A question on ''GREENS''

[jgredline]

Hi folks.
All in all I have 5 film bodies. I have tried a at least 8 different types of film and they all seem to have one thing in common. It is not big deal to me as it is one of the things I like about film...

It seems the ''GREENS'' come out quite soft. The farther away they are, the softer they get, even when the rest of the image is sharp...I don't quite remember, but I seem to recall that the Greens where a tough deal on film when shooting in bright light....What are your thoughts? Here are images from my last roll...Kodak HD 400 speed film...Or maybe I am tripping...

Looking over downtown alhambra.


Rail roads. Notice how sharp the overall image is, except the greens in the back ground.


The moss in the river bed.


The trees in the back ground.


Even the greens on the drawing.


These greens look ok to me, because I was close.


Yet, as I get farther away, the greens begin to look soft.


Here is a good example of the soft greens. I was shooting in the direction of the sun. Could this be it?


Yet, these greens look good...


And these greens look very soft, almost fake...or am I seeing things...I like the look, but wondering if this is normal.

[drg]

Javier,

Are you scanning prints or negatives? I'm not seeing terrible color, just some things that may need post processing to overcome the digital transfer.

The cemetery example appears to be more an issue of resolution and possible Focusing (or DOF) than color. The angle of the sun may be actually creating highlights in the grass that are overexposed. A ND or CPL could help to compress or bring everything 'down' a notch or two. C-41 film though if not terribly overexposed should easily handle this amount of Dynamic Range. It also appears that you are shooting at midday which can play horrible tricks and it is just about the worst possible time (light wise) to make photographs.

The best test is to shoot under very similar circumstances with the same camera and most importantly lens, and varying only the film emulsion. Get it developed and printed at the same place and printed on the same paper. Kodak and Fuji papers will look quite different. Kodak has at least three commonly used papers and they each have a very different appearance. The cardboard stuff works well for skin tones and warmer colors, but not so well for scenic work. Their E-paper ( a pro product, and common/usual for a pro lab to use) will soften certain colors and blend others. This can be resolved easily by a skilled operator, and should be!

The cheapest Kodak RA paper, from a mail in lab or bulk lab works best for most Kodak films used for 'vacation' or travel pictures.

Post one or two images from a different film emulsion for comparison. That might help to determine what you think you are seeing that is a problem.

I don't see a big issue here other than minor need for color correction and probably a bit of curves adjusment to get the color contrasts more balance.

[California L33]

The further away you are the more haze you'll have. Haze will affect the most intense colors first, and it looks like the most intense color in the distance in all your examples is green. (Check the red roof in the riverbed shot in the distance- it isn't saturated, either). The downtown shot was clearly taken on a really hazy day. And in the shots by the railroad bridge you can see the high voltage transmission towers in the distance blur out in the haze.

I can't say for certain, and it could be the scan, or even my monitor, but everything looks a bit underexposed. Try running some tests with bracketing. And get some better film. As I recall, you've got some really fine equipment. Why not run the best film possible through it? I've never been fond of Kodak consumer film, except Kodachrome.

Yet another possible culprit is the processing. I think I read in another post that you have your film processed at a drugstore (not sure, could be somebody else). Try a pro photo lab- do a test- same subjects, same exposure, process one at the drugstore, one at a pro lab. If they do it right at the drugstore you won't notice a difference, but I've heard horror stories of some bulk film places turning up the temperature on their chemicals to run batches faster, or taking other shortcuts, and getting questionable results. That doesn't mean they all do it.

[photophorous]

Are you talking about sharpness or color accuracy? Are these negative scans done by a lab? If so, what's the resolution?

You'll get better colors over all if you shoot in softer light, later in the evening or early morning, but when you have to shoot in the middle of the day, a circular polarizer will help a lot. Haze is one problem, but shiny foliage will reflect light, creating tiny little bright spots that cause the greens to get kind of washed out, and if it's over exposed you'll loose sharpness too. I think a polarizer will help a lot, but if that doesn't get you the colors you want, try some slide films. At least with slide films you can see the original which makes it a lot easier to see the effects of scanning / printing.

If it's a sharpness issue there could be several causes. Obviously it could be slow shutter speeds or shallow DOF, but considering the lighting and the fact that you're using 400 ISO film, I doubt either of those would be a problem. If these scans are low in resolution, that could be the problem. You need a lot of resolution to resolve the detail of random natural patterns like leaves and grass. It will be worse as the distance increases because the patterns are getting smaller and more intricate, relative to your resolution. When you run out of pixels to record the patterns, you get random blobs that look soft and unnatural. It has nothing to do with color, but this is one of my biggest beefs with using digital cameras for landscape photography. I suppose the same could happen with low rez film scans. I'm not sure if that's your problem, but it's possible.

Paul

[jgredline]

DRG, Thanks for taking the time to comment. I really appreciate it and u very much.

Javier,

Are you scanning prints or negatives? I'm not seeing terrible color, just some things that may need post processing to overcome the digital transfer.

I am scanning the negatives. I have an HP scanner with VueScan software.

The cemetery example appears to be more an issue of resolution and possible Focusing (or DOF) than color. The angle of the sun may be actually creating highlights in the grass that are overexposed. A ND or CPL could help to compress or bring everything 'down' a notch or two. C-41 film though if not terribly overexposed should easily handle this amount of Dynamic Range. It also appears that you are shooting at midday which can play horrible tricks and it is just about the worst possible time (light wise) to make photographs.

Those where done in the middle of day. I do know better than that, however, for what I am seeing , I am not sure that earlier or later would help much. I am not un-happy with what I am seeing, but more curious as to why.

The best test is to shoot under very similar circumstances with the same camera and most importantly lens, and varying only the film emulsion. Get it developed and printed at the same place and printed on the same paper. Kodak and Fuji papers will look quite different. Kodak has at least three commonly used papers and they each have a very different appearance. The cardboard stuff works well for skin tones and warmer colors, but not so well for scenic work. Their E-paper ( a pro product, and common/usual for a pro lab to use) will soften certain colors and blend others. This can be resolved easily by a skilled operator, and should be!

I will give it a try..

The cheapest Kodak RA paper, from a mail in lab or bulk lab works best for most Kodak films used for 'vacation' or travel pictures.

Post one or two images from a different film emulsion for comparison. That might help to determine what you think you are seeing that is a problem.

I don't see a big issue here other than minor need for color correction and probably a bit of curves adjusment to get the color contrasts more balance.

OK, sounds good. Will do. For the most part, I am quite happy with the results I am getting, especially knowing I am not using the best films that are out there...I think part of the issue is that I am used to seeing digital images that are more vibrant, but look less real than film...I think this is one reason I like film so much. It just looks real...It is like the film captures what it sees and the digital captures what it think it sees..Does this make sense?

[jgredline]

Cali, Thanks for taking the time to take a look and respond.

The further away you are the more haze you'll have. Haze will affect the most intense colors first, and it looks like the most intense color in the distance in all your examples is green. (Check the red roof in the riverbed shot in the distance- it isn't saturated, either). The downtown shot was clearly taken on a really hazy day. And in the shots by the railroad bridge you can see the high voltage transmission towers in the distance blur out in the haze.

I can't say for certain, and it could be the scan, or even my monitor, but everything looks a bit underexposed. Try running some tests with bracketing. And get some better film. As I recall, you've got some really fine equipment. Why not run the best film possible through it? I've never been fond of Kodak consumer film, except Kodachrome.

I thought I was using good film with the Koday High Def 400, but perhaps I do need to step that up also. I was thinking about bracketing as well...I don't believe it is underexposed....it looks good to me and the histogram would seem to confirm this.?

Yet another possible culprit is the processing. I think I read in another post that you have your film processed at a drugstore (not sure, could be somebody else). Try a pro photo lab- do a test- same subjects, same exposure, process one at the drugstore, one at a pro lab. If they do it right at the drugstore you won't notice a difference, but I've heard horror stories of some bulk film places turning up the temperature on their chemicals to run batches faster, or taking other shortcuts, and getting questionable results. That doesn't mean they all do it.

