Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2015 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"

  
 
alba63
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


To start with the question of the thread: What is good (digital) color, and what system or brand tends to deliver it better than the others?

Long version:
I have been - like many here - through numerous systems and formats: Fuji DSLR, Canon and Nikon FF, Sony Nex and digital medium format. After many years I have found that good color is what matters most to me. Second only is resolution and that smooth "rendering" that is difficult to obtain with formats smaller than FF.

I tend to look at many photos on flickr, and I once I like a photo (by the criteria mentioned above) I generally look with what camera they have been made. Throughout the years I found that some brands produce a look I like more than others.

This seems to be my order of preference when it comes to color:

1. Film
2. Fujifilm (digital)
3. Canon
4. Sony (Nex and A7)
5. Nikon (specially for their lifeless skin tones)

If Fuji made an FF system my choice would be easy, but they don't and most likely will not do.
So for my next travels I am still wondering what direction to go. I still have a modest Canon setup, and the Fuji X.

Some guys say any look can be done in post, but my experience is different because a great color palette is very complex and cannot - in my opinion - be made by editing a different one.

So as an example of what I consider great color, here is one photographer who tells stories with colors... He doesn't tell, but I think he shoots film...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tito-dalmau/sets/72157627297498919/ or like here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tito-dalmau/5960637238/in/set-72157624253873954

So, what is you opinion on colour in digital color?




Jan 18, 2015 at 10:31 AM
thminhduc
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


His works scream digital to me - they're just more saturated than the film photos I've seen.


Jan 18, 2015 at 10:52 AM
Morfeus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


EXIF say Sony A350 on this one:

https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6076/6157795581_2bd4c4ef4e_b.jpg

Edited on Jan 18, 2015 at 11:01 AM · View previous versions



Jan 18, 2015 at 11:00 AM
Jon Buffington
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


Since your favorite is film, what prevents you from shooting film?


Jan 18, 2015 at 11:01 AM
alba63
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


Jon Buffington wrote:
Since your favorite is film, what prevents you from shooting film?


Time and - related to this - convenience. I have not much time to shoot, also when travelling one is shooting typically hundreds or thousands of shots, this is not only expensive but also lots of work to get that film scanned later.

I try to find the digital solution that brings me closest to film... - or what I take for it. Apparently some of the shots of this guy above are digital anyway...



Jan 18, 2015 at 11:08 AM
adamdewilde
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


Good color, or achieving the film look from digital? Those are two different things.
I assume you're only interested in 35mm FF? And I assume you mean film look, not good color. So here goes:

M9 (M-E still in production, sort of)
D700 (Out of production, and I can't find new old stock)
M240 (In production but it's really lens dependant at this level)

That guy likely shot those with a M9 and probably an X-pro (just based on FOV seeming off).
I could be off.. He could use a Canon 5D or 5DII.

I'll tell you this.. If you take out his framing, subjects, composition, time of day, etc.. He does process his images quite a bit. You're better of getting a camera that allows you to work within your comfort zone, and just learn how to work the files. And sometimes learning how to "work the files" means learning when to take the shot or not. As sometimes a file will just not turn out the way you envision it, just because you know how to use a light room action.

Best of luck!



Jan 18, 2015 at 11:10 AM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


Film look can be anything from velvia 50 to portra and of course a multitude of b/w emulsions each with its special distinctive look.

As mentioned by Adam, the M9 sensor has been designed to emulate Kodachrome and to a lesser extent the M240 is quite similar.



Jan 18, 2015 at 11:17 AM
galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


My experience has been the opposite. I have made most cameras that I own look the way I want in post. Default settings for color output are not something that determines which camera I buy. I will often work extensively with color checker in LR and get the output the way I want, then just save those settings as a preset - done. Instead of considering camera brands, I tend to consider sensor types. That is where I find true different color output. I find different color output from CMOS vs. CCD vs. foveon sensors. I also see a quality difference with sensors that have large photo sites as compared with densely pack sensors. IMO, the list you have above should be replaced by sensor types...not camera brands.


Jan 18, 2015 at 11:21 AM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


Morfeus wrote:
EXIF say Sony A350 on this one:



No suprise there, A350 along with A380 have one of best colors too.. And quite unique "feel" cause they are CCDs. A380 is actually last good CCD APS-C from Sony (there was A390 with CFA optimised for lower noise, which ended as color destruction).

Shame Sony never made FF CCD with CFA like A380. I would take it in a heartbeat..

A380 probably has same CFA as A900, except its CCD, which makes it look tad different. Color quality is way above its price level (SMI 86/82 for A380, A900 has 87/82). A350 isnt that good, but still its rather nice sensor in it..


Otherwise, from what you can easily get.. (colorwise)

1) Sony A900
2) Canon 1D/s MK3 (needs playing with color profiles, but "its there")
3) A99 (same as 1D/s MK3)
4) D700 (same as 1D/s MK3, normal profiles tend to overshoot red chanel)
5) Nikon D810 and D4s, Sony A7s (all look fine as they are, also all look colorwise very similar, same CFA?)
6) Fuji X system

None of these is particulary "filmic", but its not that hard to bend colors there, what you usually need for some color mimic is a lot of colors in that basic file.


Harder to get..

1) Kodak SLR/n, SLR/c, ProBack 645 (all are FF sensors, ProBack is 36x36mm) - preferably with Leica R lens
2) Fuji S5 Pro (S3 Pro too probably) - pair with Leica R lens
3) KM-7D, KM-5D (pair with Minolta or Leica R lens)
4) D2x (pretty much base ISO only camera)

Kodak and Fuji are bit unfriendly towards users. KM-7D is seriously DR limited (D200 bit less). All are old and might have issues (and most of them does).

Insane options..

1) Leica DMR for R8/R9 - looks like digital Ektachrome, has 16-bit output (like MFDBs), colorwise, you cant get much better than this.. but 10 mpix and 1,33x crop isnt exactly win, lack of AA is due low res bound to create issues - also still horribly expensive, with need to get batteries re-celled and if bought separated calibration to match body and DMR
2) pretty much any MFDB with Kodak CCD (I would probably pick those compatibile with H Blads or Sinar, tho look from Contax 645 is pretty sweet too) - but truth is, these are not that much about color as they are about "look"
3) Leica M8.2 (get RAW mod), Leica M9, Leica S2


Cheapo options..

1) Sony A380, Sony NEX-5N
2) Samsung NX11 (underdog, but if you know how..)
3) Olympus E-300, E-500, or even E-1 (all Kodaks with their CFA, noisy as hell tho)
4) Canon 5D (unique look, not that hard to get camera)
5) D200 (simply aint bad)

Some are old, yep..


Then you need to get some basic knowledge about colors. Shooting some film you want to emulate is almost mandatory, then find right RAW developer for what you want and after get some plugin to mimic film and play with that (Alien Skin Exposure, VSCO, Replichrome, Color Efex..).

Personally, I just like good colors and in PP I do whatever I want it to look like..


Otherwise, there is actually quite a lot of cameras that are colorwise good or nice (its not same thing always). For any color simulation, files which not break easily, high bit depth and high color accuracy are things you want. Unfortunately very few of these..

Edited on Jan 18, 2015 at 01:39 PM · View previous versions



Jan 18, 2015 at 11:58 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


alba63 -- The examples you cited seem overly saturated to me, but not unacceptable, just not my target. Besides having humans as the main subject matter, the lighting being extremely contrasty, seems more influential than the medium -- these are practically chiaroscuro effects, but overly dark for my taste. I like high contrast and strong micro contrast, but these seem oppressively moody in lighting. Different strokes!

I don't know that color film is the best medium for these effects. But if that's what you like, you should pursue it, probably with medium format cameras.

George (Mescalamba) has some great suggestions. I like the digital medium format suggestion. But many other good ones listed there.



Jan 18, 2015 at 12:54 PM
alba63
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


Thanks for the answers so far. Specially George (mescalamba). From your suggestions, I already had the SLR/n, a nice camera with a horrible handling and battery management. As this Setup will most likely also go to my next Asia trip with me (India/ Nepal), a quirky camera like the SLR-N is out of the question. I generally to use cameras upt ot ISO 800 or - in some rare cases 1600. I would not consider a Nikon d700, I had that camera and simply did not overly like it's output, regardless of Raw converter.

