channel for different film but operator must adjust frame by frame. Each film channel is calibrated using pre exposed and processed film strip. $30+ for a film strip with five exposures. Believe me most labs used one or two expired test film strips. Ask your lab before you use any funky film. Gold 100/200 channels are checked often. But if master channel is not balanced or if the reference point is not properly set, every thing will look off.

Prints from Fuji Frontier will look more saturated. I find Noritsu Digital minilabs to be better calibrated in drogstores. Everything greatly depends on the operator. Avoid going to places that run your prints in full auto mode (most places).

It is not the film or the format. It is your lab that is not doing right. I feel that if you understand more you can ask for more. If the lab/store accept your request (+yellow and darker with a reference print for exemple), they should deliver as promissed. If not you should not pay for it. You should get good finished products for your money. Don't settle for less!!!

Nico

(I hope my ETL, English as Third Language, is understandable)

Nesster · 07-29-2008, 02:44 PM

Nico, I agree with the blue cast, I also tend to get it at home with the auto settings on the Epson, and it's definitely there on the Noritsus. OTH, the drugstore scan for me runs about $5 so it is cost effective. The best store scans I get are with an Agfa machine at the local MotoPhoto, though they tend to be over saturated. I also have a theory that these machines - if they are calibrated much at all - take into account the color gamut and tone of the printing part. Perhaps Noritsus print a bit warm...

The 'soft light' blend trick does increase contrast, but also selectively color saturation as well. There are some shortcuts, by changing the color balance of the blend layer, that effectively do some of the things you can do with channels and curves. (I like to use Elements, so I've developed my own work arounds). I agree with you, if I were to re-re-mix the pic I'd have adjusted the color balance a bit warmer, probably not to the degree you have.

But I find it interesting that your version looks much more like I get out of the K100D. Thank you for the explanations, as that's useful info indeed.

07-28-2008, 10:51 PM	#1
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	A question on ''GREENS'' Hi folks. All in all I have 5 film bodies. I have tried a atleast 8 different types of film and they all seem to have one thing in common. It is not big deal to me as it is one of the things I like about film... It seems the ''GREENS'' come out quite soft. The farther away they are, the softer they get, even when the rest of the image is sharp...I don't quite remember, but I seem to recall that the Greens where a tough deal on film when shooting in bright light....What are your thoughts? Here are images from my last roll...Kodak HD 400 speed film...Or maybe I am tripping... Looking over downtown alhambra. Rail roads. Notice how sharp the overall image is, except the greens in the back ground. The moss in the river bed. The trees in the back ground. Even the greens on the drawing. These greens look ok to me, because I was close. Yet, as I get farther away, the greens begin to look soft. Here is a good example of the soft greens. I was shooting in the direction of the sun. Could this be it? Yet, these greens look good... And these greens look very soft, almost fake...or am I seeing things...I like the look, but wondering if this is normal.

07-29-2008, 03:26 AM	#2
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	When you say soft greens, do you mean 'grey' as in desaturated, or 'soft' as in loss of detail? Reading what you write I think you mean the latter. I'm not sure what's going on, I don't think I've seen/felt that before, LOL NOW I WILL, THANK YOU FOR THAT I can think of a few things - you're used to seeing green one way and film treats it differently than the (over saturating?) digital, so your attention is drawn there. Leaves are one of the hardest things to resolve, they are nearly fractal, so any distance loss is more evident if you look closely, plus leaves can move. How are these scanned, a drug store? What do you do with post processing? (Here's something you can try: dup the layer in photoshop, blend it in 'soft light' and back down on the opacity.) I played with the first photo a bit in photoshop, I'm not sure I understand what you're seeing? Attached Images

