In a message dated 1/3/2003 5:11:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Regards, > Bob.... > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" > - Benjamin Franklin > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > 1. What color ARE color negatives? (color print film) > > Developed color negatives display the color complements of the colors > focused on it during exposure plus an approximately orange cast. Interesting re orange cast. > > 2. Who's to say the original 4x6 prints are right? (Right in the sense > that they show the color the camera recorded at the time?) > > First, they never do. They can't. Neither the film nor the paper has the > recording range available in real scenes. Second, because our brains do a > considerable amount of color balancing, especially at dawn, dusk and under > incandescent & fluorescent lights, whatever color balance works perfectly > for one condition cannot work perfectly for others. Third, many films were > never designed to provide an exactly faithful reproduction of any scene. > Films designed for enhanced or vivid color rendition come to mind. Now, > beyond that, each film manufacturer has designed their film to provide a > certain rendition of the original scene under specific lighting/exposure > conditions and when developed in the manor described by the manufacturer > using a certain paper with the paper developed per prescribed methods. If > your prints are rendered by an automated development system, there will be a > series of letters and numbers on the back of the print. These give the > compensation, if any. The person who develops your prints should be able to > tell you exactly what adjustments, if any, were made for each print. If not, > he shouldn't be your developer. Whoa! Well, that is really a piece of information I had never come across before. Will look for that. > > 3. But if one lab can develop color prints a different color than another > lab can develop them, how can I ever tell if *I* had ANYTHING to do with the > color they come out? > > Beyond the code described in 2, above, in reality, you can't. :-( > > 4. What color is actually there? How come any machine cannot look at color > negatives and arrive at the same color in the prints? > > Actually, given the same compensation is given to the prints in each case > and the same paper is used, each lab should produce the same results. > Factors which affect this are development bath temperature control, age and > use of chemicals, i.e. how cheep is the developer. Hehe. > > 5. This is why people use slide film isn't it? Because the developing > process doesn't change the color? And because the photographer can see what > color the pictures really came out? > > Partly. Slide film also limits the range of the film. Slides (some) appear > to be more faithful though within a comparatively narrower range. Slides > also add a "punch" (I can't describe) not seen in print film. Punch being back lit, I presume. Basically even with digital processing I don't see how a print made from a slide can ever be as really colorful as the slide. But it could come close. > > 6. *Is* the developing of color slide film accurate? (i.e. Do slides come > out the color the camera recorded? > > Some do, within a narrower lighting range. Since it is the recording media, > all film comes out the color the camera recorded by definition. It's still > does not _exactly_ reproduce the light that entered the lens. The discussion > regarding the way our brains work applies here too. Right. The camera is limited compared to the human eye. > > Color is very important to me. > > There are color/shade cards which can be placed in the scene prior to taking > the actual photo. These can be used by professional labs to provide > excellent color calibration. Such exact color calibration > is often necessary > in the fashion world. Interesting. Bit more than I want to do. But the gray card and checking the back of the prints sounds doable. Thanks! Doe aka Marnie