However I still have a Fuji S3pro and S5pro, along the Canon 5d Mk 1. The files of the Fujis have some of the richest colours of all digital cameras and they are also the closest to the "filmic" look I am after. However they are quite low in resolution and have an APS sensor. As I have already explored India and Nepal with those, I'd probably go the Cano route next time. I personally always found the 5d Mk1 files a bit limited in colour range, the Mk II being better. The Mk III has a cleaner and less interesting look in my eyes.

All the other options, Sony, Leica (price!) and of course medium format are not relevant as a travel setup for me.



Jan 18, 2015 at 01:33 PM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


If you like Canon, then 1Ds MK3 or 1D MK3 (if you can live with APS-H and 10 mpix) are very nice in color department. Also built like tanks..

Sony A99, A900 have very decent build quality too.. (A900 survived Dakar race for example, without much problems..). Tho neither of these is capable of high ISO (1600 is exactly where both effectively end, but I wouldnt push Canons much further either).

Yea, D700 has bit "meh" output in default, its one of those cameras where one needs to really dig those colors out of camera. Case of "must have custom ICC".. Most Nikons apart D200/D2x were like that until they made today D810/D4s. Which again have nice colors (to me at least, not terribly accurate).

If I were going for travel, it would be probably 1D MK3. I can live without too much mpix, it has really clean low ISO (as good SNR as 6D or slightly worse than 1D-X .. per-pixel of course). But colors much better than both..


Otherwise, since we are talking film and Kodachrome.. for example Steve McCurry is currently using D810. (he is long time Nikon and Leica R user .. and to some extent Hasselblad)



Jan 18, 2015 at 01:55 PM
alba63
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


Mescalamba wrote:
Yea, D700 has bit "meh" output in default, its one of those cameras where one needs to really dig those colors out of camera. Case of "must have custom ICC".. Most Nikons apart D200/D2x were like that until they made today D810/D4s. Which again have nice colors (to me at least, not terribly accurate).

If I were going for travel, it would be probably 1D MK3. I can live without too much mpix, it has really clean low ISO (as good SNR as 6D or slightly worse than 1D-X .. per-pixel of course). But colors much better than both..

Otherwise, since
...Show more

I never had a custom ICC made for the d700, just colorchecker passport profile for LR, which wasn't thrilling either. I believe that the 1Ds Mk III is good, but it is a bit big and heavy for travel. 5d is more compact, but true it has more a "prosumer look" (it are by default more red).

D810 - haven't seen much out of that camera, but I clearly have the old McCurry classics in mind when I say film look - wasn't he shooting Velvia a lot? Very good photos I have seen in his portfolio, not just Afghan girl..



Jan 18, 2015 at 02:03 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


alba63 wrote:
Time and - related to this - convenience. I have not much time to shoot, also when travelling one is shooting typically hundreds or thousands of shots, this is not only expensive but also lots of work to get that film scanned later.

I try to find the digital solution that brings me closest to film... - or what I take for it. Apparently some of the shots of this guy above are digital anyway...



You have to ask yourself though if your taking thousands of pictures because its needed, or simply because you can.

I seem to have always came home with as many "keepers" with slower cameras like the M9, Sony RX1, Sigma DP2m etc as I do when I would take something like the Oly EM-1, Nikon DSLR's etc, even though I take easily 10 times the photos with the faster shooting camera's.

Instead of 1 shot I'll take a burst, simply because the camera does it, there is no film cost, and I figure maybe I'll get a better expression.

More often than not its just wasted files to wade through. Same goes with bracketing, I'll often bracket a scene to play it safe, but usually the middle exposure is fine.

We really need to ask ourselves if 1000 photos is better than 100 photos, or if we are just shooting things that aren't even worth hitting the shutter for.

Back in the day, you'd take pictures of things you felt were worth the cost of a frame. Now days we feel the need to shoot 20 pics on our phones of our sandwich at lunch.

Are those memorable photos ? Would we shoot them if it cost money ?

Its an interesting question with regards to the convenience of digital



Jan 18, 2015 at 02:13 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


I tend to prefer the "out of the box" subjective color rendering from Fuji, Pentax and the older Sony a900. Objectively, I was able to get the most technically accurate color from the old Canon 5D after creating a custom profile.

