on.raw.photography

This example of a Fujifilm Velvia 100 slide scan with cross-processing has always puzzled me when it comes to color management. Thanks, I'd like to see...

Always considering that the long exposure of this frame wasn't calculated based on ambient light, no light meter, just perceptual adjustment. And that the shutter was open for about 20 seconds at f:16, until the lightning bolts appeared. Therefore, from the outset, it was impossible to know if the exposure parameters were correct, and this fact increases the unpredictability. Furthermore, the slide film in question was underexposed by -2 stops and overdeveloped by +2 stops with the C41 process. A real unknown.

We all know the result; we end up with a color negative with unpredictable results, and in this specific case, given the above, the unpredictability is even greater.

What worse example could there be to process with ColorNEG?

I've been reading the article and the tips Christoph shared regarding using FilmType/SubType/FilmGamma these days.

This is the link:
https://www.colorperfect.com/filmtype_s ... ml?lang=en

This is the link to the forum thread where the topic was discussed.
viewtopic.php?p=996#p996

As I said, I've never been able to get the best result from this frame.
Not even ColorNeg, if used without a minimum of knowledge, can give you the best results.
Perhaps acceptable, considering that cross-processing gives it license to alter itself more than it should. If you think about it, cross-processing is designed specifically to be altered.
But the truth is that if we can balance light and color, strong chromatic shifts can be attenuated, if not completely eliminated, giving way to color tones that are still unpredictable, but decidedly more fascinating, with contrasts of softer pastels and stronger, more vivid hues.
Just look at the rock in the lower left, contrasted with the rest of the environment; it seems to be taken from another photograph, but with all the appropriate coherence.

This is what ColorNEG managed to do, or rather, this is what I managed to do with ColorNEG.
I imagine someone more competent than me could do even better.
But personally, I'm already very satisfied with this result. It's unattainable without the help of FilmType/SubType/FilmGamma, and all the rest.

robyferrero wrote: Fri Sep 05, 2025 11:17 amFurthermore, the slide film in question was underexposed by -2 stops and overdeveloped by +2 stops with the C41 process.

Indeed, exposure is key I think. In the past I shot Fujichrome ISO 100 films at 400 and that worked out good in C41. Too dense results at actual ISO make things harder but not impossible.

Too bad if one is after some weird cross processed effect that emerges when wet-printing on c-print material.
I guess we can't get the defects right (or maybe we can, I did not seriously try). What we can do looks magical though... As Roberto states the FilmType / SubType / FilmGamma calibration system is the key takeaway: https://www.colorperfect.com/filmtype_s ... ml?lang=en

Way back when there simply were no fast color negative films. This has always been an amzing example, you'll know it from https://www.colorperfect.com/oldneg.html?lang=en

C.OLDENDORF wrote: Fri Sep 05, 2025 8:16 pm Too bad if one is after some weird cross processed effect that emerges when wet-printing on c-print material.
I guess we can't get the defects right (or maybe we can, I did not seriously try). What we can do looks magical though...

Yes, it can be bizarre, but in a digital file, with more attention, it can be magical, fantastical—in other words, imaginary.

With photochemical printing, on the other hand, I've worked extensively with some of this type of photogram, and even then, you can achieve something magical and imaginary, with pastel and vivid colors in the same frame, but it takes much more effort to achieve a good result. This good result, however, will be decidedly different from what you get digitally, but still fascinating and perhaps a little bizarre. With less attention, however, the result will be absolutely bizarre.

I realize that I probably read all your articles when I purchased the Color Perfect license.

Of course, I don't remember everything, because I read them all at once without even knowing Color Perfect at all.
The good thing is that when I go back and reread them through your links, everything is clearer, also because I know Color Perfect a little better now.

This is a revised image, compared to the previous one, which shows a lower exposure, a greater, albeit slight, contrast, more density, but above all a colder color, which as far as I'm concerned, is more relevant to the scene.