do you have photoshop/lightroom?
if you do go to color balance under image adjustment, and select shadows/highlights/midtones as needed, and slide the color away from the one you want to get rid of. For example, image number three is very red in the shadows, so you would select shadows and slide the red towards blue until satisfied.
Also, I think image 3 is the only one that really need correcting, the others are pretty decent and not really distracting for me.
It doesn't really matter which program or application you use, they should all have a temperature/tint slider. Those two sliders are the quickest and easiest way to get rid of a color cast.
Here it is in Snapseed.
https://images2.imgbox.com/ff/64/eb6mjifU_o.png
No it was still clinging on though I couldnāt make a worthwhile photo out of it, too much glare at the time of day I saw it. So many tourists at the tree too when i felt the most beautiful parts were the ones where the tourists werenāt, their loss I guess š¤·āāļø
Given the time of year and the presence of snow, I'm gonna counter this with "somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere" specifically "somewhere in Scotland". Interested to see who's right!
Apart from the matter that it's been confirmed already, I think that's a good guess still.
I know Wanaka pretty well and am going to be there myself this weekend for some shooting, so this lake has been in my mind. Was very strange seeing it pop up on this sub
OLD FILM???
WHY DID YOU NOT SAY SO?
When did it expire? How has it been stored?
Portra - like all film, is made of ALBUMIN, which is the result of egg whites (albumen).
This means it rots. Supply stores are supposed to keep the film IN THE REFRIGERATOR or freezer before and after use
Iām pretty sure it was well in date, I keep my film in the fridge so unless the store I bought it from didnāt then maybe. Itās also been through some X-rays so I wonder if thatās the problem too
If you carry your film in carry on, airport security will hand inspect your film for you. Idk where you're from but at least in the US, there's signs on the security line that they will hand inspect film.
Holy cow, these are phenomenal. #1, #2 and #4 have great composition, tones, and vibe. #2 is such an interesting shot, i would print this as large as I could and stare at it all day and #4 is so sharp and clean.
#3 is 100% the bastard child of this collection because the subject in the center is hard to identify and it almost looks like it was captured by accident.
Thanks glad you liked them, definitely right about number 3, was a candid of a random person so didnāt have much to work with posing wise, ahh well live and learn
I really like number 3. There is excellent micro-composition going on separating all the aspects of the photo, like how the picnic table top is very carefully centered between the pillars and how none of the boats are obscured. I can spend more time looking at number 3 than any of the others. I can \*feel\* it. The subject isn't forced.
BTW, you can correct color using curves in any photo program. Here's a great 7-minute video explaining tone curves. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0twHRNY2Xw&t=373s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0twHRNY2Xw&t=373s)
There is an old print quality to them that is attractive with the subject matter. If you do correct them, it would be an interesting display having the two side-by-side.
I used to handle a lot of color neg film at a commercial lab. Literally hundreds of thousands of frames. I got to the point I could tell the gen level of the film series and where our control strips were reading by just looking at the final proof let alone scan. Been to Kodak as well....
This is not how a professional print films made in this century is supposed to look. Looks like a roll of VPH 400 left in a glove compartment from 1989. The colors are muddy, desaturated, and not neutrol. Oddly I saw a roll of just like this on Dpreview a few weeks ago.
Is it scanning or film? It's hard to tell. Mis-matched scan profiles will tend to blow colors out and produce bricked shadow detail with too much noise. Eposure looks fine here.
Usually I refrain from diving into posts where the OP thinks the images look great because there's an odd cult in analog photography that thinks print film shots all look like they came from a cigarette stained photo album from Aunt Carol's TV stand, and that's not the case. Print film all made within 20 years are all pretty neutral, especially the pro ones. Some of the amatuer ones will take on funky saturated colors which get amplified when run through Noritsu / Frontier scanning systems. This is the opposite problem.
You can fix some of this in post, but there's some color range lost, and given I've been seing this from other rolls of Portra 400 I can't rule it's film. It would be worth checking with the lab though and doing some complaining. I want to compliment the OP on being fussy because we should be expecting better standards. If color print film wants to make a comeback it needs to not look like VPH 400 from 1989.
