Thoughts on CineStill 800T vs Kodak Portra
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 06. 2024
- Your contributions make these videos happen! If you enjoyed this video, please consider making a contribution at www.nickcarverphoto.com/contr...
Table of Contents
- Notes on the tire shop photo (1:18)
- Portra vs CineStill 800T (8:35)
- Why comparing print films is a bit futile (9:44)
- More about the RemJet layer (12:17)
- What exactly causes halation (12:47)
- Comparing grain (14:12)
- Working with a tungsten-balanced film (14:40)
- Using CineStill 800T in daylight (17:37)
- The halation effect of CineStill 800T (18:36)
- What ISO to use on CineStill 800T (20:51)
- Reciprocity failure on CineStill 800T (22:14)
- Scanning CineStill 800T with SilverFast software (24:43)
Buckle up, kiddos, because we’re taking a drive down to CineStill town. That’s right, this is the ultimate head-to-head showdown, winner take all, no holds barred smackdown of the century!
In the left corner we have every beanie-wearing film fanatic’s fine-grain favorite. He’s lean, he’s mean, and some guy on CZcams told me to overexpose it by 4 stops so he’s also denser than granite. Ladies and gentleman, it’s Kodak Portra 400!
And in the right corner we have the hipster’s halatin’ Hollywood heavyweight. Mothers, hide your solitary empty gas stations because he’s comin’ for ‘em. He’s tough, he’s rough, and holy shit he costs how much?? Jesus. Alright, well, I guess I’ll try not to bracket my exposures. Ladies and gentleman, it’s CineStill 800T!
Head-to-head film battle. That’s what the people want, right? That’s how I make it big on CZcams. Yeah, ultimate this-film-versus-that-film comparison videos. That’s when the money comes pouring in.
This roundup isn’t a true head-to-head film battle, per se, but I will be giving my thoughts on shooting Kodak Portra 400 at blue hour (dawn/dusk) compared to shooting CineStill 800T. We’ll talk about how to scan CineStill, what to do about the tungsten color balance when shooting in daylight, how to deal with Reciprocity Failure in CineStill 800T, and more! I know the video is kind of long, but hey, I gave you a table of contents right up top so just jump around if you want to.
If you want to buy any of these films, I recommend B&H. If you use the links below, I’ll get a commission:
- CineStill 800T (35mm): bhpho.to/3dOFvTV
- CineStill 800T (120): bhpho.to/3h8gJ2Z
- Kodak Portra 400 (35mm): bhpho.to/3h5Wnap
- Kodak Portra 400 (120): bhpho.to/2Yd1E6g
- Kodak Portra 160 (35mm): bhpho.to/3jtUzcW
- Kodak Portra 160 (120): bhpho.to/31cscXv
And check out my online course all about light metering for film photography: www.nickcarverphoto.com/metering
Website: www.nickcarverphoto.com
Instagram: / nickcarver - Zábava
Can’t believe you’re still shy of 100k subscribers Nick. Easily one of the most informative and entertaining photo YT channels out there. I recommended your channel to Ilford a while back and they said they’d check you out.
Totalmente agree
Agree. I only discovered him today as my film photography no longer is an hobby and I sold my film camera. But really Nick is a PRO and some other photographers are getting more views with less professional content in their movies. Oh well - life is unjust - we knew that already...
to be honest, post some young girl shaking their body 10second for no reason, and keep posting for like few week, you can probably bait more click than any actual high quality content, that's sad but ture. Most of people only want these basic animal needs. That's the reason why some people like him create high quality content just to isolate himself from those viewers that he doesn't want. Therefore we saw most of high quality content creater, never post too often, and rarely got higher follower count.
When I used to work at Kodak I was trained to read each individual negative frame in a second so I knew exactly how much density and red, green, blue, magenta for different types of film. This was before scanners could convert negative films into positive images on a screen, so I was evaluating each frame in reverse of how it would actually turn out. To clean a film of dust you’d slide the film through your index finger and middle finger and that way you wouldn’t get the natural oils from your fingers on the negs as you would if you slid them through your finger and thumb. Sunny days when high pressure weather came to town you’d get more natural static in the air and thus more dust on the film negatives. Oh and if you had a scratched negative you could fill in the scratch by rubbing your finger on the outside of you nostril, greasing your finger with nose oil and rubbing it on the scratched neg. It worked a treat. All these little techniques fell by the wayside as technology came in.
