Colour Film has Soul

[Wburgess]

Let me start by stating that this is in no way a conversation about film/digital but merely a way to confess my admiration for the way film renders colour.

There seems to be a very natural and soulful (characterful) way that film records colour, nothing ever seems to be too vivid or out of place, as it should be in my eyes.

I have posted some examples below, all taken on 400H with Nokton 40mm. Scanned on a FS4000US with very minimal PP.

I would love to see others examples showing the unique way film renders colour (obviously different films render differently, but I feel the same applies)


St Leonards Shop 3 by will_burgess, on Flickr


Helen at Sea by will_burgess, on Flickr


Headless by will_burgess, on Flickr


Helen Shaw House by will_burgess, on Flickr

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

For the screen, it seems to me, scanning can make or break the image. I'm pretty hopeless at it but have come across some people who know what they're doing. This is from a batch I had done a few years ago, when I was in Kitzbuhel...

 

[Wburgess]

Lovely shot.

I have to agree that scanning technique has a lot to do with it. ColorPerfect is essential to me. But I don't really want to go too much into technique, it's the outcome that's important.

 

[skopar steve]

I'll admit I shoot mostly digital. But I still enjoy the results gotten with a good color film (like Ektar 100) and my Vitessa T.

 

[Wburgess]

That's got a great look to it, nice tones.

Of course the old lenses lend a quality to an image too.

 

[skopar steve]

The photo on the beach has a very nice tonal range to it. Details in both light and dark areas. The color in all the images has very natural qualities. Not sure what film 400H is, but I would like to give it a try. This is an image taken with Ektar 100. Had to shoot wide open (F2.8). Could have used the extra couple of stops your 400 would give me.

 

[Phothomas]

400H is a Fuji film which is absolutely great. I love the tones it gives. My favourite color film is (was) Kodak Portra 160 NC but 400H comes very close behind it.
You can find it here for example: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/396053-USA/Fujifilm_15473707_Pro_400H_135_36_Professional.html

thomas

 

[noisycheese]

Pro 400H stole me away from Fuji RVP (Velvia 50) - and that's saying something, considering the trainload of RVP I shot & developed in the days of my misspent youth.

JMHO but I much prefer the fingerprint of Pro 400H to that of digital color.

 

[Mystyler]

Pro 400H stole me away from Fuji RVP (Velvia 50) - and that's saying something, considering the trainload of RVP I shot & developed in the days of my misspent youth.

JMHO but I much prefer the fingerprint of Pro 400H to that of digital color.

Funny you should say that. I'm a slide film fan, but when I want something to just get developed into a set of prints I'll reach for the 400H. Great film.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

OP just nailed it. Exactly right.

Sorry, I don't have good scanner.


Untitled by Ko.Fe., on Flickr

 

[Chris Bail]

From my first roll through the M3 - Expired Ektar 100


Goodwill - East Ohio St by Chris Bail, on Flickr

 

[jwicaksana]

Mamiya 645 | Fuji 400H

 

[kshapero]

Agree

 

[hendriphile]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Photo_Smith]

Colour is where film really shines.


Chestnut leaves at dusk by Photo Utopia, on Flickr
Kodak Portra, Rolleiflex, Self processed in Tetenal kit


chestnuts by Photo Utopia, on Flickr
Kodak Portra, Rolleiflex, Processed in Tetenal


Leaves by Photo Utopia, on Flickr
Fuji Velvia, Pentax 6x7


Max by Photo Utopia, on Flickr
Agfa Portrait, Rolleiflex, Processed in Tetenal


Dahlia by Photo Utopia, on Flickr
Kodachrome 64, Nikon F2

Fuji NPS 160, Voigtlander Bessa I, Tetenal Kit

In my opinion when done correctly film has a unique and wonderful colour rendition if you want to see where it really sings try some contre jour shots.

 

[Wburgess]

Great pics photo_smith. I would post some mf images but my v500 is a country mile away from producing accurate colour! What were this scanned on?

Fuji 400H is a lovely film and I very much enjoy using it, I'm always happy with the results (if I've done a good job, which is rare!)

The beach shot at the top was shot at around 4, so just betting dusky. I love the brown autumnal hue it produced.

 

[edge100]

Great pics photo_smith. I would post some mf images but my v500 is a country mile away from producing accurate colour! What were this scanned on?

Fuji 400H is a lovely film and I very much enjoy using it, I'm always happy with the results (if I've done a good job, which is rare!)

The beach shot at the top was shot at around 4, so just betting dusky. I love the brown autumnal hue it produced.

The scanner has very little to do with producing accurate colour. As long as it can produce a linear TIFF, any scanner can work well (obviously with better or worse resolution). For neg film, the density range is so small that virtually any scanner is capable of capturing the full tonal range.

Linear TIFF (from Vuescan or Silverfast) + ColorPerfect = good colour (or at least a good starting point)

 

[septembre30]

Fuji GA645ZI, Velvia 50, processed in Tetenal Kit.

 

[robert blu]

Rolleiflex; Tessar 3.5; Fuji 400H

 

[Wburgess]

The scanner has very little to do with producing accurate colour. As long as it can produce a linear TIFF, any scanner can work well (obviously with better or worse resolution). For neg film, the density range is so small that virtually any scanner is capable of capturing the full tonal range.

Linear TIFF (from Vuescan or Silverfast) + ColorPerfect = good colour (or at least a good starting point)

But not all scanners see all colour equally, yes you can produce "linear" scans from vuescan, but if the scanner is seeing the colours unevenly then there is a difference and definitely not linear in the true sense.

I can get great colour shots from my fs4000us but if I scan the same from the v500, I can't for the life of me get close!