>>3942343>>3942346It's the scanning.
The scanning process I mean (not the scanner, which is great in your case), cause scanning negatives always requires manual intervention in setting neutral grays, black, and white point.
If you leave it on auto (like any commercial scanning service which you don't pay someone by the hour), it won't be accurate. It will be various degrees of alright to good, depending on the scanning software and light temperature. Older software does a worse job (usually), and artificial light is hard for any software, and so are intentionally low key/high key shots.
Fortunately it's not hard to correct in post. Just take the picker for neutral grays and click on a surface that's supposed to be neutral gray, roughly. Asphalt, street poles, clouds are all good targets. If you want a slightly warmer look, click on the same subjects but in shadow.
This will get you 90% there. Then you can finetune, say by adding some warmth in the shadows only (makes shadows less blue and makes greens pop out more, without affecting the blue skies), etc. .
Don't go chasing a "better"/different film for something that is essentially a scanning issue, it'd be in vain.
And you'd be going in blind, a different film might give you for one roll "better" results (i.e. to your liking), but it would be due to the different light/subjects, or different inversion profile the scanning software uses. Then you'd go shoot a second roll of the new "better" film, getting bad results because some of the above variables changed, and you're back to zero, hunting for the magic film in the blind.
Just spend 10' making a basic colour correction (=unfucking the scanner auto corrections) with neutral grays on your scans, and you'll be fine.
