Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,977   Posts: 1,523,660   Online: 1155
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: 60's color 120

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,000
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    He's taking the piss.
    ... and anyone believing him is pulling a boner.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,000

  3. #23
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    Damn, I pull boners all the time.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    46
    I guess if it's an interpretation, then it may not be the best thought out interpretation there is because one look at some vintage catalogues or magazines would clear that up pretty quickly. A couple National Geographic magazines or department store catalogues from the sixties would provide working examples of the state of colour photography and colour printing at the time and put the idea that the washed out overexposed look was typical for the time to rest.

    That said, if washed out/over exposed film is the look being sought now for its appearance in and of itself, that's fine from an artistic point of view but I don't think it should be taken to represent the technical quality of photography of that time.

  5. #25
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,780
    I don't get the idea that overexposed negative film results in washed out, unsaturated color. This is true only if straight machine prints are made (and presumably automatic scans as well) that don't compensate for the greater negative density. When I did my own color printing I routinely "overexposed" most color neg film by maybe 1/3-1/2 stop, and it certainly didn't lower saturation. If anything it increased it, while improving shadow detail, lowering apparent grain (opposite of black and white, due to the overlapping dye clouds in color neg and chromegenic black and white) and somewhat decreasing contrast.

    I haven't done any color printing in about a dozen years,though. Are modern films different in this regard or are they just using lighter scans that don't compensate for the higher negative density?

    I would actually like to find a way of printing more subdued color saturation without "washed out" tonal values - in other words, less saturation without lighter tonal values. If there's a way to do this in wet printing I don't know what it is, other than to choose a less saturated film and there really aren't any anymore. There are moderately highly saturated films and very saturated films.

  6. #26
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,123
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    I would actually like to find a way of printing more subdued color saturation without "washed out" tonal values - in other words, less saturation without lighter tonal values. If there's a way to do this in wet printing I don't know what it is, other than to choose a less saturated film and there really aren't any anymore. There are moderately highly saturated films and very saturated films.
    You can do a spot of bleach bypass. Simple bypass results in crazy-high contrast but I think with some pulling (which will also decrease saturation) or bleach+redevelop, you can achieve low saturation.

    As for the OP, I suspect that lighting and dress will be more important than any particular film choice...

  7. #27
    jbl
    jbl is offline
    jbl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    94
    I'm curious about this thread.

    From what I can tell, over-exposing a film like Ektar causes its saturation to increase. Why is it that over-exposing Portra causes the saturation to decrease?

    Also, I'd like to understand why over-exposure causes you to have less grain.

    Thanks!

    -jbl

  8. #28
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,780
    Quote Originally Posted by jbl View Post
    I'm curious about this thread.

    From what I can tell, over-exposing a film like Ektar causes its saturation to increase. Why is it that over-exposing Portra causes the saturation to decrease?

    Also, I'd like to understand why over-exposure causes you to have less grain.

    Thanks!

    -jbl
    In my experience it doesn't. The only way I can see it getting that kind of look is if one either uses machine prints that aren't very good and don't expose the paper enough to compensate for the increased negative density, hand prints the same way (IOW underexposes the print for that negative) or uses a scan with the same sort of problem. But of course if you're going to use digital or hybrid it's trivially easy to just decrease the saturation on Photoshop, so again there's no point in overexposing, except for better shadow detail and less apparent grain. Those are the reasons I usually expose color neg and chromegenic black and white a bit more than box (or a full stop more than box in the case of XP2 - it's a beautiful film shot at 200.)

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by 2WK View Post
    Strange request, but I'm shooting a clothing catalog/lookbook next month and the owner wants me to shoot medium format film in the studio, which is exciting for me! (All previous catalogs have been digital 5D/D3)
    He wants it to look like it is from the 60's, regarding the color tone and amount of grain. Obviously, modern film will not do, so does anyone have any recommendations for a film that will render like that? Perhaps slide chromes?

    Thanks for the help.
    Hello,

    - you need more significant and visible grain compared to the modern Kodak and Fuji films: Than give Rollei CR 200 (that is the Agfa RSX II 200 emulsion coated on a PET base; the film is from Agfa-Gevaert, Belgium) and Rollei CN 200 (Agfa Aviphot color negative film) a try. Both films have significant coarser grain and less resolution than the Fuji and Kodak films. It is much older emulsion technology.

    - The color rendition of these two films remind most photographers of the 70's. Maybe it is the look you want or need. In any case with these films you are much closer to a "retro" look than with the modern Fuji and Kodak offerings.

    Best regards,
    Henning

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    10
    Ok, I just got a test roll back from Wallgreens (so straight autoscan I assume - testing out my newly bought Nikon FE for light leaks). I used Superia 400 from Walmarts but forgot to change the film speed, and had it set to 200. I over exposed a stop, sometimes 2. In direct sunlight I blew out skin tones, but in shade and overcast situations it gave a great vintage look. I was surprised by the result and shooting a second roll with the same settings, shooting at meter for direct sunlight this time.

    I'm new to film and not sure what I did here. Was it because I shot a 400 film at 200? Or just simply overexposing a stop or 2 / combination? I'd like to do this on purpose when I want to, why does the Fujifilm give this look?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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