HELP! Whatta heck is that?

[erich_vasconcelos]

Again, I'm posting a photo in which you can clearly see the abnormal chromatic effect I'd talked about earlier . I've darkened the photo a little, so the effect appears better.

This time the photo was taken with an analog Canon Ixus APS camera, which gets images right 99% of times.

First I thought it could be my UV-filter attached to my Canon lensen, on my Canon AE-1. But since the problem also appears on the compact Ixus, which can't be used with filters, that theory is considered now busted.

Secondly, it was suggested it was a defect of the lenses. Curiously, all photos where crystal clear, sharp and there was no signs of defect. Only that curious effect that showed up in many photos in which a subject is placed in front of a blue sky; like when it's a constrasty situation. But that can't be a defect on the glass, can it?

Then there's the problem of the metering system. Could it be that? In my primate AE-1, which was the first camera in the world to have an electronic metering system, the TTL-method is used for evaluating light distribution across the frame. Then it can be possible that in these contrasty situation the camera just gets it wrong, right?

I rulled out the film and lab as the source of the problem too, cause I got perfect pictures from both.

* I ask again what causes this strange effect?
* Does anyone has experienced the same?
* If it's indeed the metering, can you come up with ideas to overcome the problem?

Thanks for the help!

[another view]

Hi Erich - the photo isn't attached. You can upload directly from the forum, click on "Upload Photos" which is below "Submit Reply". It's a little bit of a leap of faith the first time you do it because it doesn't look like it's attached, but hit submit and it should be fine. If not, you can edit and redo it.

So without the photo, I can't comment on it! In the last photo, I had to ask you what the problem was because it wasn't obvious. Once I knew, I really had to look to see it but maybe it's more obvious on a print.

One thing about metering, no system is perfect. Even the latest greatest thing out there can be fooled in some situations. My Nikon F100's matrix metering (the supposedly most advanced mode) doesn't like low light or bright highlights. It's good with any piece of equipment to learn what it can do, and almost as importantly what it can't do.

[Peter_AUS]

av, click on the work earlier in his post. It takes you to the post he is having a concern about with an image.

[Mig]

"I rulled out the film and lab as the source of the problem too, cause I got perfect pictures from both."

Are you saying that the print versions are fine and just the digitals show the haloing? Or are you taking about previous instances where you've used this film/lab?

If you are talking about just the digital versions, then the most likely culprit is post-processing. Sharpening in particular will create haloing when it is not done properly. If you could clarify this it would probably help.

Danielle

[another view]

Didn't realize we were still talking about the same shot - or are we?

One thing to keep in mind is that it's very unlikely that the print you're looking at wasn't created digitally. Very few places print optically (aka wet prints, darkroom prints) anymore and you'd really have to seek out a place that does it. So in looking at a print, you're looking at a digital print.

I'm sure that these mini-labs will do some auto color correction and sharpening (much like a digicam will) but just like the metering in your camera, anything automatic is never perfect. It's very possible that it's not on the negative itself, and more careful digital work would not show this - but that's going to be expensive if you don't do it yourself.

This haloing may only show up if the light conditions are just right, or if someone's not paying careful attention to the printing at the lab - could be a lot of reasons. It's not a metering problem. Have you checked the negative itself very carefully to see if it's on there?

[Sebastian]

It looks very much like the articafting one would get from the Shadows and Highlights filter in PS. Looks like some sort of processing was run over the images.

[erich_vasconcelos]

Here's the photo!

[erich_vasconcelos]

"I rulled out the film and lab as the source of the problem too, cause I got perfect pictures from both."

Are you saying that the print versions are fine and just the digitals show the haloing? Or are you taking about previous instances where you've used this film/lab?

If you are talking about just the digital versions, then the most likely culprit is post-processing. Sharpening in particular will create haloing when it is not done properly. If you could clarify this it would probably help.

Danielle

Danielle, I'm not talking about the digital version. That "halo" can be seen both print photos and it's digital form (using my scanner). I ruled out the lab because all other photos came out perfectly, and I always have my pictures done at one photolab. The same can be said about the film: sometimes I got perfect pictures, but on the same roll one of the comes out with the halo.

[erich_vasconcelos]

Didn't realize we were still talking about the same shot - or are we?

One thing to keep in mind is that it's very unlikely that the print you're looking at wasn't created digitally. Very few places print optically (aka wet prints, darkroom prints) anymore and you'd really have to seek out a place that does it. So in looking at a print, you're looking at a digital print.

I'm sure that these mini-labs will do some auto color correction and sharpening (much like a digicam will) but just like the metering in your camera, anything automatic is never perfect. It's very possible that it's not on the negative itself, and more careful digital work would not show this - but that's going to be expensive if you don't do it yourself.

This haloing may only show up if the light conditions are just right, or if someone's not paying careful attention to the printing at the lab - could be a lot of reasons. It's not a metering problem. Have you checked the negative itself very carefully to see if it's on there?

I'm going to take a lot at the negatives just to be sure.

[erich_vasconcelos]

I have now examined every negative where the halo appears, and see no sign of this effect on it. The halo appears on paper, but not on the negative.

It may be the poor labwork, since the rolls of film which were developed in Brazil - by then I had used the same gear, the same lenses - dind't show any trace of the halo...So, can I be right??

Help! I'm frustrated.I'm desperate! I'm about to become a buddhist monk to have enough time to reflect/maditate about this problem... =)

[another view]

Erich, the print that you're looking at is (I'm about 99% sure) in fact a digital print. Most (almost all) mini-labs will develop the film, scan the negatives and print them digitally although it's a much different process than printing on a desktop inkjet printer.

The problem is happening somewhere between scanning and printing with the automatic presets they put in for color correction, lightness/contrast, etc.

Take that same negative to another lab - a good one - and see what their print looks like.

With the recent change by the lab that I use (which I have to admit is an improvement), I don't know of any labs that optically print color negative film anymore. Not that one is always better than the other - much more important is the quality and care that the lab's employees put into their work.

[Trevor Ash]

Erich, the print that you're looking at is (I'm about 99% sure) in fact a digital print. Most (almost all) mini-labs will develop the film, scan the negatives and print them digitally although it's a much different process than printing on a desktop inkjet printer.

The problem is happening somewhere between scanning and printing with the automatic presets they put in for color correction, lightness/contrast, etc.

Take that same negative to another lab - a good one - and see what their print looks like.

With the recent change by the lab that I use (which I have to admit is an improvement), I don't know of any labs that optically print color negative film anymore. Not that one is always better than the other - much more important is the quality and care that the lab's employees put into their work.

What he said. As soon as I saw the first photo you linked to (the one with the dark circle object in the middle I thought exactly what Steve's talking about.

Here's the thing about those machines...many people assume they apply the same processing on each and every image. Thr truth it turns out, is that they use very complicated algorithms that attempt to determine the type of photo and even what areas of the photo contain what kinds of objects. People, buildings, sky, clouds, grass, flowers, animals, balloons, etc. When the software algorithm thinks it knows what an area of the photo is (a sky for example) it's going to adjust that portion of the photo (and the print) to best emphasize the qualities of that type of object. So for the sky, it's going to make it look more blue and saturated. If it thinks it's a caucasian person, it'll try and make the skin tones look good. If it thinks it's grass, the greens will be enhanced. You get the idea.

These machines and the software running them is surprisingly smart, and dumb at the same time