[twilhelm]

My CVS sends it to a lab off-site. Frankly, when the last pro shop closed, I learned to do my own color because everyone else was so bad. I now have a small shop that does good work, but I still do most of my own.

I like Kodak Ektar also for natural colors. I find it very close to the Pentax colors.

[LesDMess]

Although Ilford XP2+ is one of my favorite B&W (monochromatic chromogenic) films and is processed in C-41 color chemistry, many labs struggle with printing it on color paper as it does not have an orange stain like color neg films. So I would start with a single test roll with CVS/Riteaid unless @twilhelm of @LesDMess know for certain they will not only develop XP2+ but also either scan or print it.

Good advice as I don't know for sure if they would have issues scanning or printing chromogenic b&w film as I do my own.

I'm not sure CVS even processes color film at their stores anymore? They may send all their film out for processing these days.

I used to live down the block from a CVS that processed 35mm color film in store but that's been a couple of years ago. I am fortunate that there is available local processing for film C41, b&w and E6.

[nickthetasmaniac]

I like Kodak Ektar also for natural colors. I find it very close to the Pentax colors.

What are the Pentax colours?

[twilhelm]

What are the Pentax colours?

When I develop and scan Ektar and pull it into Rawtherapee, the colors I see are very similar to identical to what I have with a shot from my K3 or K1 utilizing the same lens. That is all I was referring to.

[nickthetasmaniac]

When I develop and scan Ektar and pull it into Rawtherapee, the colors I see are very similar to identical to what I have with a shot from my K3 or K1 utilizing the same lens. That is all I was referring to.

Heh. I’d love to see examples of this, I wasn’t aware Pentax lenses showed a discernible colour signature...

[cameracravings]

If you do street photography in B&W then Kodak Tmax 400 should be considered. It is pushable to ASA1000 or even 1200.

Kodak Portra 160 is my favorite color because of less contrasty. Used to love transparency like fuji velvia 50 but processing is so expensive. They also charge $10-11 to process b&w in nyc.

[Eyewanders]

Heh. I’d love to see examples of this, I wasn’t aware Pentax lenses showed a discernible colour signature...

If they have an Ektar palate I need to move quick and buy all of them! :-O

---------- Post added 04-02-18 at 10:41 PM ----------

When I develop and scan Ektar and pull it into Rawtherapee, the colors I see are very similar to identical to what I have with a shot from my K3 or K1 utilizing the same lens. That is all I was referring to.

I've not used Raw Therapee, so forgive me, but can I assume some sort of adjustment is made the image upon import that of raw files that closely matches what you see as the Ektar color palate, or am I misunderstanding? Raw files are rather dull and bland in my experience until something like this happens (by some kind of edit preset affecting the data or by manual editing) and are as far as my imagination can manage from the color signature of Ektar... except perhaps Velvia or something even more idiosyncratic in its "look" (a redscale or something along those lines). I guess I'm curious if this is something to do with your workflow within Raw thearpee.

---

Last edited by Eyewanders; 04-02-2018 at 10:42 PM.

[Alex645]

Heh. I’d love to see examples of this, I wasn’t aware Pentax lenses showed a discernible colour signature...

I can also vouch that there is a certain Pentax color "signature" that in a line up with Canon and Nikon is discernible. In my digital photo classes we do open critiques and will line up 10-20 images on a magnetic board. Although the students all shoot RAW and do varying degrees of good and bad Photoshop work, in general the Pentax colors are more vibrant. Even with black and white, the tonal range appears greater.

I donʻt know if this is due to the processor, the optics, or a combination of the two. And one way to see examples, as best as possible comparing apples to apples, is dpreviewʻs Studio Shot Comparison site:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=n...66037735849056

They try to use similar prime focal lengths, so to some degree the differences seen is a combination of lens, sensor, and processor.

But to keep this on topic, with film in terms of "color signature", Iʻd say the main factor is the film emulsion before the effects of the paper emulsion, photo chems, printer color balance, and the optics used for both shooting and printing/enlarging.

[Eyewanders]

All lenses have subtle differences in color rendition, contrast, tonal transitions, etc.. It's more evident when looking at RAW digital files (since little else is "coloring" the resultant image), but I'd hazard a guess that there is a certain amount of confirmation bias occurring in most cases where a subjective "betterness" (I made up that word) is perceived. There are variations in the same lens model even. But yes, a film emulsion obviously leaves a "signature" that is far, far more evident than the subtle differences between, say, two 50mm lenses of similar speed and lens formula from two different manufacturers or lines, at least in terms of color IMO.

In b&w photography, particularly film, some of those differences become more pronounced. What I mean to say is - a generalized "Pentax lens signature" is by it's nature a huge idea, spanning focal lengths and years of manufacturing - I don't see how those tiny peculiarities that are so varied over so much glass and so much time can be said to be similar to the characteristics of a single Kodak film emulsion (with all it's enormous shifts and color variations depending on exposure level) that's been around just over a decade. Apples and breadfruit to me.

[twilhelm]

All lenses have subtle differences in color rendition, contrast, tonal transitions, etc.. It's more evident when looking at RAW digital files (since little else is "coloring" the resultant image), but I'd hazard a guess that there is a certain amount of confirmation bias occurring in most cases where a subjective "betterness" (I made up that word) is perceived. There are variations in the same lens model even. But yes, a film emulsion obviously leaves a "signature" that is far, far more evident than the subtle differences between, say, two 50mm lenses of similar speed and lens formula from two different manufacturers or lines, at least in terms of color IMO.