The examples you have posted show a fairly skewed warm white balance so it's hard to distinguish what's really going on beyond the WB offset. Most film many prefer tend to favor warm tinged whites as well so WB changes can have a huge subjective influence on the perception of color rendering (I know, obviously right).



Jan 18, 2015 at 02:25 PM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


alba63 wrote:
I never had a custom ICC made for the d700, just colorchecker passport profile for LR, which wasn't thrilling either. I believe that the 1Ds Mk III is good, but it is a bit big and heavy for travel. 5d is more compact, but true it has more a "prosumer look" (it are by default more red).

D810 - haven't seen much out of that camera, but I clearly have the old McCurry classics in mind when I say film look - wasn't he shooting Velvia a lot? Very good photos I have seen in his portfolio, not just Afghan
...Show more

Hm reminded me, if you are adventurous.. limit yourself with RX1.

I think he shot almost exclusively Kodachrome. Including that last roll of K64 ever shot in color (or at least processed in color). He also has most pics processed to K64 look..



Jan 18, 2015 at 02:30 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


Ah! I was going from just pure imagine "look" not travel portability.

I agree again with George: the 1Ds3 and 1D3 are excellent for their IQ and color. The 1D3 is pretty amazing how great the pictures are compared head to head with the 1Ds3, 10MP vs. 21MP.

And I think you shortchanging yourself not considering the 5D3 for travel. It's files are very suitable to PP so you can get a wide range of "looks". Without a grip is very portable.

Good luck choosing!



Jan 18, 2015 at 03:03 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


Discussions of color usually degenerate into a kind of 'more is better' deal. I blame Steve McCurry's popularity for the look epitomised in the linked guy's work. Dollops of darkness surrounding subdued facial tones with stacks of macro contrast, saturation so strong it breaks the gamut wall and fairly drips from the images. Look at me, look at me! Yet the look is very fake, a retreat from reality rather than an embrace of reality.

You get a striking result quite often but subtlety is not part of the feature set, nor is shadow detail present to much of an extent. Post work certainly is, however. Fair enough, people are chasing the market and you want most people to look.

I think many folks secretly or overtly wish to emulate the rich look of film, compressed tone range, low DR, lots of deep shadows. I call this look 'chromatic indigestion'. I'd rather viewers be stirred, not shaken, and have the rendering complement the image content / story, not overwhelm it. But you know, you can't help popular taste.

Galen Rowell was ecstatic when Velvia arrived and showed a lot of comparisons with Kodachrome 25, which suddenly appeared dirty and muddy, very artificial, and 'wrong'. This was compared to Velvia 50! So my point is color is a learned experience, and preferences vary widely (and wildly).

The key thing to be happy about is that everyone has choice and something to please them.



Jan 18, 2015 at 10:04 PM
nehemiahphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


A900 has such lovely colors. If you're a low ISO shooter (800 and below) and don't need tons of DR, the files are just lovely. I've shot a a7, a7r, RX1, a900, d750, d700, 5dII, a99, and 5DC. To me, Nikon always has the worse files, color wise.


Jan 18, 2015 at 11:26 PM
rattymouse
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Color, camera brand and the "film look"


alba63 wrote:
To start with the question of the thread: What is good (digital) color, and what system or brand tends to deliver it better than the others?

Long version:
I have been - like many here - through numerous systems and formats: Fuji DSLR, Canon and Nikon FF, Sony Nex and digital medium format. After many years I have found that good color is what matters most to me. Second only is resolution and that smooth "rendering" that is difficult to obtain with formats smaller than FF.

I tend to look at many photos on flickr, and I once I like
...Show more

Fujifilm's S3 and S5 Pro have the best of both worlds, IMO, and that is amazing color *AND* a look that seriously mimics film upon inspection. All other Fujifilm cameras have excellent color, but they do NOT look at all like film when you examine the images closely. I find that my S5 Pro images look amazingly like film when you look at 1:1 shots.

Often you'll read many people praising Fuji's files for being very "film like" or "filmic". I can only conclude that these people are just talking about color that they like which has nothing to do with a film look. My Fuji X cameras have great color but look *nothing* like film at all. Not even close. Fuji's X cameras blow highlights like a digital camera, which the S5 Pro certainly did not.











Jan 19, 2015 at 01:30 AM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.