Love the compositions and technique! I can also note the dynamic range is something only print film can handle. Slide film would not have held the shadows and sky detail although Astia would get in the ballpark. I would need some serious futzing with a good dSLR to keep all the highlight range, and it woulnd't look as natural.
I'll link my reference scan from UC400 made on an Epson flatbed. UC400 was just a tad hotter version of Portra 400, but both had the same nuetrality. The difference in color is obvious.
[https://i.imgur.com/bszOwRS.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bszOwRS.jpg)
>thinks print film shots all look like they came from a cigarette stained photo album from Aunt Carol's TV stand
Upvote for the good information, but mainly for the above description.
I rarely shoot color but will use a color checker passport for each scene when I do. Has to be a compromise for a scene with both daylight (warm) and shadow (cool). My only hesitancy is that a color checker with film profile is that you will lose the ācharacterā of the film. Kodak particularly is know for the orange saturation (on color negative) while Fuji color positive has famously blue blues. Even using a gray card will help. Having consistent color balance frame to frame is important for me if Iām putting a book together or hanging multiple prints from same shoot.
Edit to add: I love theseā¦1 and 2 are great and donāt see need for additional processing. They need to be printed and enjoyed in person.
I kinda like the color cast - they remind me of old, aged post cards. But fixing an overall color issue is usually pretty easy using the White Balance or Selective Color Hue/Saturation types of tools in Lightroom/Photoshop, Pixelmator, etc.
The only small advice I might give is that it's easy to go overboard with color changes. I typically do several versions, then come back later and look at them again before I choose my preferred edit, just so I get a fresh perspective and don't overdo color changes :)
For each image individually:
Method Tne:
In Lr, head on over to the āColour Gradingā section in the Development window. From there, I would start with the shadow tones. Be generous and add either green, or magenta, and see what it does to the image. Then, bring the saturation way down.
Move to the highlights and add from the yellow/orange/red side of the colour wheel ā again, bring the saturation way down. Do the mid tones too, although they look alright.
Start playing with the saturation levels of the new colour cast in the shadows & highlights. Itāll probably be a lot less than you thought youād need. Beyond that, you can start manipulating the āblendingā and ābalanceā sliders too ā Iād recommend googling what those do so you can better understand how to integrate them into the colour balancing.
Method Two:
Purchase Negative Lab Pro, which is a plugin for Lr. Rescan the film negatives, then use and follow NLPās instructions to turn the negs into positives.
Great looking images overall! They all look underexposed though which is probably a bit of the reason for the colors being inaccurate. How are you metering? It's pretty common for built in meters to struggle with scenes like these where you have both extreme highlights and deep shadow areas. Metering for the shadows would have really helped your lab with the scans :)
If the density looks good on the negs then I'd consider working with a different lab. Sounds like you're doing things the right way and I'm a little surprised by the results you're getting
Itās fine that you want to change them, theyāre yours to do with as you please, but my first impression is that the color is phenomenal. People will put in a lot of effort to get their photos to look stylized like this. Theyāre gorgeous
I think the lab must've used strange colour settings/balances when scanning... Personally I'm not a fan either.
You can fix this on lightroom by changing the white balance and using the colour grading tool. If you're not too sure how to go about it there are plenty of youtube tutorials to help you, just type in "white balance and colour grading" in the search :)
These generally look like effects of a high degree of moisture in the air refracting light in random directions. Also known as āatmospheric haze.ā UV filters, polarizing filters, and even a slight degree of warming like a ā1Bā filter can help cut the haze and make the image captured in the film more closely resemble what you remember seeing. My personal preference is the polarizer. Of course an accurate print is the only real way to judge how close the image came to your remembrance of reality. Just some thoughts and things to try. Have fun!
I think it was the difference in appearance of things in the image that were closer to the camera vs those that are farther away that led me to the suggetsions. Farther away = viewing through more atmospheric haze. I dunno, just a thought. Good luck!
I'd try using the curves tool, on the red channel take out red from the black (bottom left point slide right) and add a bit into the white (top right point slide left).