07-29-2008, 05:11 AM	#3
Nico Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Irvine, So. Cal Posts: 127	Hi, except for the church pics, they all look cold to me. Good reference points are gray/neutral. If look carefully at the asphalt, concrete or stone you will see that it is slightly blue/cyan. Because there is sunlight you can add more yellow/red to start. You can push slightly more than you can see with your eyes (actual subject). It will still look natural. From there adjust the density for maximum saturation centered around the main subject. I made a copy of your pic and did a quick color correction. Added little yellow and little density. In the lab usually there are only YMC and density correction. I think you failed to see the overall color/density but noticed the greens. I hope this helps a little. Nico Attachment 16088 Attachment 16090 Last edited by Nico; 08-20-2008 at 03:38 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
the greens	nodretep	Monthly Photo Contests	0	09-28-2009 10:38 PM
Question about Reds/Greens Burning?	mitchkramez	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	12-20-2007 12:14 PM

07-29-2008, 10:33 AM	#4
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Nester, your edit looks great. I think you pretty much nailed it. It may just be that I am used to the digital deeply saturated greens. What I mean by soft is loss of detail. Like I said, I like them ; more in fact than digital. I am more curious than anything. Nico, What do you mean by Cold? Chris, I did just buy a 4 pack of Kodak Gold 100. I will be trying that next... Like I said, I am not complaining. I believe the film truly captures what it sees as opposed to what it think it sees..If this makes any sense..

07-29-2008, 02:31 PM	#5
Nico Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Irvine, So. Cal Posts: 127	I should have said "the lab" instead of "you". Your comments must be about the prints and scans that you get back from your lab. I assume that you get everything done at the same place. If you are, their master channel calibration is off. When I say cold I mean excessive blue and or cyan. It is hard to separate between blue and cyan. In otherwords lack of yellow and red. Reference to gray/neutral color was made because light colors anything close to 18% gray (card) will pick up color cast very easily. If you do not see the blue cast on the concrete right now probably it is going to take some time and practice for you to be able to see it. Most people notice when something is not right but can not tell why. Nesster's pp looks better because of increase in constast. It still look cold to me. I did not increase contrast on my pp because it is not possible to do so with a mini lab machines. I agree with Chris, Gold 100 or 200. Each film channel must be calibrated separately in the machine database. If the channel is not used often it's calibration will drift. It is possible to use the same channel for different film but operator must adjust frame by frame. Each film channel is calibrated using pre exposed and processed film strip. $30+ for a film strip with five exposures. Believe me most labs used one or two expired test film strips. Ask your lab before you use any funky film. Gold 100/200 channels are checked often. But if master channel is not balanced or if the reference point is not properly set, every thing will look off. Prints from Fuji Frontier will look more saturated. I find Noritsu Digital minilabs to be better calibrated in drogstores. Everything greatly depends on the operator. Avoid going to places that run your prints in full auto mode (most places). It is not the film or the format. It is your lab that is not doing right. I feel that if you understand more you can ask for more. If the lab/store accept your request (+yellow and darker with a reference print for exemple), they should deliver as promissed. If not you should not pay for it. You should get good finished products for your money. Don't settle for less!!! Nico (I hope my ETL, English as Third Language, is understandable)

07-29-2008, 02:44 PM	#6
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Nico, I agree with the blue cast, I also tend to get it at home with the auto settings on the Epson, and it's definitely there on the Noritsus. OTH, the drugstore scan for me runs about $5 so it is cost effective. The best store scans I get are with an Agfa machine at the local MotoPhoto, though they tend to be over saturated. I also have a theory that these machines - if they are calibrated much at all - take into account the color gamut and tone of the printing part. Perhaps Noritsus print a bit warm... The 'soft light' blend trick does increase contrast, but also selectively color saturation as well. There are some shortcuts, by changing the color balance of the blend layer, that effectively do some of the things you can do with channels and curves. (I like to use Elements, so I've developed my own work arounds). I agree with you, if I were to re-re-mix the pic I'd have adjusted the color balance a bit warmer, probably not to the degree you have. But I find it interesting that your version looks much more like I get out of the K100D. Thank you for the explanations, as that's useful info indeed.