Yesterday, I asked a question about changing

film when the entire roll isn't exposed. The

suggestions worked well.

However...

The reason I wanted to do it - using color

film at a party - ended in tears. I got my

film back from the pro lab I used and it's

horrible! It's Kodak Supra 400 processed

normally. The light wasn't great at the

restaurant but it wasn't terrible either -

1/60 at f2.8, perhaps. I was using the

Summilux 35.

I scanned the negatives using a Kodak RFS

3600. I didn't get prints made. The scanner is

fairly new, so I thought it might be an issue

of calibration, especially as this is the

first color negative film I've scanned.

However, I then scanned some Supra I took in

daylight using an F100 and the results are

fine.

I would really appreciate any suggestions you

might have on this issue.

Here's the bad:

http://www.dingoboy.com/bad.jpg

Here's the good from the F100:

http://www.dingoboy.com/good.jpg

I'm not unfamiliar with poor results but these just seem odd.

Regards, Fergus

-- Fergus Hammond (fhammond@adobe.com), November 30, 2000

Answers

On the "bad" shot, I notice the colors look pretty good on the left side - notice the green & blue colored lights, the wall decorations, and the skin tine of the person at the far left. The rest of the frame seems washed with an unnatural light. Notice the incadescent - maybe halogen - spotlights on the ceiling - these lights can be bad news for outdoor color balanced flm. Your "good" shot, on the other hand, is an outdoor shot - no artifical lights at all.

Before suspecting any of the equipment, I would shoot a single roll in a variety of lighting situations, outdoors and indoors with different types of lighting. Then have prints made - notice the different effect of different lights on outdoor film. Then scan the negs in to see how they match the prints.

You may find all your equipment is working just fine. It may be just the outdoor film reacting differently to different types of light.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), December 01, 2000.

You're comparing a photograph made under artifical light with one made in natural light, which doesn't make any sense. The color looks exactly like what one gets with incandescent light. I'd recommend a good book on lighting, it has nothing to do with the specific film.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 01, 2000.

Ok, both answers make sense to me. I did have a "good" indoor shot but I guess it was under a different type of light. I'm not sure what type of light the restaurant had. I'll have to go back and take a look. I'm sure they'll think I'm crazy.

Any suggestions on good books regarding this subject? I'm used to digital cameras (the Nikon D1) and B&W film but this issue is new to me.

Regards, Fergus

P.S. Sorry about the odd formatting on the original post. I copy/pasted from another program.

-- Fergus Hammond (fhammond@adobe.com), December 01, 2000.

Why are you not correcting the colour of your indoor shot?

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), December 01, 2000.

That's exactly the colour I'd expect from an uncorrected indoor shot under incandescent light. You should be able to do a fair bit with it in Photoshop or any other photo editing program. Start by pulling out a lot of red and yellow - you'll see a big difference.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), December 01, 2000.

There's an excellent book that is probably out of print by Michael Freeman called "Light." You may be able to find it second hand.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 01, 2000.

Apples and jackfruit!!!

Perhaps any basic book on color photog. will clear things up. I've always enjoyed leafing through the books by John Schaeffer.

HTH,

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), December 02, 2000.