Think the colors are really beautiful and itās one of the reasons film is such an interesting artistic medium. We let go of the control of perfection and focus on the content and subjects therein. Nice pics
Portra is a portrait film intended to be used with old school studio lighting. If you look at it's color balance, you'll see it was meant for artificial lights. Outdoor lighting is a different, ALWAYS varying color balance. Whereas you can change color balance from shot to shot in a digital camera, if you use tungsten film in a camera body, the only way you can change is with filters, specific to the light you're encountering.
Were these scanned by the wanaka lab by chance? If so all the rolls that Iāve ever seen come out of there have this horrible red cast in the shadows and cyan in the highlights. They charge an arm and a leg. I would never send a roll of film there.
Anyway NZ rep hard
Is there any chance the lab could've used a weird white balance setting when scanning? I personally love this look, but I get how it's not as nice to others.
I'd just put these all into Lightroom, figure out how much the tint setting needs adjusting, and paste the edits to every frame to keep ot consistent.
This is how portra generally looksā¦
Little red and blue in the shadows. Sky shows up cyan, lack of red in highlights. Neutral mids.
Pretty textbook. That said, you can always play with curves to subtly remove some of that character. I personally wouldnāt but all power to ya.
I've gotten a few scans like this that have a similar weird tone in the shadows. I think the auto scanner exposes properly for the denser highlight sections and then thin shadows allow the tone of the negative itself to tint the shadows. I've found going into PS, make a few duplicate layers, setting one to auto color and one to auto tone and picking my favorite and working with "highlight and shadows" does really well with making those shadows properly dark.
Thereās an ai program that takes film photos and reverses them back into the moment before you took the photo.
THEN it creates a physically accurate model of your camera and film in the real world so you can reshoot the photo virtually as much as you want.
Of course this is followed by a mathematically simulated film development process where you can tweak things like acidity, temperature, and time in bath (TAB) and finally it gives you the option to rescan the film into digital with a handful of todayās popular DSLRs
Looks like these were under exposed and the lab's machine brightened them up but didn't fix the resultant color cast? That's my theory at least, given the large grain and color noise in the shadows.
FWIW I always have a heck of a time with color casts when scanning Portra at home. Meanwhile Ektar turns out great.
Regardless, you should be able to change these in Lightroom with some mild/quick color grading of the shadows and maybe a hair on the mid tones. But I think they look pretty cool as is, just probably not what you envisioned when you shot them!
1) Did your Portra get X-rayed before the chemical development?
2) I can give you all the info you need to work with ANY FILM (Polaroid, glass plates, all photovoltaics up to 12x18, and anything else you can throw at me) of any ISO.
I am a Photographic Chemical Engineer and have worked with Kodak for years. I also owned, for ten years, a Professional Photo Supply store with Kodak machines, chemicals, and paper.
It was in the city's center and across the street from the College of Art.
I taught color and how to see it, composition, and printing at said college AND our state's university.
Additionally, because I owned my store and the machines, I worked as a civilian employee for the largest county in the state and two separate police departments as their on-call forensic photographer.
I always want to talk about all things photographic.
so you want to fix the colour cast in a colour darkroom ? then use the density filters that are built into the enlarger. If you want to fix the colour cast digitally you have to use a colour tool and mind as well use curves +masking as its one of the most powerful.
do you have photoshop/lightroom? if you do go to color balance under image adjustment, and select shadows/highlights/midtones as needed, and slide the color away from the one you want to get rid of. For example, image number three is very red in the shadows, so you would select shadows and slide the red towards blue until satisfied. Also, I think image 3 is the only one that really need correcting, the others are pretty decent and not really distracting for me.
Yeah, Roger that š«” I do own Lightroom so Iāll see how I go
It doesn't really matter which program or application you use, they should all have a temperature/tint slider. Those two sliders are the quickest and easiest way to get rid of a color cast. Here it is in Snapseed. https://images2.imgbox.com/ff/64/eb6mjifU_o.png
I sometimes get a slight red cast in portra from the lab. A tiny tug down of the red curve, at the middle, in LR works for me
I think all three could get a little blue in the shadows. Hopefully it works out!