It's a good day when Nick posts
Two videos in just a couple weeks. What a treat.
Next on the Nick Carver Show: Logarithms!
Man, your photos are just so simple and beautiful. I absolutely love the minimalism of them. Great job man
Excellent video. I really enjoy the way you work through problems and choices, and then explore solutions. Huge thumbs up!
Your videos are awesome. The Tire Shop video was phenomenal. The photo was great, and you told a great story about how the photo was captured.
Fascinating. I hope people made it to the exposure raised to the 1.3 power tip, that is so good to know. Cheers!
Interesting and entertaining from the first to the last minute of the video, as usual. Easily the best and most honest photography channel out there. No nonsense, no blabla. There's always something to learn from your videos. I'm with you on your procedure on the shooting of the tyre shop. BTW I prefer the Portra version.
A new Nick video is always a good day
Thanks for your posts. I may never pick up a roll of film again but your posts motivate me to go out and shoot.
Thank you for this HIGHLY informative video, Nick! When things settle down a bit, I will take your metering course.
@13:37 - "the lab would be very mad at you"....so true. Great content Nick, you are one of the few CZcams photographers I actually watch.
Thank you Nick! I always learn from your videos !
And now arms with this video that lone roll of Cinestill will be brought in out of the cold real soon! Thank you as ever!
Nick CSI Tire Hooligan Profiles. Thanks for posting, great way to start the Weekend on a Thursday.
I've heard that a mist filter can do wonders with the halos of Cinestill 800T
Hi Nick!!
As usual, GREAT to see another video from you!! Interesting on the Cine-Still. I've not tried it yet, but plan to indulge in the near future.
I think I'm about to try Ektar and Ektachrome first for my different than usual films ( I always use Portra 400 for color and Ilford HP5 400 for B&W).....
I know it ia a LOT of effort to shoot and then edit these pieces, especially the on location ones, but MAN...they are entertaining, educational and inspirational.
I live around New Orleans, so, my environment is way different than yours, but when I see you shoot on locations, it gives me ideas on how to "see" my own area in maybe a different way and look for stories here in different ways.
So, thanks and looking forward to more (always).
CC
ps. I liked the 2x tires when I first saw them.
Nice analysis Nick.
fantastic video as always !!
Loved this video Nick, along with all your content. Entertaining and an unbelievably great learning resource. I often wondered about T Vs D balanced films and whether it's easy to just balance the temperature after the fact.
If you don't mind me saying, an interesting experiment next time you're shooting Cinestill (or night photography in general, with Portra for example) may be to compare a regular exposure with that using a pro-mist filter. I'm seeing more and more film photographers use these to soften point light sources, such as artificial sources at night, and the effect is often pretty cool. I'm not entirely sure but it may even help diffuse the border around halations too. Just a thought. Great stuff Nick. Cheers from Wales UK
Well timed! I’m off to Crete and have just bought the same film typed for both 120folm . :)
Thanks for the awesome content!
Enjoyed the video!
I loved the two tires from the first time i saw them. Am still imagening what that invisible car looks like.
Totally agree with Mike. I perused this video after searching for info on alternative film stock to Portra 400 (grrr), and finding Nick's You Tube is an upside to not being able to find Portra 400 without having to mortgage my home. He is informative, presents the material effectively covering a lot of ground and thankfully does not burden us with unnecessary personal asides. I will be checking out his other videos and website.
Great video! Perhaps best and most honest comparison and review of Cinestill. I've personally shot many rolls and could not find the love that I thought would be there. That said, totally love some of the photos from others using that film.
Watching your videos and seeing the film sections at stores... does make me want to grab a film camera to play around with one day!
I love this video. Very reasoned and insightful. What I’ve found with some high speed films (Ilford and Kodak’s 3200 B&W films, I’m looking at you) the high rating is optimistic; I get best results around ISO 1250-1600. That might be the cause for your slightly thin negatives; Cinestill’s 800T is branded by Kodak as 500T. I once used 250D pushed +1 for a 16mm project and metered on the side of more exposure with amazing results. Vision 3 is amazing. The added benefit Vision 3 brings to the table for still frame shooters, as I understand, is the last remaining Tungsten balanced film in production. This came in handy when I shot BTS photos at night in mixed artificial lights, resulting in organic vibrant colors straight from Indie Film Lab’s scans. Keep your videos coming! 😎🎥
Love that RZ67. Thanks for an interesting video.
Thanks, Nick...lots of good info with regard to Cinestill 800. I picked up a few rolls a while back when it became available again...just haven't had a chance to try it out yet. I have the same RZ67 setup and yeah, its a real boat anchor.
Awesome video. Thanks for sharing!!
Can't wait to see how you print and frame this one.
Hey Nick. Ilford gives reciprocity calculations in terms of ^ too.
I think the composition works really well because the main Firestone sign isn’t lit, and the questions it prompts.
Otherwise it would have been too dominant in the shot, but now it’s far more mysterious and atmospheric. Dare I suggest that there is
Something of the Hopper about it. Would certainly get into my portfolio!
I agree, and I much prefer the look of fluorescent lighting to neon, which is wildly overrated and over-photographed
yess finally someone that understands those tires are literally all i noticed in this photo that made the photo complete
Good video man, carry on!
Thanks a bunch for that one! I shoot cinestill 800 for a long time and then discovered porta and felt sooo confused, because i liked porta a lot as well 🤔
Well said on the "Hallation and good photos". I sometime feel, In general, that the people in the "Film Groups" on FB - Forget the photos needs to be .... Well, Good photos. And not only shitty photos on film.
Excellent and brilliant…thank you!!!
His expressed confusion for the existence of a tungsten balanced film isn't so confusing if you remember what the film was intended to do. It is a movie film, Vision 3 500 then stripped of its remjet layer and repackaged by Cinestill as a 800 iso film. It was intended to be shot on movie sets with highly controlled lighting, where they really care to do such things with precision. It is then to be printed onto movie print film, not scanned on a Epson or printed in a darkroom. So, if you take the Cinestill film, under expose it at 800, cross process it in C-41 getting color shifts for your effort, and then dragging it through Photoshop or equiv to try to offset such variances from "Normal", who knows what you get in the end, and no one else cares. Of course, being willing to pay $18-20 a roll for Cinestill 800 compared to $12-14 for Porta makes you nuts anyway, so again, who cares.
yeah Cinestill 800T is Kodak’s 5219 / Vision3 500T which is preferable to the 250D because of the higher ISO and flexibility with artificial lighting
most would only shoot (for cinema) 500T and 50D for super bright daylight
but back in the day, there was Portra tungsten balanced film; 100T.
Randall, you got it right! Cine film is not intended to be printed on paper. It is copied onto another roll of film (which is then used at the cinema), using a tungsten light source. Same in the studio - tungsten light everywhere! So, tungsten balance is the way to go. Shooting the same film in bright daylight outdoors could be accomplished with a conversion filter in front of the camera lens. And in low light conditions, a blue color shift was desired anyway.
Amen dude, you know your cine films!
Agree with your comments except for the price issue- 800T is $12.99 for 35mm and $13.99 for 120.
I’m glad you talked about tungsten balance. You made some excellent points about colour correction. What I find confusing is that most lights aren’t tungsten these days, they’ll be LED or fluorescent or neon, so what would even be corrected. Cheers.
Really nice video! By the way, I got curious about reciprocity failure of BW negatives and I took a look to the Ilford HP5 data sheet... it turns out that they suggest the same formula for that film, for measured times slower than 1/2" (the exponent they suggest is 1.31, to be precise). Keep up the good work!
Awesome video! Also, Ilford's data on reciprocity (they have a pdf online about it) for their film ALSO uses an exponential formula!
Using the 85 filter when shooting tungsten film in daylight is something I did as matter of course for years until I read that Roger Deakins shot No Country for Old Men all on tungsten stock and didn't use an 85 filter in daylight. Once motion picture film scanning and digital intermediates became the norm, the 85 filter really wasn't mission critical anymore. Something I should have figured out sooner, since I'm not old enough, and the budgets of the films I shot were never large enough to do color correction in a lab.
Both provide a different look. If you don’t add a filter and correct to the same overall colour balance as using a filter, the end result is you effectively get different spectral sensitivities of the film layers, and different corresponding dye colours
I only shoot in digital but your videos help me understand so much
There’s the reciprocity for Kodak Vision 3 500, which is cinestill 800.
“Reciprocity
No filter corrections or exposure adjustments for exposure times from 1/1000 of a second to 1 second. In the 10-second range, increase exposure
1 stop and use a KODAK WRATTEN 2 Color Compensating Filter CC10R.”
An interesting analysis... in retrospect.
