[azerak]

To me they looks good ! you can play a bit with white balance of the first photo ( has a bit too much yellow cast to my taste ) - but otherwise they looks ok to me --manntax

Not sure how to change my white balance. I have looked around and I dont think you can change WB on film.

---

Last edited by azerak; 12-16-2013 at 08:13 AM.

[titrisol]

Not sure how to change my white balance. I have looked around and I dont think you can change WB on film.

you can't :P

you can only change it in the scanner

[Canada_Rockies]

I agree - the pictures look fine, other than the white balance. As titrisol says, you change it after you scan the image, in software. Even the crappy over simplified software supplied with my wife's new X-5 can correct white balance.

However, I should point out that we DID change film white balance in the film days. I used to have a whole series of filters to change the light to come out right on film. You needed a two filters for portrait floods, because they came in two colours. You needed a filter for daylight film shot indoors with fluorescent, another for normal incandescent, another for the new different fluorescents .... You needed a whole other set of filters when you put incandescent balanced film in the camera, including a pretty blue one when you shot outdoors. I MUCH prefer the new way.

[tuco]

Many modern negative films can be under exposed a stop without push processing and get fine results. Negative film has a lot of latitude. You may not want to try it with positive film though.

Kodak says, for example, right in the film's data sheet for 400TX (Tri-X) that you can under expose a stop and develop normally. And there are plenty of tests here on PF of Kodak's new Portra films being rated at different exposure indexes with fine results.

[tuco]

...
However, I should point out that we DID change film white balance in the film days.

With the figital workflow, it is very similar to a digital camera when it comes to WB. I shoot my digital at a fixed WB and correct in post. You can do the same with scanned film to a large degree in the image editor.

[Canada_Rockies]

The only difference with my shooting is that I use AWB so the back LCD looks nicer. I shoot in RAW and fix later if it is not right.

[stevebrot]

you can't :P

you can only change it in the scanner

Or in post-processing using a tool such as Lightroom.


Steve

[stevebrot]

So finally I have got my film processed and scanned. Here are the ones which I changed the ISO to 400.





Any comments?

A little underexposed, but usable with a few tweeks in post-processing.


Steve

[titrisol]

I thought he was joking....

Or in post-processing using a tool such as Lightroom.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I thought he was joking....

Your original suggestion is a good one and even then, there are limits. I have had decent luck using Lightroom, but lack of color is lack of color.


Steve

[titrisol]

this discussion is kinda funny, sometimes I forget how we dealt with the limitations of film with realitvely ease
Our bags were a bit heavier, carrying 3 or 4 color correction filters in the bag was a must, same with flash and 3-4 rolls of special ISOs just in case.

[abmj]

Along with daylight and tungsten film.

[Canada_Rockies]

Along with daylight and tungsten film.

And two types of tungsten film, yet.

[gofour3]

Along with daylight and tungsten film.

And two types of tungsten film, yet.

this discussion is kinda funny, sometimes I forget how we dealt with the limitations of film with realitvely ease
Our bags were a bit heavier, carrying 3 or 4 color correction filters in the bag was a must, same with flash and 3-4 rolls of special ISOs just in case.

However, I should point out that we DID change film white balance in the film days. I used to have a whole series of filters to change the light to come out right on film. You needed a two filters for portrait floods, because they came in two colours. You needed a filter for daylight film shot indoors with fluorescent, another for normal incandescent, another for the new different fluorescents .... You needed a whole other set of filters when you put incandescent balanced film in the camera, including a pretty blue one when you shot outdoors. I MUCH prefer the new way.

Of course this only applies to colour film. B&W does not care about the colour (Kelvin) temperature of lighting, so no special filters or film are required when shooting indoors.

Phil.

[Canada_Rockies]

Of course this only applies to colour film. B&W does not care about the colour (Kelvin) temperature of lighting, so no special filters or film are required when shooting indoors.

Phil.

Good point. However, some of us, when we became overly anal about such things, used the black and white coloured filters to modify the contrast to what we wanted. I have a print on the wall from 1962, when HMS Bounty replica visited Vancouver, BC. It was surrounded by small boats, and I used a #2 orange filter to turn the exhaust fumes into mist. MGM awarded me 10 rolls of film and a gadget bag for the shot. We used filters to emphasize the blue of skies. We used polarizing filters to remove reflections. We used density filters to modify exposures to get effects, just as we use them today. And many of us religiously bought and installed neutral filters on all our lenses to protect them from the elements they were built to withstand anyway. I changed religions several hundred months ago, and the only UV filters I own are on old lenses and I've lost my filter wrench.