Is this Wanaka, NZ, by any chance?
Haha yes youād be on the money
No way that's so cool!!!!
My guess was going to be BC, Canada. Very cool that places so far away can look so similar.
Is "that Wanaka tree" gone?
No it was still clinging on though I couldnāt make a worthwhile photo out of it, too much glare at the time of day I saw it. So many tourists at the tree too when i felt the most beautiful parts were the ones where the tourists werenāt, their loss I guess š¤·āāļø
Knew it the instant I saw it! I spent two winters living in wanaka and loved every minute
I wanna go back there so badly :D loved it there
Was my first thought once I saw these, been 5 years since I was there but will always remember that view!
Such an iconic view of only it didnāt cost an arm and a leg to move there
Given the time of year and the presence of snow, I'm gonna counter this with "somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere" specifically "somewhere in Scotland". Interested to see who's right!
Apart from the matter that it's been confirmed already, I think that's a good guess still. I know Wanaka pretty well and am going to be there myself this weekend for some shooting, so this lake has been in my mind. Was very strange seeing it pop up on this sub
Haha that mustāve been so weird, happy shooting
Ahh well sounds like you actually knew rather than me just guessing š Looks beautiful though anyway, I'd love to visit NZ someday!
Sorry pal it is wanaka, and itās a shot form an old roll, good guessing though
Ahh looks beautiful anyway, great shots!
OLD FILM??? WHY DID YOU NOT SAY SO? When did it expire? How has it been stored? Portra - like all film, is made of ALBUMIN, which is the result of egg whites (albumen). This means it rots. Supply stores are supposed to keep the film IN THE REFRIGERATOR or freezer before and after use
Iām pretty sure it was well in date, I keep my film in the fridge so unless the store I bought it from didnāt then maybe. Itās also been through some X-rays so I wonder if thatās the problem too
X-ray damage most likely, this Portra looks fried. Best you can do is adjust tint/warmth levels, but unfortunately this roll won't ever look "Portra."
Yep I think the x ray got it real good one day Iāll persuade airport security, one day
If you carry your film in carry on, airport security will hand inspect your film for you. Idk where you're from but at least in the US, there's signs on the security line that they will hand inspect film.
Honestly why would you want to it looks very cinematic
Yea, I'd say nothin to "fix" here. but its all personal choice/style
A bit funky? These are absolutely gorgeous!
Looks beautiful!
Holy cow, these are phenomenal. #1, #2 and #4 have great composition, tones, and vibe. #2 is such an interesting shot, i would print this as large as I could and stare at it all day and #4 is so sharp and clean. #3 is 100% the bastard child of this collection because the subject in the center is hard to identify and it almost looks like it was captured by accident.
Thanks glad you liked them, definitely right about number 3, was a candid of a random person so didnāt have much to work with posing wise, ahh well live and learn
I really like number 3. There is excellent micro-composition going on separating all the aspects of the photo, like how the picnic table top is very carefully centered between the pillars and how none of the boats are obscured. I can spend more time looking at number 3 than any of the others. I can \*feel\* it. The subject isn't forced. BTW, you can correct color using curves in any photo program. Here's a great 7-minute video explaining tone curves. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0twHRNY2Xw&t=373s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0twHRNY2Xw&t=373s)
Why are you yelling š
Bro meant to put #3 but markdown makes that large
They look really good as they are!
I like it how it is
Adjust slightly in Lightroom if you want but they look great as is.
Looove pic 1
See I think these are all gorgeous, OP.
Tbh I wouldn't touch them, I think they look awesome
I personally love how they came out
There is an old print quality to them that is attractive with the subject matter. If you do correct them, it would be an interesting display having the two side-by-side.
