Okay. Well, you know this already, but... how you meter can make all the difference. Suppose e.g. that you average metered this. The camera will see all that backlighting and get tricked into a shorter exposure. Which will then cause you to underexpose her and the foreground... hence more grain and less optimal colouration there. There is a good dose of contrast in this scene and I'd guess you could easily have 3-4 stops difference in the optimal exposure for the foreground and for the background. This is a case where avg. metering can really screw you.
Originally Posted by dwdmguy
Did you bracket this scene perchance?
Have you seen this?
“I use a Contax 645, and then I have two 35 mm Canon 1V’s and use the Canon 16-24 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, and a 100 Macro f/2.8. I also use Fuji Film because I love its natural skin tonality but also the beautiful saturation of color – which is what people know me for, my color.”
“When I overexpose images on Fuji color films like Pro 400H or 800Z, the colors come out almost pastel. To augment this look, I back light and let the light wrap around the subjects for beautiful color that’s reminiscent of a painting. A lot of my clients book me specifically because of this approach to color.”
“I do as much as possible in camera. First, I set my camera so that I’m overexposing my images by a stop to a stop-and-a-half. This produces a nice, soft glow. I want light wrapping around my subjects and giving off a sense of warmth. Typically, I expose for the shadow… I also like to shoot with an extremely shallow depth of field. The shallow depth of field works well with the overexposure to create that soft, wrap-around glow.”
No photoshop work? How is he getting them on the computer? He must be scanning somewhere, and if he's scanning a negative and not a print, then there are very probably some adjustments going on, either behind the scenes by the minilab-style scanner they are using, or in the scanner software on the desktop scanner. Otherwise we'd see a very orange negative image
I think bracketing is a good idea. Also, I notice on a lot of his images he has shot directly into the sun....
I'll give this a try with the 400H first, then the 800z. I really do love fuji color films. Even use their instax...
Tim, he own a Noritsu Minilab, the 2500 I believe.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Ta da, fuji film.
Incidentally, Tom, I just checked and that shot I linked to earlier was indeed on 800 z.
Looking at the links from a proper monitor, it still looks pretty normal 400h or 800 z output to me, maybe a bit of auto levels done by a scanner. The nice thing about these films is that you get good saturation in the primaries but the skin tones still look credible.
Shooting into the sun.. no problem. The passionflower shot in my portfolio was on 400 H, as I recall. Obviously I metered for the detail on the flower and let the sun do whatever it wanted. I think the film handled it like a champ. Could be a tad less grainy in the midtones if I'd done a slightly longer exposure but my subject was moving, so there was no way to do that.
Ta da indeed.
Just for info guys, here is another photographer that gets that same look that I am trying to get. I don't always want to shoot this but sometimes I wish I could.
I researched and played with this a while back but I'm really waiting until the darkroom is done to get serious.
Originally Posted by dwdmguy
This is from very limited experience.
Overexpose seriously, 1-3 stops with no change in processing. The closer to +3 you get the more pastel the colors will go.
Use backlit situations meter for the face then go plus 1,2,or3 for the effect. An incident meter will help here.
For processing Jose uses Richard Photo Lab and they do the scanning and proofs. (They do great work.) Jose, from what I understand does no processing himself.
Richard photo processes to the photographers exact spec. I use them to process my wedding work, they keep list of my preferences; do I like things warmer/cooler, darker/lighter, on 5x5 or 4x6 with a 1/4" border or sloppy border, blah, blah, blah... My preferences are applied to the whole order, nothing more or less, the jpeg scans look just like the proofs.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
To me the images have been shot with tilt/swing function employed in a high-end lens (or 5x4 + 6x6), certainly not the vague, imprecise LensBaby optics.
It's a very specialised skill; I suspect he's spent a lot of time refining his technique to work at speed when and where required (kids that age aren't going to remain still for long!). In some examples the tilt (or swing) of the lens can be discerned as a peg, but there are also some peripheral irregularities i.e. symmetrical lines of delineation are not where they are expected... possibly post-image print tweaking (that doesn't mean Photochop).
To me it looks like some lensbaby/soft focus lens. You can use flare and whatnot to enhance that look. However, you're also looking at very careful deliberate lighting techniques. He may even be giving some fill in there or using natural reflective surfaces like buildings. The bodies are generally nearly backlit by sun but off by a few degrees so the rear of the head gets a nice accent to it. If the careful choice of scenery and lighting don't get you there, you can try a fill flash or reflection to even out the light because something tells me it doesn't look like that on it's own.
Looking at that image, compare the shadows. Something is weird in the lighting. The shadows of the people are black while the shadow of the building is pastel blue. Something's off...
The first images are also very well lit, with an even fill. I think lighting is going to get you closer than screwing with film types.