Sorry, I tried to add the attachment but for some reason it was not added to my last comment. You need to view my portfolio to see the reprint. Sorry, Brad
Brad, Yeah I agree the rock detail has disappeared slighly, I am sure we can bring it back if we really tried. If you do get the slide reprinted, then maybe get a neutral print done too, ie with no corrections done to it by the lab, and we could compare them all. Brad, super shot for a 2 second shot braced on the post. I personally wouldn'thave attempted the shot, but in that case I would have missed out on this great shot. Russell
Mr. Fletcher, Your latest edition of this photo looks more like the waterfall I remember seeing. However, it is contrasty and you cannot see any rock detail behind the falls. The green does look more accurate in your last image. I do not have a negative/slide scanner. I may have the slide reprinted and repost the image. I also wanted to tell everyone that this was a two second exposure. Usefilm did not give me the option to select 2 sec. Therefore, I had to use the closest exposure time. Also, the camera was handheld as I braced it against a fence post. I was so afraid that it would come out blurry.
Hi Brad, I agree with you about the fight between what colours we really saw and what colours look better. I am no expert with respects to the numbering, but my limited knowledge leads me to these conclusions. The code is broken into Red Green Blue & Density, (RGB D) in that order. So from what I can determine, is that that Red has been increased by one step, and Green has been decreased by one step (this actually then increases the magenta in the image), the Blue has not been changed and the denisty has been decreased by 2 steps too. For me if the image had to much blue I would have increased both Red & Green as this decreases the blue in the image. But by decreasing the Green, ie increasing the Magenta you get more red in the image. Only a scan of the negative/slide and a comparison with the print will really tell us. I have had another play with the colours, slightly different, but yeah, you know. Hear from you in a while Russell
Mr. Fletcher, I do understand what you are saying about color correction and reality. You brought up a good point when you stated that alterations have already occurred when you pick up your prints. However, I am afraid that if I start manipulating color in my prints, I will not be able to distinguish the color I want and the color that I remember seeing. My print was made from a Kodak lab that was a K-Mart send out. I looked on the back of my print to see what numbers/letters I have and I found "+01-01+00-02" There were was not a letter "N" on the back of my print. Do you know what it means? Does it mean the print got too much blue? I look forward to your reply. Thanks, Brad
Hi Brad, Thanks for your detail reply. I would say I am in the same frame of mind as you in reference to photo-manipulaiton of images, (I mighy have a fiddle with contrast), I generally scan all my photos from my prints from the lab. It was only after talking to a guy at a Kodak lab that he told me about the parameters printed on the back of my print. For example a print had values of N-1 N N-1 39. Each N was in reference to the Red, Green & Blue channels, and the last value was a netural denisty factor. So in this case the RED channel was depleted by 1 step, along with the Blue channel, thus producing the print from the negative, this information would allow them to produce the same colours in a reprint if they used the negatives again. Thus when i scan off the print I am always happy with the results as the printing lab has actally already done some manipluation of the colour channels. So when i take the negative and scan the negative myself, the colour correction I do is exactly the same as what the lab would do to produce my print. I don't like to alter photos but I have to realise that by the time I recieve my prints some alterations have already occured. I agree with your comments about my attempt on your image looking old and faded, as I said in my first comment, I was not convinced of my result being any better, just different. Thanks for that little tip bit about waterfalls and open shade, I will remember that for future reference. I hope you can understand my waffle about colour correction and reality. Russell
Mr. Fletcher, Thank you for your wonderful comments. I am glad you brought up this point because I am struggling with this issue and I was hoping someone would notice! First of all I used Fuji Provia which is known for its bluish/green cast. The slide does have a bluish/green cast but not quite as bad as the print. The print has a strong bluish cast that is similiar to the scan. I think it was a result of shooting in "open shade." I have read that when you photograph waterfalls they are often in "open shade" which creates a blue cast. I should have used a warming filter to correct the cast. Also, when I scan photos, I hate to use any type of photo editing other than simple cropping. It isn't my style to alter photos. I appreciate your attempt to "color correct" the print but I do not like the color in your image. Your copy of it looks old and faded and still greenish. I believe that both of our images are off. Thanks for your comments and your attempt. Brad
Brad, I have a similar image in my folio http://www.usefilm.com/image/693272.html The original scan from the negative had a similar cool blue cast, but with similar adjustments to the blue and red channels I was able to achieve the folio image, which is alot closer to what I remember seeing. I have attached a copy of the original scan of that image for you to see the differences. Hear from you soon Russell
Brad, Lovely shot of this wonderful water fall, what a great view point you had. I am not sure how you scan in your slides/negatives, but I find that this image has a real blue cast to it. I have given the image a bit of treatment, I don't know if it is better but I just feel that it brings out some more of the greens and the warmth from the light on the left tree. This is the first time I have used PS to alter the colour casts, while if you are using a film scanner, and the colour casts can be adjusted in the scanning process. The main colour adjustment I did was to reduce the blue, and then increase the red. I generally just use a flatbed scanner to scan my prints (thus the prints are already adjusted), but I borrowed a film scanner and have picked up the issue with cast, and their correction. Let me know what you think. How do you scan in your slide/negatives? Russell
0 