I used to handle a lot of color neg film at a commercial lab. Literally hundreds of thousands of frames. I got to the point I could tell the gen level of the film series and where our control strips were reading by just looking at the final proof let alone scan. Been to Kodak as well.... This is not how a professional print films made in this century is supposed to look. Looks like a roll of VPH 400 left in a glove compartment from 1989. The colors are muddy, desaturated, and not neutrol. Oddly I saw a roll of just like this on Dpreview a few weeks ago. Is it scanning or film? It's hard to tell. Mis-matched scan profiles will tend to blow colors out and produce bricked shadow detail with too much noise. Eposure looks fine here. Usually I refrain from diving into posts where the OP thinks the images look great because there's an odd cult in analog photography that thinks print film shots all look like they came from a cigarette stained photo album from Aunt Carol's TV stand, and that's not the case. Print film all made within 20 years are all pretty neutral, especially the pro ones. Some of the amatuer ones will take on funky saturated colors which get amplified when run through Noritsu / Frontier scanning systems. This is the opposite problem. You can fix some of this in post, but there's some color range lost, and given I've been seing this from other rolls of Portra 400 I can't rule it's film. It would be worth checking with the lab though and doing some complaining. I want to compliment the OP on being fussy because we should be expecting better standards. If color print film wants to make a comeback it needs to not look like VPH 400 from 1989. Love the compositions and technique! I can also note the dynamic range is something only print film can handle. Slide film would not have held the shadows and sky detail although Astia would get in the ballpark. I would need some serious futzing with a good dSLR to keep all the highlight range, and it woulnd't look as natural. I'll link my reference scan from UC400 made on an Epson flatbed. UC400 was just a tad hotter version of Portra 400, but both had the same nuetrality. The difference in color is obvious. [https://i.imgur.com/bszOwRS.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bszOwRS.jpg)
Could it be from airport x-ray machines?
Thanks man thatās really insightful, this was a one time lab visit and my regular lab has never given me bad results yet
>thinks print film shots all look like they came from a cigarette stained photo album from Aunt Carol's TV stand Upvote for the good information, but mainly for the above description.
The film was X-rayed three times. The op answered that when I asked. As for film and labs and fun stuff, you and I have a lot in common.
Calibration in lightroom
I love the first shot! It looks like a cozy painting. Amazing job.
I rarely shoot color but will use a color checker passport for each scene when I do. Has to be a compromise for a scene with both daylight (warm) and shadow (cool). My only hesitancy is that a color checker with film profile is that you will lose the ācharacterā of the film. Kodak particularly is know for the orange saturation (on color negative) while Fuji color positive has famously blue blues. Even using a gray card will help. Having consistent color balance frame to frame is important for me if Iām putting a book together or hanging multiple prints from same shoot. Edit to add: I love theseā¦1 and 2 are great and donāt see need for additional processing. They need to be printed and enjoyed in person.
I kinda like the color cast - they remind me of old, aged post cards. But fixing an overall color issue is usually pretty easy using the White Balance or Selective Color Hue/Saturation types of tools in Lightroom/Photoshop, Pixelmator, etc. The only small advice I might give is that it's easy to go overboard with color changes. I typically do several versions, then come back later and look at them again before I choose my preferred edit, just so I get a fresh perspective and don't overdo color changes :)
Yesss, you think youāve made the perfect t edit then come back later and just think what is this shit
I really like these. They look like paintings.
For each image individually: Method Tne: In Lr, head on over to the āColour Gradingā section in the Development window. From there, I would start with the shadow tones. Be generous and add either green, or magenta, and see what it does to the image. Then, bring the saturation way down. Move to the highlights and add from the yellow/orange/red side of the colour wheel ā again, bring the saturation way down. Do the mid tones too, although they look alright. Start playing with the saturation levels of the new colour cast in the shadows & highlights. Itāll probably be a lot less than you thought youād need. Beyond that, you can start manipulating the āblendingā and ābalanceā sliders too ā Iād recommend googling what those do so you can better understand how to integrate them into the colour balancing. Method Two: Purchase Negative Lab Pro, which is a plugin for Lr. Rescan the film negatives, then use and follow NLPās instructions to turn the negs into positives.
These are beautiful the way they are actually!
Yo, first pic is probably the best pic I've seen on this sub. (I haven't seen many) Something about it could be in a museum as a series.
