alwang wrote:
Here's a recent example of what the VSCO (Pack 1) Portra 160 preset looks like:
thanks! that does look very similar to portra to me.
unfortunately, the only shot i currently have on both portra and digital with the same lens in the same light was taken with my old camera, which doesn't have the color profile to work properly with my new "portra" preset. i tried tweaking it a bit anyway (i'm sure these would be closer if both shots were on a FF camera):
I do like presets for those times when you don't really want it to look normal, but don't really know what, so I try out presets till something looks right.
This is my only preset processed image I have uploaded. http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6521426507_2b272e89a7_z.jpg[/img
So apparently 'film' means yellow highlight tone? Sometimes red or blue shadows?
Damn I must be developing my film wrong since the colours are pretty balanced.
i mean the red and blue shadows. yellow highlights are just faded prints or purposeful warming, which is how most people these days seem to remember color film.
thrice wrote:
So apparently 'film' means yellow highlight tone? Sometimes red or blue shadows?
Damn I must be developing my film wrong since the colours are pretty balanced.
thrice wrote:
So apparently 'film' means yellow highlight tone? Sometimes red or blue shadows?
Damn I must be developing my film wrong since the colours are pretty balanced.
Dont think you do. But leaving todays connoisseurs behind and going back to the 80's or so the vast majority used a single camera with a single film with a single speed and color profile etc documenting whatever moment came up regardless in how conditions changed between 24-36 consecutive shots. Rolls had the potential to contain pretty much any deficiency film is capable of. Add (on average) a lousy lens, rudimentary distance/exposure control/settings and top it with 20-30 years of aging of the paper. That leads to a lot of character, not so much precision. I like it.
alwang wrote:
Here's a recent example of what the VSCO (Pack 1) Portra 160 preset looks like:
This is a surprisingly good (IMO) preset for what appears to be Color Neg that has been lab-scanned. Doesn't particularly look any more like one film than another- just cheap 1hr photo scans.
This is why I don't bother with the film look on digital. Today's DSLR's and the like are SO much more capable of producing images than film ever has or will be, in almost every (technical) respect.
I do have several film cameras, and almost never shoot them, for a few reasons:
1) Workflow. It is just inconvenient. I don't have a scanner anymore.
2) Price. Labs here suck, don't want to pay $14+/roll at NCPS.
With that being said, the reasons I do still have and occaisionally shoot film, is because the cameras are so fun (FE2!!!). Also, Neopan is amazing. Neopan is probably the only film I'd like to emulate occaisionally.
ISO1600 wrote:
This is a surprisingly good (IMO) preset for what appears to be Color Neg that has been lab-scanned. Doesn't particularly look any more like one film than another- just cheap 1hr photo scans.
I'm curious what about the picture looks specifically lab-scanned to you. Maybe you mean lab-developed? If you're looking at the relative softness of the image, that isn't the preset: this was a pretty significant crop of the original image, and obviously, there's a little subject motion.
I scan my own film on a consumer-grade flatbed, and I get color results pretty similar to that image, specifically for Portra (not for Ektar, or Fuji color negative films). Here's a scan of Portra 400NC on 120 format for comparison. To me, the skin tones are pretty close.
This is why I don't bother with the film look on digital. Today's DSLR's and the like are SO much more capable of producing images than film ever has or will be, in almost every (technical) respect.
I agree in most aspects, though like I said, I still find reason to shoot medium format film, which apart from color, gives a look that is not easily emulated by preset. Another scan for comparison, this time of the newer Portra 400. This doesn't look anything like digital 35mm, to me.
I do have several film cameras, and almost never shoot them, for a few reasons:
1) Workflow. It is just inconvenient. I don't have a scanner anymore.
2) Price. Labs here suck, don't want to pay $14+/roll at NCPS.
I agree on #1, I really dislike scanning. I just hate having to obsess over dust. As far as #2, for most shots, I send it out to Walmart/Fuji for $1.44 per roll (120 film), including a set of 3x5 prints.
Have you used a GOOD scanner, like a Coolscan V (or better)?
Have you sent stuff off to a great lab, like NCPS?
Good film, developed half decent, and scanned properly, looks fantastic.
C-41 isn't very demanding, any half decent Wal-Mart can develop ie just find. It is the scanning that gets buggered up.
Here are some examples that i think somewhat help my argument:
C41, probably some cheap Superia, sent to NCPS for "Budget" Scans- and I don't think i did any processing on it. 50870004 by Chris.jpg, on Flickr
C41, lab dev/scan in korea for ~$1.50... slight processing after to try and save the file. 070803 (106) by Chris.jpg, on Flickr
I guess the point I'm trying to make, is people think that "the film look" means that it has to look bad, or sloppy, or "artsy". It's like making excuses for technically and often visually bad photographs. NOT saying that any previous posters' stuff in here is crap or anything! haha
Just, a lot of the time, this current generation of photographers, who did not grow up shooting film, think that it has to look sloppy to be film.
That has really irked me these past few years, as film has become "cool" again.
When I want a film look, I shoot film. Much of the "classic" look comes not from the film, but from the lens. I have a collection of lenses from the 1840s & 1850s, and also from 1910-1925. There is no substitute for them. I'm talking Heliars, Petzvals, rapid rectilinears, and DAGORS here! The digital stuff looks fake to me.
Have you used a GOOD scanner, like a Coolscan V (or better)?
Have you sent stuff off to a great lab, like NCPS?
Good film, developed half decent, and scanned properly, looks fantastic.
C-41 isn't very demanding, any half decent Wal-Mart can develop ie just find. It is the scanning that gets buggered up.
Here are some examples that i think somewhat help my argument:
C41, probably some cheap Superia, sent to NCPS for "Budget" Scans- and I don't think i did any processing on it.
Those are both nice shots, and I can clearly see that they've been scanned well from a sharpness perspective. I would not be able to achieve that kind of sharpness on 35mm with my Epson flatbed, but I think the resolution I get scanning 120 film is pretty similar. From a color perspective, however, the images I posted are clearly different, and IMO, are not in any way worse. Less saturated, sure, but not worse. And I would still argue that difference in color is more due to the film than the scanning method.
I don't use any presets or effects for color, but I use Silver Effex for B&W. It has to do with my darkroom past.
With the notable exception of bleach bypass for cine films and crippling negatives and slides in "cross process", the color film processing did not have any room for creativity. The goal was to get accurate and repeatable results. Any deviations were considered mistakes. What the presets are trying to replicate are in my opinion the deficiencies and deviations that I always wanted to mitigate and most of them give me goose bumps.
On the other hand, black and white processing was creative. The films themselves differ in spectral sensitivity giving different results. I used color filters to further change the tonality and tried over hundred of developers and enjoyed the differences in character. Silver Effex does prety good job to mimic that.
Nice!
