intense greens: how to?

It was negative film. Plain Jane Fuji 200 print film. Normal shots of
beach, skyline, etc... all looked pretty good it was just the forest
pics that were disappointing.

Also thanks to Rod. Good info. No scanner yet... but I am leaning
that way. If one has a scanner would you recommend staying with print
film or going to slide(transparency)?

Thanks again.
Daryl

In article .com,
writes:

Also thanks to Rod. Good info. No scanner yet... but I am leaning
that way. If one has a scanner would you recommend staying with print
film or going to slide(transparency)?

You're welcome. As to the slide/negative issue with scanners, there are
advantages to both approaches, particularly when you get down to
discussing specific films (if you really like film X's color rendition,
say). In my experience, it's easier to get the right colors when scanning
slide films, but negative films have greater exposure latitude, which is a
big plus. Negative film is also less expensive, particularly if your
regular photofinisher offers an option to develop the negatives only
(without making prints). On the whole, then, my own preference is to use
negative films for scanning. Others might have other opinions, though.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

Sounds like an underexposed neg to me, does the neg look thin?

Gaz.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I took some photos last summer of a view in a forest that didn't come
out as expected. It was sunny but the trees were quite thick. I was
using a 1.8 50mm lens on an Elan 7 with fuji film. Speed was about 125
but I don't recall the stop. A seen composed almost entirely of
brilliant greenleaves and mosses with browns came back quite lack
luster and almost (color) washed out. Would this likely be technique,
film or just poor kodak processing?

Thanks
Daryl

wrote:
It was negative film. Plain Jane Fuji 200 print film. Normal shots
of
beach, skyline, etc... all looked pretty good it was just the forest
pics that were disappointing.

Also thanks to Rod. Good info. No scanner yet... but I am leaning
that way. If one has a scanner would you recommend staying with
print
film or going to slide(transparency)?

Thanks again.
Daryl

The automatic printers that most amateur and some pro labs use are set
up to counter-act strong color casts. This means that if you take a
photo in the shade, where the illumination is usually excessively blue
(and sometimes green from the surrounding foliage) the printer will
ffset this by making the print yellower. Unfortunately, this also tends
to offset any strong color. So, your negatives are being printed to
reduce the green 'cast' that the printer sees.

wrote:
It was negative film. Plain Jane Fuji 200 print film. Normal shots
of
beach, skyline, etc... all looked pretty good it was just the forest
pics that were disappointing.

Also thanks to Rod. Good info. No scanner yet... but I am leaning
that way. If one has a scanner would you recommend staying with
print
film or going to slide(transparency)?

Thanks again.
Daryl

The automatic printers that most amateur and some pro labs use are set
up to counter-act strong color casts. This means that if you take a
photo in the shade, where the illumination is usually excessively blue
(and sometimes green from the surrounding foliage) the printer will
ffset this by making the print yellower. Unfortunately, this also tends
to offset any strong color. So, your negatives are being printed to
reduce the green 'cast' that the printer sees.