Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,919   Posts: 1,521,974   Online: 1107
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    373

    Observation: film photos on flickr

    I've noticed for a long time that many film photos on flickr look underexposed and bland in color. Even shots on Velvia look like this. Take a look at flickr. I can almost guarantee that if you search for any film and view the photo results, you'll see lots of images with low color saturation and nearly transparent shadows.

    As a traditionalist, I learned not to underexpose negative film, and I've learned to dislike the smokey look that doing so creates.

    I don't get it. Is this some sort of new "look" or trend? Or are people just using a lot of expired film? It's certainly not an accurate representation of the films in most cases.

    And yes, my monitor is set properly. Don't get me wrong. Not every photo looks that way. But many do.

  2. #2
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Lots of people are crummy photographers, content wise, technique wise, or both. Flicker does not disallow these people from signing up.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  3. #3
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,695
    Images
    23
    They probably don't expose properly and don't correct the scans.
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    373

    It's misleading

    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    Lots of people are crummy photographers, content wise, technique wise, or both. Flicker does not disallow these people from signing up.
    I think you guys are right. It's misleading though. I mean, I went to flickr to see how a film I have never used might be expected to perform. Big mistake. Had I not been experienced with film, I would have thought this was the way film renders things. I would have surely concluded that digital was better. It could be confusing for people just getting into film.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    113
    Could you link to some images? I'm curious to see what you mean

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by apconan View Post
    Could you link to some images? I'm curious to see what you mean
    I won't do that. It could be incriminating to whoever owns them. Just do a search for Provia 400X and some will surely pop up.

    Better yet, type in 800Z. No wonder no one is buying the stuff!

    You'll have to scroll through the various pages a bit.

    I'm thinking this underexposure thing is a new trend with young film users who are new to film and are using Holgas. But even some people using MF gear are turning out these bizzare, low-contrast results. (I'm young myself and can't stand how it looks.)

    Maybe the limiting factor is the scanning technology people have access to...

    Some of these images get comments like "Gorgeous Capture!"

    They look somewhat cross-processed (even thought they aren't).

    Lots are scanned on flatbeds...or by Walmart.
    Last edited by B&Wpositive; 03-14-2010 at 09:20 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #7
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,695
    Images
    23
    Well, the I shoot Kodak film group has links to click to see diffrent films and when you look at thumnails of a bunch of them at once you can get an idea.....
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by B&Wpositive View Post
    Or are people just using a lot of expired film?
    yes. that and underexposure.

  9. #9
    dances_w_clouds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Vancouver B.C. Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,219
    Images
    42
    Maybe the limiting factor is the scanning technology people have access to...
    That is one of the biggest flaws in converting analogue to digi...
    I didn't get better, I only replaced my scanner.
    Last edited by dances_w_clouds; 03-14-2010 at 11:15 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    522
    Images
    1
    It is at least partly an intentional style call. A lot of people playing with film like vintage looks - and low contrast, etc shots are part of that. I think it is similar to the popularity of holga style shots.

    I think it is also a reaction to the highly processed, high saturation, photoshopped, perfect images people see so frequently. Something of a 'flaws are beautiful' attitude.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin