edgar_njari

Hi, anyone know what film this man used in his 70's and 80's work?

We can probably narow it down already to some Ektachrome, Fujichrome

or Vericolor/Kodacolor , but which of these (was he a

reversal-shooter or did he used negatives? )

1. Why is it that you can't use still film? (it would be an easier match, because after all it's film)

2. Since you will have developed 35mm images on motion picture film, why not use those instead of shooting with two cameras and trying to correct?

Of course, if you are worried about grain, then it makes sense, because 500ISO motion picture film would be just as grainy as faster still film

Has 200 improved such that 100 isn't needed?

Well with the new Kodak's two-electron sensitisation technology, you get double speed for a given grain structure. So if grain of 100 speed consumer film was good enough so far, then they will be making it in 200 speed version with the same kind of grain.

It's already used in motion picture technology, and I think the new Portra 800 will be made using that technology.

Also, it is possible that it will be used a lot with consumer films (or is already used)

Just for the archives:

Kodak confirms that EPR was introduced in 1976 and that

there were no significant changes to the emulsion since then.

Also Kodak confirms that Ektachrome 160T was introduced in 1986, and also hasn't been changed since then.

It all comes from the same CCD image, the difference between positive/negative/color/BW is in software processing (which you can do yourself)

What it always starts from is a color positive scan

There is a difference between low contrast film with increased contrast post-exposure, and high contrast film.

Every grain structure has its size and amplitude. The amplitude of grain

(contrast between variations in density caused by grain)

is yet another part of image that gets affected by printing and processing.

So when you increase the contrast, you increase the difference between tones, and with that you increase the amplitude of grain

So by using a low contrast film and increasing its contrast you are increasing grain contrast because grain is just a part of the picture.

By using a high contrast film your grain stays in its natural amplitude.

This is also the reason why negative films have higher grain amplitude (grain is more visible), it's because every negative has to be increased in contrast to become a print, while slide films stay in their natural contrast, in fact sometimes you even reduce slide films contrast in order to print it.

That's also the reason why pushing film increases grain visibility.

If you want high-contrast, and high saturation images, best quality comes from high contrast films.

And if you want low contrast images, the logical thing to do is

to use lower contrast film.

That's the beauty of still film palette, film comes in all flavours.

And each of these films provides most quality when used for what it was designed for.

Well, there is one advantage of using low con negative film for high contrast prints:

Prints from negative, even at high contrast compress highlights (instead of cliping them) and shadows, so you get more latitude and detail in highlights shadows. While with slide films you can lose shadow and highlights details.

Fashion photography is in conflict with ethics if ethics are in conflict with fashion photography.

Both change over time, and going from person to person.

I am always amazed when people suggest using black and white for fixing some problems.

Like there are a lot of times when someone asked questions about problems with color reproduction and someone says: shoot in BW

That's like saying you have problems with opening doors on your car, and getting a suggestion to take of the door compleatly.

While I do like good BW photography, there is something obviously lacking from it if your goal is to get color pictures (as ways to photograph a color world) and that's color

"Have all the Pro's really switched over to digital?"

In the recend words of Kodak themself (who is pushing the idea of digital) 2/3 of professionals still use film even though they own and use digital equipment in combination with it

"I can think of one way this might happen. Specifically, a use of a noise-reduction program (eg., NeatImage) with overly-aggressive settings."

But what if you are comparing at say 25% and you see neither the digital artefacts nor grain.

If you ask me grain is not that significant for film look.

Some film images are grainy, others (like LF) are grainless, but they all look like film.

What I think is most responsible for film look is they way highlights are recorded, in the logarithmic manner.

"You can make it so that your film results look like digital"

I have never seen it done Les, have you? I'm extreamly sceptical

Have any examples, visual or at least in form of description?

If you mean quality, then of course any kind of copying is a compromise of some sort. Your film original will always be more true to itself than a scan. But in terms of making actual prints, that's irrelevant. It takes a lot of good work, and you can make great results from both digital prints and optical.

But if you are talking about the way film looks estethicaly compared to digital, the no, scanners do not make film look like a picture from a digital camera. Even with a really crappy scan, you can still tell tha it's film, because the film-look does not depend much on quality.

For example, turn on your TV, and take a look. You can instantly figure out which films and shows were made on film. Not only that, you can also roughly tell from which decade is the film just by looking at tonality of the images . All that in a crappy low resolution telecine suite.

Film never loses its film look, unless you do something really nasty to it in photoshop

I was just wondering, how much better is the 4-element lens in 107

compared to the one in 104?

forgot to say...

what I'd do instead is uprez it in photoshop and try to digitally get rid of the pixel patterns by using blur or such techniques, or even airbrushing the images if you have enough time.

I think he would just like to try and hide the pixels

My opinion is that mixels might still show when recorded to a sharp slide film because 3mpx is really a small resolution

For example, pixels are visible on edges of objects when you record DV camera footage to 35mm film for projection.

"I believe you lose quality in any scanning process, some more than others."

Well, I be afraid to throw away a slide after a 8000dpi drum scan

"Am I using the wrong film?"

How can you be using a "wrong" film? There is no right or wrong in analog photography, unless some clients are breathing down your neck

On the other hand, there IS a "wrong" digital camera, because there is no reason not to use the best one if you have enough money for it. I've never heard anyone longing for the "unique" look of previous generation digital CCD's. Usually it's trash after a few years.

Film is much like painting, there is no "wrong" way to paint something. Old films, grainy films, soft films, as well as latest sharpest films, they all have their own charm that someone is after.

In fact if you ask me, the more film biases from reality, the more interesting it looks. (the exeption being grain for me personally, I don't like grain much)

Film should be chosen accoarding to your own visual taste, because it's not some machine that copies reality.

I'm not even asking about lighting.

And you obviously don't see what I'm talking about

Here are a couple of more photos from Peter, tha feature the same kind

of technique for making the colors look almost like painted:

http://free-os.t-com.hr/redmist/lake.jpg

http://free-os.t-com.hr/redmist/woman.jpg

Hope it is more clear now what kind of a look I'm talking about (if you see nothing in common in these 3 photos, then I think you can't help me with this, but thank's everyone for your imput)

So you think the background buildings were also airbrushed in some way?

It looks like the effect is of more "global" nature, insted of local painting. I mean, every part of the image in the background is affected by this strange look of colors, if it were a result of airbrushing of some sort, one would have to practically repaint the entire photograph

Hi

take a look at this Volvo ad. Shot by Peter Gehrke

http://free-os.t-com.hr/redmist/volvo.jpg

I'm really wondering about ways to make the colors look like that.

They almost look like they were painted instead of photographed.

Now I have a theory about how this was made, I'll first say what I

think, and then I'd appretiate if you have me your opinion on how this

was made.

My guess is, the car was shot in a studio with nice lighting, hence

the shiny "fashion" look. Then composited to this background photo.

Then the car was retouched by painting highlights and shadows with

tools such as dodge/burn in photoshop, just like they do on fashion

model skin.

But what I don't get is how come the background shares this almost

cartoon-like look. The cars in the background which are obviously shot

on site still look painterly.

Something must have been done to the whole image to affects its

shadows and tonal distribution, but what. Anyone know of any photoshop

tricks that can do that?

One thing that comes to mind is masking, using a combination of

different masks, one can alter the image to look more surreal like

that, but there must be more to it.

Peter uses this unknown technique in most of his older campaigns, and

some new too.

thanks

"Indeed, digital photography can easily overrides film in resolution of fine details by increasing the number of pixels. "

Are we living on the same planet here?

How many lines per millimeter can your favorite DSLR capture at high contrast?

Probably not much compared to 35mm film.

Can a 8mp sensor capture 50 lp/mm (when translated to 35mm frame size)? Nope, it can capture 100 pixels per mm, but that is nowhere near enough for recording 50 diagonal lines per mm.

If you are grain-alergic, then film can become unusable to you at some resolutions, where digital would look smooth, but that has nothing to do with actual resolving power.

When testing with targets, MF digital backs at 22Mp probably can compete with 35mm film in the number of lines they can resolve, of course that involves using a good film, and non of that 400ISO crap that is out there (some 400ISO films ARE good though),

but somewhere along the way, grain has become something bad, so you can't use full potential of film because the grain starts showing.

Soon painters will start being alergic to brush marks,

and collage artists will start hiding their little paper pieces