Re: [Leica] Colour negative film

[John Collier <jbcollier@home.com>]

As you know films have different colour renditions and contrast ranges. I
use Kodak Portra 400 NC and love its normal colour rendition and low
contrast. It is primarily aimed at the huge wedding market so special
attention was paid to Caucasian skin tones (no comment), whites (wedding
dresses) and contrast (detail in black tux and white dress). Normal consumer
films have punchy colours and high contrast to give people that "pop off the
page" look. Under certain conditions they tend to pick up a fair amount of
red in the face and the whites tend to go a little bluish. Once the film is
exposed you cannot take these blues or the reds out as it will adversely
affect everything else. The computer can of course make accurate spot colour
corrections but it is work you do not have to do with the right film. Minor
overall colour corrections are best left to the printing stage but major
overall corrections, such as daylight/tungsten, fluorescent, mercury vapour
etc, affect how certain colours are recorded and you can not get back what
is not there. On the fluorescent front both Fugifilm (Reala and ?) and Kodak
(Portra) have an extra emulsion layer to handle fluorescent light more
naturally. I have used Portra under fluorescent lighting and it seems to
work fine. Portra was also formulated to be easy to scan though what they
did I cannot say. I would not say that C-41 is any cheaper than E-6 as to
get quality results you need to go to a quality lab. Well that is enough
bafflegab for now.

Cheers,

John Collier

Try "Color Photography, A Working Manual" by Henry Horenstein, Little, Brown
and Company, 1995, ISBN0-316-37316-8 (pb)

> From: Martin Howard <howard.390@osu.edu>
> 
> 
> OK, I'm now officially confused.  I've read about the Portra films on
> Kodak's site and about other manufacturer's colour negative film on their
> sites.  It seems that the Portra films come in two versions, VC and NC for
> more or less colour saturation.  There is also a lot of talk about how
> neutral greys are neutral, and how skin tone is natural.
> 
> But this is negative film, right?  I thought that the colour could be
> corrected (or screwed up) at the printing stage.  So, what's the difference?
> 
> Also, is there *any* point in using colour correction filters with colour
> negative film?
> 
> Hmm, does anyone know of a good source of information for how to use
> professional colour negative film?  It seems that I have a lot to learn.
> 
> (Why am I considering negative film and not trannies?  Well, it's cheaper,
> has greater exposure lattitude, is easier to make prints from, and
> presumably scans at least as well as chromes do.  BTW -- is it E6 or C-41
> that's a female dog to do in the home darkroom?)
> 
> M.
> 
> -- 
> Martin Howard                     |
> Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU       |  All wiyht. Rho sritched mg
> email: howard.390@osu.edu         |  kegtops awound?
> www: http://mvhoward.i.am/        +---------------------------------------
> 
>