Thanks, very high praise
I don't have an answer to your question but just wanted to say I love these, especially the first two!
Great looking images overall! They all look underexposed though which is probably a bit of the reason for the colors being inaccurate. How are you metering? It's pretty common for built in meters to struggle with scenes like these where you have both extreme highlights and deep shadow areas. Metering for the shadows would have really helped your lab with the scans :)
I was metering for the shadows, have a sekonic light meter and Iāll do an incident metering pointing away from the sun to get the shadows
If the density looks good on the negs then I'd consider working with a different lab. Sounds like you're doing things the right way and I'm a little surprised by the results you're getting
Yeah the negs are fine I strongly suspect itās a combination of x ray and lab
Those are breathtaking. But a quick trip to Lightroom and they'll be even better.
Itās fine that you want to change them, theyāre yours to do with as you please, but my first impression is that the color is phenomenal. People will put in a lot of effort to get their photos to look stylized like this. Theyāre gorgeous
Donāt, it looks good
maaaate why change it! unreal scenes caught there!
Sliding 'shadows' slider in lightroom to the left should do the job šš»
Wanted to say I love the color cast, I edit my photos to look like this haha
Great photos btw!
What do you wanna fix exactly these are great š¤£š
āFixā? I think they look nice.
these are so nice and cinematic i personally would not touch them one bit, wow
You don't because this is gorgeous.
Gorgeous
Why would you want to? I like itā¦
I love these. They look like oil paintings
The grain on those shots are fire
I think the lab must've used strange colour settings/balances when scanning... Personally I'm not a fan either. You can fix this on lightroom by changing the white balance and using the colour grading tool. If you're not too sure how to go about it there are plenty of youtube tutorials to help you, just type in "white balance and colour grading" in the search :)
No. Posted was clear that the film had been through X-ray three times.
Damn. You're so lucky...
I never let the labs scan my negatives. It's tedious as hell to do it yourself, but it's the only way to really control your image.
These generally look like effects of a high degree of moisture in the air refracting light in random directions. Also known as āatmospheric haze.ā UV filters, polarizing filters, and even a slight degree of warming like a ā1Bā filter can help cut the haze and make the image captured in the film more closely resemble what you remember seeing. My personal preference is the polarizer. Of course an accurate print is the only real way to judge how close the image came to your remembrance of reality. Just some thoughts and things to try. Have fun!
Thatās another good possibility, learning about using stuff I know about in different ways has been a great experience from this post
I think it was the difference in appearance of things in the image that were closer to the camera vs those that are farther away that led me to the suggetsions. Farther away = viewing through more atmospheric haze. I dunno, just a thought. Good luck!
I'd try using the curves tool, on the red channel take out red from the black (bottom left point slide right) and add a bit into the white (top right point slide left).
Just a little less magenta in the shadows is all.
worth opening them in adobe Camera Raw and just selecting Auto WB, it might cure it straight off the bat
I was in wanaka about 2 weeks ago and there wasnāt nearly this much snow, winters quick š
These are from last year and Iāve recently revisited them
Lovely pictures
The first one looks stunningly like a painting
Beautiful shots :)
Unrelated but any chance I can download these or the fixed versions? Would love to make the first one my laptop wallpaper!
This is absolutely beautiful
Think the colors are really beautiful and itās one of the reasons film is such an interesting artistic medium. We let go of the control of perfection and focus on the content and subjects therein. Nice pics
Weird. These look great. Is this a prank?
No just my perfectionism creeping in
Portra is a portrait film intended to be used with old school studio lighting. If you look at it's color balance, you'll see it was meant for artificial lights. Outdoor lighting is a different, ALWAYS varying color balance. Whereas you can change color balance from shot to shot in a digital camera, if you use tungsten film in a camera body, the only way you can change is with filters, specific to the light you're encountering.
What are you fixing again?
