 Eileen |
color saturation A few years ago I purchased a Canon EOS Elan 7 to replace an entry-level Minolta 3xi. I have tried everything from filters to using manual exposures, auto exposures, bracketing, etc. with the Canon, but the results are consistently dull photos. The colors I had achieved with the Minolta blew away anything that I have done with the Canon. I have yet to take a single photo with the Canon that I actually enjoy! What may be contributing to this problem?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jen |
Eileen, I'm just curious... what kinds of film have you tried? Jen M.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Eileen |
Hi Jen, I have used Kodax Max(200, 400), Kodak Portra 400VC, and Fuji.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Greetings Eileen. Since I'm unfamiliar with both cameras you mentioned, I'll assume you're talking about film. Aside from using warming filters like an 81A or 81B, there are a couple of other things you can try. First, any color negative film like the Max and Porta, have a wide range of exposure latitude and you'll get better color saturation if you overexpose by about 1 stop. So, for 200 ISO, shoot it at 100, 400 ISO at 200, etc. With transparency films which have less exposure latitude than negative stock [like Velvia (Velveeta If you're shooting black and white at all, try using various contrast filters like reds, greens, yellow or yellow/green. Also, how the negatives are printed assuming they look alright, makes a huge difference in how the prints turn out and in terms of their saturation and contrast. You can tell the printer that the negatives look good but the prints are flat and they can reprint them. Or, find another lab/printer. Lastly, the two films you mentioned: Kodak Max is a general consumer grade film. The Porta is a variable contrast (VC) film for use in lower light situations. Try a slower speed pro grade negative film like Kodak Vericolor 160 exposed at 80 to 100 ISO, or Fuji Superia. Run some tests with the superia and keep track of how you shot it, eg. what filters you used on which frames and at what ISO, photographing the same subject. Okie dokie? Try those things and see how you like the results.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Will Turner |
If you've eliminated exposure, film and the printing process as a variable (simply by using the same exact film, exposure settings, subject, and printing lab on all three), then the most likely culprit is the lens. Filters won't improve a lens with poor contrast and color rendition. Try a Canon prime lens known for its optical quality on your EOS and see if there's a difference.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Steve Warren |
As a Maxxum user, I'm tempted to say it's the camera, but of course that's not likely. If you take shots in bright conditions, try using a lens shade. It will block stray light from hitting the lens and degrading saturation and contrast. If all else fails, come back to Maxxums! LOL
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
did you have the film developed at different places? If you used the same places to develop and get prints done, I would say that you could take to them and see if they could bump up the saturation. I know there's some kind of kodak perfect touch processing that's supposed to do something special, they results could be different if you had it done once and not another. I believe that it doesn't have anything to do with the camera. It's more about how it's exposed, developed, and printed in your case at least. If you're using the stock kit lens that would come with both camera, then there shouldn't be much difference. Anyway, try that overexposure thing. Maybe like a half stop or 2/3 stop? Also, in Kodak Portra VC, the VC stands for vivid color, NC is natural color and UC is ultra color although the UC isn't in the portra line.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
Marks advice is very informative. Kodak also makes a film called Kodak UC. Ultra Color. Grab the 100 speed. Being ISO 100, shoot it at ISO 64 or ISO 50. Also as Will said try a prime lens. Even the 50mm f/1.8 will give better results than a standard kit lens. All in all we can rule out the camera body itself. Nothing against Minolta Maxxums (my sister loves hers) but the camera body is only a piece of plastic or metal that holds the film in a light tight space and controls the shutter speed. The body doesn't play a roll in optics. Try the warming filters as Mark said, over expose the film, and maybe look into a more expensive lens (well a prime). let us know how your results turn out. p.s. mark I never knew VC stood for variable contrast. stupid me thought it was vivid color! lol. but I guess I can see both, variable contrast because the incorporated technologies to make punchy colors but keep skin tones rendered wonderfull and vivid color for just that, bright colors. i don't mean bright for landscape-vivid colors, but as in brigh, portrait wise)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/professional/products/films/portra/portraBrochure.pdf?id=0.1.22.14.13.14.22.3&lc=en doesn't really matter though.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Will Turner |
Well, Canon L primes probably have more high MTF performers (optical resolution) than Minolta AF, but Minolta primes have always been known for their great color rendition. Certainly you can punch things up with UC and other 'intense' films. A polarizer could be a help in some sunny situations, and as Steve said, a lens hood is a must. Too many people overlook the importance of good glass in the small 35mm film/sensor size. There are occasionally a few good kit zooms, but not often. The Canon EOS 50/1.4L, 50/1.8 and 35/2 prime lenses have all been praised for their color reproduction.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||