Good lord, a YT channel not touting the Freewell Magnetic Filter System! :)
Technical perfection not my thing but loved Nick geeking out on films. I loved those two tyres from the first time and actually they led me to notice the pile of tyres in the back as they are almost the centerpiece of the composition.
On reciprocity failure - the power-formula is quite common and shown in the Wikipedia article about reciprocity, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(photography) . CineStill seems to be similar to Portra 160 and 400 in this regard, and Portra 800 might be more or less the same (so 1.3 to 1.34 should do the trick for all of them), which makes sense.
The reason why Papa Carver got a thinner negative on Cinestill is because the motion pic film they repackaged it from is a ISO 500 film: Kodak Vision 3 500T 5219/7219. Rating it at 800 is essentially underexposing. Also, high ISO films have a much stronger reciprocity failure after 1 second because they were originally designed to be shot handheld under dim light situations (plus reciprocity failure will never be a thing with motion pic films).
I like your thoughts on returning to a location to refine the image. I have an almost pathological distaste for repeating myself and the idea of reshooting something bothers me almost as much as removing an object in the scene. But ultimately photography is about communicating something we have experienced and sometimes that experience doesn’t come through in the first exposure. If I think of a reshoot as an opportunity to see the scene a little deeper, a little more carefully, then maybe that would work for me. I did a project a few years ago that was shot digitally. I’m thinking of exploring the same material on large format film. Maybe I’ll just think of the digital images as a rough sketch that I did in preparation for shooting on 8x10. Anyway, thanks for the entertaining and informative videos.
Thank you as always Nick for another awesome video. I have purchased several rolls of Cinestill 800T over the past few months but have yet to use them. That will end this weekend. Also, I will tag onto a previous comment here - What about a comparison with Portra 800??
Great video, as ever, and some interesting insights.
I'm yet to try Cinestill - though I have a couple of rolls of 800T in the fridge. I've recently discovered a German outfit called "Silbersalz" but their film still has the remjet layer and they process using the proprietary chemicals rather than C41. So, no halation. However, they only seem to offer 35mm which seems odd if Cinestill has access to 120 cine film.
No Carver, I won't be jumping around. I want the whole thing. thanks.
Thanks Nick for sharing the "power 1.3" tip! It's just a theory, but I'd say halation is associated with motion picture for the 16mm and 8mm, as the smaller neg size would really magnify any halation. I believe Steve Yedlin has an article about it where he compares halation in 8mm vs 70mm imax film.
roger deakins is publishing a book on his still photos...Hmmmm... interesting.
Cheers to you and all you do there!!
There's a shut down Sears building in my area that is marked for tear-down. I've been going back to that building to photograph it with various elements appearing around it, different light, weather etc. - it definitely pays to do repeat visits.
As for those two random tires - they add mystery to the image. I actually like it.
Very interesting!
If a Porta 800 vs Cinestill800T video ever gets made by Mr. Carver, I won’t complain one bit.
My first thought was that tires had fallen, and one rolled a ways away. On reflection, the two standing tires are more in line with the scenario you describe, Nick. Tires falling off the stack would likely not roll much at all, and wouldn’t usually land upright.
I get a lot out of your discussion of the process and results. Thinking about what I should do with that information.
Nick Carver and Daniel Milnor post on the same day. This must be what heaven feels like
It's an interesting comparison. The CineStill being more sensitive to blues is almost the same as the images I get with my old PhaseOne back. The sensor is much more sensitive to blue than our eyes, so I have to knock 10% of blue out of the mid-range. Which, gives me the same outcome as the Portra - a little warmer, with a little more colour separation.
Thanks. Film was meant for optical enlargements, so the better the film to lighting match, the less time the print maker has to spend. Of course it makes little difference in a scanning work flow.
I have shot Cinestill 800T @ EI 320. It has lots of highlight latitude but not much shadow latitude.
Reciprocity failure correction: For example, Ilford gives recommended corrections in the form of an exponential function. For each of their film stocks they recommend a different exponent:
Ilford Delta 100 Pro: 1.26
Ilford Delta 400 Pro: 1.41
Ilford Delta 3200 Pro: 1.33
Ilford HP5 Plus: 1.31
Ilford Pan F: 1.33
For Kodak Portra I have used 1.35 with good results. So you go "metered exposure time" ^ 1.35 and that's your corrected time.
I also like those tires that someone put in front of the bay doors.
I started using the power function to determine reciprocity correction, rather than have a graph with me that displays reciprocity correction. It is a bit of a guess when reading it from a graph. I shoot mostly Ilford FP4+, for which the correction factor is Ta=Tm^1.26. For HP5 Ta=Tm^1.31. Just need to be sure to have your phone with you or a calculator. (Ta = adjusted time, Tm=metered time)
The halation fad is like the narrow depth of field thing. It's like a cheapish trick, a distraction which keeps people from evaluation a picture as a whole. And - sadly - more often than not it keeps people from becoming better photographers. Speaking digital: I started on full frame and went APS-C in 2016 (XT2) because of budget concerns. Now my budget allows basically anything but I didn't return to full frame. Rather, for my private stuff I added an even smaller Micro Four Thirds system because it allows me to carry a film camera and a digital camera when I'm travelling. Now, M43 can be limiting especially when you are shooting primes. But I noticed that during the last couple of months my compositions got why better than they have been in the past - simply because I actually have to consider the background for every shot. I can't just blur it out. The halation thing and the expired film thing have similar issues in my mind. Very often you see film photographers positing pictures of mediocre subjects with mediocre framing and mediocre lighting and they are still proud and they still get a lot of praise just because of the halation or the effects of the expired film or the light leaks... And of course that can be fine, but I believe it keeps a lot of folks from actually improving their photography. Just one man's opinion, though...
Hear hear
Very enjoyable content as usual! What's the plate between the camera lens and body of the mamiya?
I shoot bulk loaded 500t with my Nikon S2, can confirm you definitely don't need the 85b filter. The results I get from using one and not then adjusting in post are identical.
My take on the two tires. Customer shows up late with two bald front tires. Tire Shop mechanic works 10 minutes past closing to put new tires on. Customer leaves and mechanic hurls two tires on the top of the pile. They roll off the pile as the overhead door closes. Employee locks up shop and sees the tires that rolled off the pile. "Screw it! I need a beer!" 😀
you really do tickle my fancy nick
I try to go into planned shoot during business hrs and tell them what I'm planning. They are always helpful wich was one 50s burger joint I found out they where going to be redoing there parking lot.
So I shot it before I had planned to get that aged parking lot. Pluss the owner stayed late and left all the lights for a bit.
Making my thursday into a friday.
A pro mist filter can be used to give that diffused light spillover without the color that Cinestill yields.
Glad that young 'uns know about reciprocity. Seems like a light year since that's been mentioned last. All hail Portra! (Maybe a better scanner in the future, like Kyle McDougall?)
The power of 1.3 of the shutter speed I believe is Porta 400’s reciprocity it’s what I use as reciprocity for super long exposures on Ektachrome after 10 seconds and it seems to work for me
The tungsten balance makes it easier to colour grade/create positives for projection in its Kodak Vision3 500T cinefilm guise. As a print film that colour balance is indeed pretty useless.
Depends on the application. "useless" is a very subjective term.
There are some really good videos on CZcams channels dedicated to cinema and cinematography that show how various films are lit, processed, printed etc.
For sure you can adjust color after scanning but... The point is in sensitivity curves for these films. They are different. T-films are more sensitive for yellow specter than films for day light. So in other words higher ISO for artificial light. You might notice that ISO in datasheets is for different light conditions.
I would choose Portra over Cinestill, over the same reason you mentioned, I'm more comfortable with it.
If that's the extent of mischief the kids get into today, I'll take it and hope they eventually grow up. I agree I like the tires and the possible scenarios on how they got there.
To the confusion with the tungsten balance - it is exposure related: since under tungsten light (3200K) the peak wavelength of the light source is shifted towards red (plancks radiation law), there is less of blueish light available at the source. Therefore, non-tungsten-balanced film can't 'see' the blue parts of an image as intense as tungsten balanced films with an enhanced blue sensitivity. So tungsten film counters the absence of blue light with higher sensitivity to provide an even exposure across the spectral range. If this effect palys a big roll with todays wide exposure laditudes is another question ...
That was really interesting although I do not shoot film very often, did not shoot cinestill at all and most likely never will.
The advise not to create photos which are only kind of interesting because of the halation and have nothing more to offer, can easily be applied to any kind of effect. That does apply even more to digital and for sure I'm guilty of trying to make something interesting out of boring shots using some fancy filter. That was a really useful reminder to use these kind of tools as an enhancement for an already good shot and not as a reason for a shot.
