Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Don't cry, just do it! [was Velvia 50 replacement]

Subject: [OM] Re: Don't cry, just do it! [was Velvia 50 replacement]
From: "Michael Wong" <mialop@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:45:33 +0800
Moose,
Thank you very much. I have got a lesson.

In the past, I scanned slide film to chase same effect of "original"
slide image. So I was going to limit my mind for color adjusting &
cropping. I do my best to keep the digital image same as original
slide image.

I don't know how to put correct ICC profile of different films into my
CoolScan IV ED but I absolutely agree that "What the subject should
have looked like" or "What the scene felt like".

Thank you for your encourage & I'll change my viewpoint on the
photographic process & learn more skills.

Thanks again for your examples for my photos.


-- 
Michael

An Olympus OM system fans



2007/6/10, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Michael Wong wrote:
> > Wow .................. why can't I take such quality pictures with
> > 160VC? (Crying) ...........
> >
> Michael Wong wrote:
> > Yes, compare with Fujichrome, Kodak's is warmer than Fuji's & less
> > blue than Fuji's. Fuji's is more cool color balance, it's my
> > experience.
> Michael Wong wrote:
> > E100vs is excellent for magic hour & flower shots because it's strong
> > in red color performance. Its' green color performance is not as good
> > as Velvia but I think it's acceptable.
> >
> > I agree that for normal sunny day shot, Fuji Velvia 50 is better than
> > E100vs.
> >
> You have answered your own question. You rely on film and processor to
> give color balance, contrast, etc. and vary the result by using
> different films. That doesn't work with color neg films.
>
> With slides, the whole process of working with image variables in the
> process of going from light focused on film to finished image ready for
> viewing is automated. If one is used to and happy with this model,
> scanning becomes rather simple too, with the goal of matching the
> available "correct" slide image.
>
> With color neg film, the process is only consistent as far as the
> negative resulting from standardized processing. From there on, there is
> just the opposite of standardization. Shoot three rolls of the same film
> in cameras side by side and take it to three different brands of
> processing/printing. They will differ considerably, sometimes wildly,
> from each other. Take three different films, do the same exposure
> process and send them all to the same processor. The differences will
> usually be considerably less than those of the first test. This is
> because automated printing parameters reduce differences in the negs
> themselves. If you use Auto white balance in scanning, it will do much
> the same leveling of films.
>
> With no standard "correct" image to which to refer, scanning and post
> processing become a different thing than for the slide shooter who
> simply wants to reproduce the look of the slide. There are many ways to
> approach this issue. Some are:
>
> - Use a color balance reference, like the WhiBal and many others. Shoot
> it in the same light as the subject and use the eyedroppers in the
> Levels or other control boxes in your scanner or editor software to
> correct the color. This works quite well with digital cameras, but is
> less perfect with film, as differences in response curves for the color
> layers may still result in color casts in highlights and/or shadows.
>
> - Profile your films. This is a process where an IT8 target with a broad
> range of color tones and brightnesses is shot with each film and the
> scanned film is processed to produce in international standard icc color
> profile. Use of this profile in scanner or editor corrects the image to
> neutral color balance and contrast curve. The 'down' side for those used
> to choosing image appearance by choosing film is that all films come out
> with the same color, contrast, etc. Here are some examples of simply
> scanning Portra 160NC vs using an icc profile.
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Scan/VuesProf/
>
> So if you want a different appearance, you need to do that yourself.
> There are both stand alone programs and editor plug-ins that work to
> duplicate the 'look' of various slide films.
>
> - Learn to use a capable photo editor, which may be part of your
> scanning software, and use it to reproduce what you remember of the
> subject in a natural way that you find pleasing. It may seem like
> cheating, but really, film doesn't 'see' things like our human visual
> systems do anyway.
>
> - Use you scan/editor software to create the image you want, without too
> much regard for color accurate reproduction of the original. More like
> "What the subject should have looked like" or "What the scene felt
> like". Our vision system has an inescapable emotional component, we have
> feelings about what we see that color our memory of things we have seen.
> To reproduce the "feeling look" of a subject seems to me to be valid way
> to create images. It's certainly what the great B&W landscape and art
> photographers of the last century did in their darkrooms.
>
> - And one may go further - into clear manipulation of the image for
> creative purposes. Fernando's lovely recent post starts to move into
> this category. Or for didactic purposes. My alternate of Dan's big truck
> image to make the human figure clearer for scale is an example of this.
> The resulting light isn't natural unless there is a big, white building
> behind the photographer, but the image better serves the purpose for
> which it was taken.
>
> So the answer is clear. You, Michael, CAN take beautiful images with
> Portra, or indeed any decent neg film, but you have to change your
> viewpoint on the photographic process and learn some new skills if you
> wish to do so. IMHO, you could use some of those skills even to improve
> the results of scanning your slides. I've previously posted a few examples.
>
> This is a classic example. Whether the film was too cool or not, no one
> looking at this scene would remember it as so blue. Our vision systems
> adjust to ambient light to an amazing extent.
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/MWong/IMG2122.htm
>
> And our eyes 'see' tonal graduation and shadow detail differently than film.
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/MWong/IMG1998.htm
>
> I would even argue that someone viewing this scene would not see the
> distant hills as being as indistinct as film, especially UV sensitive
> film not protected from the UV that we don't see, reproduced it. I may
> have overdone it, as I often do to make a point, but I"ll bet the
> feeling-look when you took the sot was closer to my version than the
> untouched version.
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/MWong/IMG1860.htm
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz