I\'d have to disagree with that first sentence. The rest is true and useful, and while you can correct a lot of color casts and other crap in Photoshop, using a filter on the lens will definitely give you better images.
Daylight balance film\'s blue layer is too slow for tungsten light, so you are underexposing the blue when shooting it without a filter. You can adjust for that some in Photoshop, but the fact of the matter is that it\'s underexposed. Furthermore, once you mess with the color balance in PS, it can lead to color crossover, leading to funky looking shadows and/or highlights, since the R, G, and B curves are non linear and are no longer matched. Using a filter corrects for all of this. In my experience, using something like KB6 gives you enough of a boost to make a difference, letting you make up the difference in Photoshop and really improving colors without sacrificing too much speed. Though you\'d still be better off with the full correction.
Also, I wouldn\'t think Ektar is a good choice for shooting portraits, especially with indoor lighting. To each his own, but I think you\'ll be a lot happier with something like Portra 400 in this scenario. The first image certainly suffers from not having a filter on the lens.
The 2nd image looks like it might have tungsten lighting as the primary light source also, though I\'m not sure. I agree with the poor black points on the 3rd image, but it also looks like it might be underexposed some. Once you bring the black points up to the right level, you might be unhappy with how little there is going on in the shadows. If so, it needed more exposure.
Minilab-style scans can be useful and even good, but a lot of times you end up with wonky black points, blown out highlights (when more is obtainable from a better scan of the negative), and slightly off colors. Some places are better than others.
Jan 13, 2011 at 09:50 AM
Previous versions of Simon Kennedy's message #9214015 « Post your recent film shots! »
