That's a great film for portraiture. I rarely buy film but I just (somewhat impulsively) bought 25 rolls of Neopan 400 in 120 format (which is pretty rare here in the US bigger than 35mm). I will really miss Neopan 400 once it's completely gone.
I really wish Fuji made Neopan 400 and 1600 for 120 cameras. That would be really wonderful to see again. A real shame that Fujifilm is slowly exiting the film industry. Their recent discontinuations have proven to me that they are not as committed to film as they say that they are.
As such I bought 20 rolls of Ilford film last weekend. They are certainly committed to film!
Classicxobsession wrote:
I find that film gives looks that is pretty much impossible to replicate with a digital file (at least at my level of image manipulation skills)
Even a cheap, consumer film gives that look.
Leica M4-2 + VC Heliar 15mm 4.5 Handheld
This isn't meant to sound antagonistic, but your shot is soft, noisy and has dull colours. What is "that look" that you see in this shot?
I find that apart from the funky colour (or B&W tonal) palettes, at this point the main thing film gives over digital is a nice highlight roll off, something that i have almost never seen from digital.
carstenw wrote:
This isn't meant to sound antagonistic, but your shot is soft, noisy and has dull colours. What is "that look" that you see in this shot?
I find that apart from the funky colour (or B&W tonal) palettes, at this point the main thing film gives over digital is a nice highlight roll off, something that i have almost never seen from digital.
To my eyes, his shot looks like it was shot on film, not digital. That alone gives it a unique look. The rest of the properties are far more subjective.
I posted a similar shot a few months ago from about 10 minutes after this one was taken. I put this up on the landscape forum but nobody really seems to tolerate the color casts in the shadows. I grudgingly edited it, so, here it is.
rattymouse wrote:
To my eyes, his shot looks like it was shot on film, not digital. That alone gives it a unique look. The rest of the properties are far more subjective.
Yup. You are exactly right. I had my M4-2 and Nex 5n with CV 35mm 1.4 and could not replicate that look with digital. Haha I think that picture turned out not too soft with 1/8 handheld on a vibration ridden bridge.
corposant wrote:
I posted a similar shot a few months ago from about 10 minutes after this one was taken. I put this up on the landscape forum but nobody really seems to tolerate the color casts in the shadows. I grudgingly edited it, so, here it is.
I think that's one of the beauty/limitations of film. With digital these days you can usually mess so much with the picture that it becomes more of a digital manipulation after some point. With film, no matter how well I scan it, there is a clear limit on what the negative holds - which forces me to try to get "the shot" when I take it.
IMO the color cast in the shadows aren't so bad. It gives an impression of sunsetting light with algae on the rocks (to me )