A reason to shooting tungsten films is you get more exposure in the blue spectrum which can be lacking otherwise.
Tungsten light sources were/are used often in movies and were a dominant source of artificial lighting, so it makes sense to white balance them with the film stock without the use of filters, which impart colour bias on to the image. Tungsten film predates digital intermediates, so it may seem pointless now that you can dial the white balance to your liking but it still has it's purpose in an analog workflow.
@Frank Silvers If you compare what an image looks like with tungsten film and an 85b filter to the same image without the filter and adjust the white balance to 3200k in post, you will see a substantial difference in colour. Try it in a controlled test and you'll see.
@Frank Silvers Colours veer towards purple with the filter.
Would be great to see the same with Ektar, especially since you are primarily a landscape photographer
those upright tires have a menacing "Rubber (2010)" look to them 😳
I’m sooooo glad you didn’t move those tires haha
The 2 tires were my favorite part of the photo. I honestly interpreted it as they had naturally rolled.
Jeremy Corbell just called and said it was Aliens.
As a fwiw aside, I like the look of the daylight Cinestill photo that isn’t warmed etc. more. It may not be as natural but it pops more on my screen with a nicer red and, deeper, green , and the road is more interesting to look at to my eyes .
You should try 50D if you haven't already. The different characteristic of that film is the super fine grain which I really like and again adds to the 'cinematic' look. I feel like it's the less popular option of the two, probably because of the 50 ISO, but I personally prefer it.
@Frank Silvers Thanks smart guy.. The difference is, its vision 3 motion picture film.. used to shoot motion picture films. I was suggesting a film I like, get a life.
I would recommend just shooting Cinestill 800t at 500 since the repackaged film is Kodak Vision3 500t. They say the ISO increases with remjet removal but that's just bs, it's still a 500-ISO emulsion.
I think Ilford is the only manufacturer that releases hard data on correction values. I wish all manufactures did!
If you're a DIY guy I believe Vision3 500T is a much better look. You can buy the 65mm rolls for 120 film.
You can balance daylight film for tungsten but it's challenging to get right if it's not mixed lighting. Also daylight film and tungsten film are sensitive to different wavelengths, Portra is be more sensitive to blue light and less sensitive to yellow/tungsten light and vice versa. You won't be getting true box speed shooting Portra in tungsten and 500t in daylight.
I´ve shot a grafiti vandalised section of an appartment building in black and white which spoke "verträumt" = "dreamy". And I love that picture although it is vandalim obviously. 2 things happened: 1) The next day I walked by again, the quote was oversprayed with another grafiti which was terribly ugly. 2) A fellow photographer asked me why I worshipped this vandalism by capturing it. I explained him my thoughts -> vandalism indeed, but I just record it, I don´t judge it. The viewer does. Maybe my thoughts add some depth to your scene...
The tyres look great under the light. Much better than if the lights were shining on empty space.
How do you feel about the Firestone sign not being lit? You know that if you had gone over there to move those rouge tires that's when the PO PO would have driven by and you would have some spainin to do.
Nowadays it is really not that important to compare the negative films, because you can do so many corrections in the post, including selective corrections.
We used to order huge quantities of the same batch of film in the photo studio. When a new batch was ordered, we took a photo of a gray card with the old and the new batch and filtered the gray card to neutral gray on the same enlarger on the same paper. Then the same scenes were photographed and enlarged with the previously determined filtering. this is the only way to determine whether one film has different characteristics than the other. Selective color corrections were only possible with great effort using masking. Today it's a breeze…
And today with colorprofiles you have much more tools to get the colors more correct if wanted…
Another photographer that shot Shirley!
@@Pixelwaster who is Shirley?
@Frank Silvers It depends what you want and must. If doing product photography you need correct colours.
If you are doing landscape photography you can change the colours to your taste.
@Frank Silvers I work as a retoucher since 1989 and even in that analogue times we had to "correct" so many pictures into the desired colours that the art directors wanted to see and that were almost never the correct colours of the scene. The only correct colors were wanted in productphotography were we had to match the colour of the product.
But 90% our anlogue postwork was achieving the wanted look of the agencies…
@@SD_Alias Shirely is a reference negative. Named after the original model Kodak used in their reference negatives sent to labs so people could learn how to print each type of film.
Different industries use strange names for reference. At one place were had pedros (pee-dro). Nobody new why.