[jgredline]

A great suggestion, or you can just tune them to your own personal taste. You are the author of those images, it doesn't really matter if they are strictly accurate or not (usually!).

I tell you what, that guy's red shirt still looks weird even in grayscale. You could try the Channel Mixer method of b&w conversion to cure that as laid out here B&W Better and elsewhere.

I agree on the red shirt, but I have been avoiding the PP work to tr and give an accurate result of what it is. That Red shirt haunts me at night

[jgredline]

Wondering if this is a issue with scanning software setting?

Could very well be. On my own scans, I have everything turned off, so they are scanned with no PP done. When I have scanned other films, I get better, more natural colors. Really we need someone who is more familiar with film to do these tests. I am simply to much of a newbie for this.

[ChrisPlatt]

Scanning and post-processing are important factors in our individual experience with a given film.
But as an informal comparison of the two films in normal use I am quite happy with these results.
Thank you, Javier!

Chris

[jgredline]

Scanning and post-processing are important factors in our individual experience with a given film.
But as an informal comparison of the two films in normal use I am quite happy with these results.
Thank you, Javier!

Chris

Thanks Chris. it has been allot of fun.

[CSoars]

Hey Javier, a little late catching up but thanks for going through the efforts to scan and compare. As you saw in my Provia post, I think I'll go insane if I keep trying to scan C41 negs trying to find the 'look' I'm after.

But on the topic of Kodak, I shot some Portra 400 VC (vivid colour?), and it came out quite well, you can see how it renders reds in this sample (it's a little blurry, but....)

[/IMG]

I'm thinking the Porta 160VC will be pretty good bet, for a bit of extra richness and smoother grain.

[jgredline]

Hey Javier, a little late catching up but thanks for going through the efforts to scan and compare. As you saw in my Provia post, I think I'll go insane if I keep trying to scan C41 negs trying to find the 'look' I'm after.

But on the topic of Kodak, I shot some Portra 400 VC (vivid colour?), and it came out quite well, you can see how it renders reds in this sample (it's a little blurry, but....)



I'm thinking the Porta 160VC will be pretty good bet, for a bit of extra richness and smoother grain.

Wow, now these are some pleasant reds!. Thanks a bunch. I have not tried this film ''yet'' but will do so soon.

[K-9]

Call me crazy but I've never in my life entrusted a roll of film to Walgreens, Target, Costco, or Wal-Mart. I wouldn't dare. I'm surprised that everyone is doing film tests at these amateur labs where 15-year-olds are running your negs through the machine.

Are there any real labs left in the area where you all are? I don't see how you can trust how a color print actually looks through these types of labs.

[stevebrot]

Call me crazy but I've never in my life entrusted a roll of film to Walgreens, Target, Costco, or Wal-Mart. I wouldn't dare. I'm surprised that everyone is doing film tests at these amateur labs where 15-year-olds are running your negs through the machine.

Are there any real labs left in the area where you all are? I don't see how you can trust how a color print actually looks through these types of labs.

There are about half a dozen pro labs here in the Vancouver/Portland area, though none are handy to my home or place of business and none have hours that are compatible with my schedule.

As a result, I use Costco and skip the prints. The processing is done by machine (just like at the pro shop) and I get my "contact sheet" as a CD of scanned images for less than $5. Mind you, the scans are often a little sketchy, but the negatives are safe in their sleeves to be rescanned later if needed. None of the techs are Costco are high school kids. The average age appears to be about 45.

Having said this, I still must concede to wondering at times whether I am getting the same quality of development and handling (dust, scratches, sleeve materials, etc.) as I would at the pro shop. The last time I picked up my film at Costco, the one tech had his lint-free gloves on, but his coworker was handling the fresh negatives rather carelessly with bare hands. I am tempted to set up a B&W darkroom again and scan my own negatives so that I have better control of all phases of the process.

Steve

[jgredline]

less than $5.

I agree with all you said, except I pay a little over 2 bucks for processing and CD at target

[stevebrot]

I agree with all you said, except I pay a little over 2 bucks for processing and CD at target

Target is going to get my next roll. It is about two miles closer than Costco!

Steve

[K-9]

I guess I'm lucky to have a pro lab only a few miles from my house, closer than Target or Walgreens. Pro labs can screw up just as much as the store labs, but I've had more bad luck in the past with store labs.

Actually, Walgreens completely screwed up one time. They processed a roll for me, said it was scratched or jammed in their machine, but when I asked them for the negs anyway, they said they threw them out. That would never happen at a real photo lab. They would at least try to salvage the negs for you or something and not have the whole roll just disappear.

[lbenac]

And I like it...
Colors are definitely very nice. Some of the prints came with some funky color cast but others were dead on. Go figure.
Shot with MX.




I am not one to shoot flowers usually but I could not resist the reds...


Cheers,

Luc

[jgredline]

And I like it...
Colors are definitely very nice. Some of the prints came with some funky color cast but others were dead on. Go figure.
Shot with MX.




I am not one to shoot flowers usually but I could not resist the reds...


Cheers,

Luc

Our findings are very similar.

[stevebrot]

Ok, I am guilt of cross-posting these on Javier's film thread, but I figured I would put these here as well along with pertinent comments.

I finished my latest roll of Ektar earlier this week and took them down to Target instead of Costco. The machines looked a little ragged and tired, but the photo clerk knew exactly what I wanted when I asked for plain scans with no sharpening, smoothing, or curve adjustments. "Scan as shot", she said. The cost was a little more than Costco, but the results were much more in line with what I expected.

• Color cast was gone
• Color saturation was as expected
• Contrast was appropriate (normal looking histogram)
• Apparent grain was way down
• Highlight blocking and clipped shadows were absent

My only complaints:

• There appears to be a light leak in their scanner or the film is not being held flat (ghosting flare at one margin of several images)
• The scan resolution is a little low (1000 x 1500 px) and there appears to be some compression artifact

Well, here are the pics:



I can't complain much about the color fidelity or saturation on this one. (The softness was intentional.) There is a little of the wonky "ultra-red" that we have been seeing, but overall, the picture is remarkably similar to what the tulips actually looked like.

In regards to the "ultra-red" such as with Javier's red-shirted performer...I have a few shots on this roll that included the azaleas in my front yard. They look a lot like that guy's shirt. The pictures have no redeeming qualities, but they do illustrate this "feature" of Ektar.





The yellowish cast I was seeing in the scans from Costco is not present. This yellowish-green flower is true and the acuitance and apparent grain is also much better.



This one has the "flare" in the upper left corner. Several of the scans had this border affect. I don't believe that this is present in the original negatives. Edit My dumb...that is just plain old common veiling flare. I think the culprit was a cheap UV filter. End Edit

All-in-all, I am pleased with the results. Next stop...Walgreens!

Steve

[jgredline]

Steve, you got far better results than I did. I am surprised that target charged more money than costco.

I wonder how ektar would do in a landscapers hands. Likely very well.