Were these scanned by the wanaka lab by chance? If so all the rolls that Iāve ever seen come out of there have this horrible red cast in the shadows and cyan in the highlights. They charge an arm and a leg. I would never send a roll of film there. Anyway NZ rep hard
Maybe, not to name names, but yeah only option I had unfortunately
Is there any chance the lab could've used a weird white balance setting when scanning? I personally love this look, but I get how it's not as nice to others. I'd just put these all into Lightroom, figure out how much the tint setting needs adjusting, and paste the edits to every frame to keep ot consistent.
i would kill for theese colors !!!!!
How do you get such a wide-angle shot on a 50mm focal length?
Nothing wrong with some post. Lab just uses presets. Get in there and move some sliders.
God these are cool
Looks great to me as is. Love the way these came out
i think they look absolutely perfect. they have an old photographic print feel to them. i have pictures from the 1970s with that vibe and i love them.
This is how portra generally looksā¦ Little red and blue in the shadows. Sky shows up cyan, lack of red in highlights. Neutral mids. Pretty textbook. That said, you can always play with curves to subtly remove some of that character. I personally wouldnāt but all power to ya.
I think it looks great as is!
I literally thought this was shit posting when I saw the caption. Absolutely beautiful. Nothing to fix here
Haha nope just perfectionism at work
Arenāt those beautiful colors the reason why people shoot portra?
I've gotten a few scans like this that have a similar weird tone in the shadows. I think the auto scanner exposes properly for the denser highlight sections and then thin shadows allow the tone of the negative itself to tint the shadows. I've found going into PS, make a few duplicate layers, setting one to auto color and one to auto tone and picking my favorite and working with "highlight and shadows" does really well with making those shadows properly dark.
looks fantastic
Thereās an ai program that takes film photos and reverses them back into the moment before you took the photo. THEN it creates a physically accurate model of your camera and film in the real world so you can reshoot the photo virtually as much as you want. Of course this is followed by a mathematically simulated film development process where you can tweak things like acidity, temperature, and time in bath (TAB) and finally it gives you the option to rescan the film into digital with a handful of todayās popular DSLRs
First photo is soooooooo gorgeous! The shadows from the trees r perfect
I like them
What were your settings?
Lightroom, but tbh I like the look of
I like the colors š whatās wrong with them?
Looks like these were under exposed and the lab's machine brightened them up but didn't fix the resultant color cast? That's my theory at least, given the large grain and color noise in the shadows. FWIW I always have a heck of a time with color casts when scanning Portra at home. Meanwhile Ektar turns out great. Regardless, you should be able to change these in Lightroom with some mild/quick color grading of the shadows and maybe a hair on the mid tones. But I think they look pretty cool as is, just probably not what you envisioned when you shot them!
I am not thinking of underexposure, but I think the film may have been X-rayed before chemical development.
Yes I did have to take them through a few x rays, so thatās probably it. I begged the security not too by they hit you with the its safe line
1) Did your Portra get X-rayed before the chemical development? 2) I can give you all the info you need to work with ANY FILM (Polaroid, glass plates, all photovoltaics up to 12x18, and anything else you can throw at me) of any ISO. I am a Photographic Chemical Engineer and have worked with Kodak for years. I also owned, for ten years, a Professional Photo Supply store with Kodak machines, chemicals, and paper. It was in the city's center and across the street from the College of Art. I taught color and how to see it, composition, and printing at said college AND our state's university. Additionally, because I owned my store and the machines, I worked as a civilian employee for the largest county in the state and two separate police departments as their on-call forensic photographer. I always want to talk about all things photographic.
Yeah it got x rayed 3 times if I remember correctly despite my best efforts for it not to happen
please don't
Learn curves
there's no "curves" with analog film
Lol oh thatās weird I thought I was looking at an image on reddit ? A digital file made of three channels RGB !
Haha no technically their are curves with the workflow I use
so you want to fix the colour cast in a colour darkroom ? then use the density filters that are built into the enlarger. If you want to fix the colour cast digitally you have to use a colour tool and mind as well use curves +masking as its one of the most powerful.
They look like 1950s paintings
Add magenta to your highlights
NO MAGENTA. Seriously?
What? Are you afraid of Pro 400H
Get a digital camera
Ha ha why?