In b&w photography, particularly film, some of those differences become more pronounced. What I mean to say is - a generalized "Pentax lens signature" is by it's nature a huge idea, spanning focal lengths and years of manufacturing - I don't see how those tiny peculiarities that are so varied over so much glass and so much time can be said to be similar to the characteristics of a single Kodak film emulsion (with all it's enormous shifts and color variations depending on exposure level) that's been around just over a decade. Apples and breadfruit to me.

Truthfully, I was referring more to the “base” colors associated with Pentax digital cameras than I was any particular lens.

While all raw converters have their “base” processing that gets applied when an image is imported, in my experience, each manufacturer has from subtle to pronounced differences in color rendition, much as different film emulsions do. When the K10D came out, I read an article comparing it to the Nikon and Canon counterparts. The reviewer seemed to like the vibrant but life like colors over the others. (Wish I could remember which magazine it was)

I just feel Ektar is closer to the Pentax pallet than other films. I do have a fresh roll in my MZ-7 now and a new C-41 kit coming on Friday. I’ll post some comparisons then.

[Eyewanders]

Truthfully, I was referring more to the “base” colors associated with Pentax digital cameras than I was any particular lens.

While all raw converters have their “base” processing that gets applied when an image is imported, in my experience, each manufacturer has from subtle to pronounced differences in color rendition, much as different film emulsions do. When the K10D came out, I read an article comparing it to the Nikon and Canon counterparts. The reviewer seemed to like the vibrant but life like colors over the others. (Wish I could remember which magazine it was)

I just feel Ektar is closer to the Pentax pallet than other films. I do have a fresh roll in my MZ-7 now and a new C-41 kit coming on Friday. I’ll post some comparisons then.

Oh, I agree - the different sensor and image processing in conjunction with lens choices absolutely produce subtle differences that appeal to different shooters for different reasons. Sorry I waxed on; my point was merely that those differences are quite small when compared to the incredibly pronounced differences between various films, Ektar being one specifically that many can pick out of a line-up and say "yup, that's Ektar". I have my doubts that any but a scant few could do the same with a similar line up of RAW files shot by a few different modern digitals.

[twilhelm]

Oh, I agree - the different sensor and image processing in conjunction with lens choices absolutely produce subtle differences that appeal to different shooters for different reasons. Sorry I waxed on; my point was merely that those differences are quite small when compared to the incredibly pronounced differences between various films, Ektar being one specifically that many can pick out of a line-up and say "yup, that's Ektar". I have my doubts that any but a scant few could do the same with a similar line up of RAW files shot by a few different modern digitals.

You are likely dead on with that last statement. I think today more than ever differences in raw images are probably more due to lenses than the actual camera since the technology has come so far so fast. I don’t have my Nikon or Canon gear any longer, but the differences were more pronounced 10 years ago.

I wonder how much of that has to do with the raw converters?

[Eyewanders]

You are likely dead on with that last statement. I think today more than ever differences in raw images are probably more due to lenses than the actual camera since the technology has come so far so fast. I don’t have my Nikon or Canon gear any longer, but the differences were more pronounced 10 years ago.

I wonder how much of that has to do with the raw converters?

At the end of the day there's just little difference period. All modern lenses are rather clinical in their sharp rendering and exacting precision compared to older glass. All modern sensors have far more in common with each other than differences. And, all modern SLRs (digital obviously) are really only differentiated by what is included in the hardware to support image *computing* and the resultant menu layout (I like my DoF preview over here, not here) both hard and soft is all that really makes someone gravitate toward one over another, brand loyalty aside (and we know *that's* a thing for certain)... So really, it comes down to the shooter, how and how they post-process because everything else realllllllly similar these days.

[tuco]

At the end of the day there's just little difference period. All modern lenses are rather clinical in their sharp rendering and exacting precision compared to older glass. ...

I kind of saw that for the first time recently. I use a SMC Tak 50/1.4 on my digital camera often. There is no lens correction factor for it in LR, for example, and I don't try to do it manually. A buddy just got the new AR7III and all new lenses that he picked based solely on their sharpness reviews.

We tested both the Tak on my camera and his 55mm out on his camera on the same still life. His shot was sharper and way more geometrically correct than mine by a noticeable margin. But when compared side-by-side his looked way too clinical with no warmth to the rendering by my tastes. But that's how he likes it and he's proud of what it can do. So the moral of the story for me is to each their own and use what works for the scene.

[Pentaxlvr]

Kodak Ultramax 400 is great, it's all I use. You can get 10 packs of 36 fairly cheap on ebay from US sellers. I do not like the colors of Fuji, except the Reala, and the 1600 speed color, but I'm not sure they make either anymore. My CVS was so bad when they were still doing film. I once saw the person drop a full strip of film on their carpet, and pick it up bare handed. My one roll from there came back scratched and full of dust.

I also use Kodak UltraMax 400 a lot. If properly processed the colors come out beautiful. To help achieve these results I process the negatives myself in C-41 chemistry using fresh unexpired film. I use to work in a one hour photo lab back in the mid 1980's, but the results done by a C-41 kit and a scanner are far better than the results at the Meijer One Hour Photo lab those many years ago. The lab more often than was not always careful. Too much emphasis on bulk and not enough on quality of results.

-Pentaxlvr