Actually, I have started to send my stuff to a pro lab, but have not seen the results yet. I will post some pics when I get them back.

[jgredline]

Paul, Thanks for taking the time to respond to my silly questions..

Are you talking about sharpness or color accuracy? Are these negative scans done by a lab? If so, what's the resolution?

I am talking about the Sharpness. As far as res goes, I scan them at 1200dpi and use vuescan software on an HP dedicated scanner.

You'll get better colors over all if you shoot in softer light, later in the evening or early morning, but when you have to shoot in the middle of the day, a circular polarizer will help a lot. Haze is one problem, but shiny foliage will reflect light, creating tiny little bright spots that cause the greens to get kind of washed out, and if it's over exposed you'll loose sharpness too. I think a polarizer will help a lot, but if that doesn't get you the colors you want, try some slide films. At least with slide films you can see the original which makes it a lot easier to see the effects of scanning / printing.

I do have a poloraizer and normally do use one during this time of day, but as I said earlier, this issue with the greens has been an issue from the get go no matter what time of day I shoot in..

If it's a sharpness issue there could be several causes. Obviously it could be slow shutter speeds or shallow DOF, but considering the lighting and the fact that you're using 400 ISO film, I doubt either of those would be a problem. If these scans are low in resolution, that could be the problem. You need a lot of resolution to resolve the detail of random natural patterns like leaves and grass. It will be worse as the distance increases because the patterns are getting smaller and more intricate, relative to your resolution. When you run out of pixels to record the patterns, you get random blobs that look soft and unnatural. It has nothing to do with color, but this is one of my biggest beefs with using digital cameras for landscape photography. I suppose the same could happen with low rez film scans. I'm not sure if that's your problem, but it's possible.

Paul

What you said here make allot of sense to me..Not sure this is the problem, but makes sense.

[California L33]

jgredline;

I had a couple of other thoughts, keeping in mind that you could be having more than one problem at the same time. Are you using a polarizer? If not, and you're shooting mid-day in California and getting nearly natural blue skies, it makes me think, again, that maybe you're underexposing a bit. You said you have 8 bodies. Do they all do the same thing? Have you tried manually bumping your exposure by half to a full stop?

Also, you may just be capturing 'California greens.' Native plants, and those that do well in the summer, tend to be dark and flat. Eucalyptus (Australian) is a prime example everyone knows. Non-native plants from cooler climates can survive with enough water, but tend to yellow up in the summer- the lawn in front of the church is a good example of this, and you can see the lawn in the cemetery has really taken a heat beating. One place you've got a decent green is in the railroad yard. The trees on the hill are that dark, nearly colorless California green, but look at the tree behind the warehouses towards the right. It's probably a non-native, and it's not that bad.

[California L33]

I thought I was using good film with the Koday High Def 400

Try the Kodak 160VC, or UC400 or UC100. I think you'll see a difference.

Theoretically, the histograms don't lie, but I'd still try bumping the exposure a bit. The reason I say this is that with the exception of one background roof in the railroad yard, you don't seem to have a single highlight that's pure white. You're _not supposed_ to blow the highlights, but when shooting at high noon under summer sun it's hard not to and still get decent mid-ranges.

[jgredline]

Cali, your right. did not think about that....When I shoot digital, I always shoot exposed to the right, just before I blow the highlights out...

The more I think about the greens, the more I realize that the film is simply doing it's job..Anyway, I will try the UC100 next..

[California L33]

Cali, your right. did not think about that....When I shoot digital, I always shoot exposed to the right, just before I blow the highlights out...

The more I think about the greens, the more I realize that the film is simply doing it's job..Anyway, I will try the UC100 next..

I love green. But even here in the north state it's hard to photograph. Here's an example of one of my 'green' pictures. It's from May of 2002, but that's really late to get greens around here. This was taken on Mount Diablo in a little glen where there was still moisture, but honestly, by June I'm usually shooting exclusively in black and white. It's Agfa Ultra 50 (long discontinued) with a fair amount of dodging and burning.