Getting this type of look

I'll give another vote for expired Ektachrome. I frequent this one antique shop here in my town and years ago stumbled upon a bag full of expired Ektachrome 64. Really expired Ektacrhome....like it expired in the mid to late 90s. Anyway, I bought the bag for something like 3 or 4 bucks. I've been shooting it off and on for 4 or 5 years now- at least; and there's still clsoe to 10 rolls left. Here's some shots that I'm quite sure were made on some of that film:

4691190138_58e4bbdf7b.jpg


4691190208_5abf7a5bb6.jpg

4690556701_8072b83537.jpg


I realize the first two don't show off the browns and yellows as much as the blues, but this last one seems to carry some of that hazy, pastellish cast that was the first thing I thought of when I saw the pictures you linked to.

Of course the hard part is being lucky enough to stumble across a huge cache of expired film like this.

Good luck!
 
In my opinion it is heavily over processed digital.
Similar like this flicker user:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35063813@N06/

Canon 5d with 35mm L and 135mm L

I discovered those in thread dedicated to Canon 35mm f1.4 L lens:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=277475&page=311

The above mentioned flicker user was asked in the thread to reveal his post processing but he was not willing to share.
There are some other shots in the 35L thread similar to the look that you are looking for.
 
Vobluda said:
The above mentioned flickr user was asked in the thread to reveal his post processing but he was not willing to share.
Click to expand...

Some people are just too into themselves or their "style" that they feel they are unique and what they're doing has never been done before...

Oh to be that vain and ignorant about this stuff... :)

Dave
 
My god I can't believe this thread is still going. I also don't know what the big deal is about these pictures. To me they just look like not so great scans from a few catalogue pages with pictures that have obviously had some processing to them. Other than the yellow highlight cast I find the whole processing quite subtle, certainly nothing like all the examples that have been posted here from expired kodachrome or heavily processed digital shots.

I don't think there's any mistery to it like 100 year old lenses or fairy dust, it's probably just medium format film with a lot of subtle, selective processing by a skilled retoucher.

If you want this look just shoot some Kodak Portra NC, have a lab drum scan it and then give the files to a skilled retoucher and tell him you want that look. Nothing mysterious about it.

I say use Portra NC because it's by far the color neg film most used by professional photographers these days. Probably because it gives a pretty good 'neutral' starting point from where the retoucher can take it anywhere you want.
 
Maybe ask Mei Tao?

Mei Tao's stuff looks digital, though:

http://meitaophotography.com/advertising.html
http://www.ba-reps.com/blog/mei-tao-gets-chile-for-j-crew-holiday/

Here's a video of a photoshoot. Contax 645 and Mamiya RZ67. Film+Pola. If you have/can find this catalog, you could compare the imagery.
Patagonia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxzlN_ZEMYI

One from Rome. Mamiya RZ and possibly a motorized 645:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5jfe5Q_f7g&feature=related

Paris. More RZ and 645:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHrBhHbazME&feature=related
 
nightfly said:
I never understand why people would click on a thread they are not interested in and then complain about it.

"The power men possess to annoy me, I give them by a weak curiosity."
Click to expand...

It's not that the thread annoys me or doesn't interest me, it's just that I can't believe this gets treated like some sort of huge mystery which it's not. It's not some expired film, some obscure German lens or some process like leaving the film out in the sun. It's just simply a bit of photoshop work by a skilled retoucher.
Sure, one could try to find out what ad agency J.Crew uses, then try to find out what photographer they hired, then find out what retoucher they hired and then ask him if he remembers how he did it.
Or one could just ask any professional retoucher.
 
The lens and film used have little relevance to the shots...

The narrow depth of field with clean blurred background, and the lack of other tones different to the cold vs. warm (sea vs. skin/earth tones) tonal families, are what made the shots.

Get any girl (those are not top models) and do it... A fast tele and neutral film are enough... And a bit of photoshop, but not much...

I'm not against the photographer, but anyone around here can do shots like those with lots of different lenses and films, just caring about two or three concepts...


Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
The lens and film used have little relevance to the shots...

The narrow depth of field with clean blurred background, and the lack of other tones different to the cold vs. warm (sea vs. skin/earth tones) tonal families, are what made the shots.

Get any girl (those are not top models) and do it... A fast tele and neutral film are enough... And a bit of photoshop, but not much...

I'm not against the photographer, but anyone around here can do shots like those with lots of different lenses and films, just caring about two or three concepts...


Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

I disagree. If "anyone" could do it, there would be more of a consensus here amongst us about HOW to do it. People have posted examples and such, but they're not IT. This is about nuance. "God is in the details." Sure, anyone can do something 'similar,' i suppose. But, 'similar' depends on your particular level of obsession.

I also disagree with a conclusion that it was shot with a "fast tele." The links i posted showing other JCrew photoshoots show medium format cameras: 6x4.5 and 6x7, and 'normal' lenses. If this is from the Contax, it might be from a "fast" lens, the 80/2, but it's still a 'normal.' And, if from RZ, it's slow at F4.5. Neither of those shots look like they were done with a telephoto. Especially not the second. And the first was shot from Within The Same Small Boat.

Any "neutral" film won't do if you're into exactitudes. Fuji 160s is different from Kodak Portra 160nc, which is different from Provia 100F. If the OP was interested in 'close,' we needn't be discussing this at all.
 
Some of us having photographed models don't consider it important, difficult or interesting.

Sharing a technical opinion on that subject is not for everyone, certainly...

Cheers,

Juan
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
I disagree. If "anyone" could do it, there would be more of a consensus here amongst us about HOW to do it. People have posted examples and such, but they're not IT. This is about nuance. "God is in the details." Sure, anyone can do something 'similar,' i suppose. But, 'similar' depends on your particular level of obsession.

I also disagree with a conclusion that it was shot with a "fast tele." The links i posted showing other JCrew photoshoots show medium format cameras: 6x4.5 and 6x7, and 'normal' lenses. If this is from the Contax, it might be from a "fast" lens, the 80/2, but it's still a 'normal.' And, if from RZ, it's slow at F4.5. Neither of those shots look like they were done with a telephoto. Especially not the second. And the first was shot from Within The Same Small Boat.

Any "neutral" film won't do if you're into exactitudes. Fuji 160s is different from Kodak Portra 160nc, which is different from Provia 100F. If the OP was interested in 'close,' we needn't be discussing this at all.
Click to expand...

An 80 is not a normal. Even a 50 is a short tele. And with fast tele, I didn't mean ultrafast wide open. The images don't seem taken with a normal lens, because they have a narrow angle of view as the background shows...

I'm sorry if some others think the shots are very hard to imitate... Mine is just one more opinion around here, and I don't feel better or worse if some people disagree... This is part of the forum.

Cheers,

Juan

Edit: I see you were talking about a MF 80... Close to a normal... Anyway it looks like the photographer wasn't that close to the models... That, the OOF rendering, and the angle of view, are what made me think of a tele... About the film, on a previous post I said the low saturation films (neutral) like Portra 160 NC, would be a good starting point... I just checked the images again, and they don't look like coming from a long tele, but there's something in them that don't look to me like a normal... Could the images be a bit cropped? The background looks a bit narrow for a normal... That wasn't my main point. though...

And to be clear: The main idea I was trying to express is that anyone around here considering the shots were hard to do, would be surprised to find out shooting, that the colors and depth of field play a more important role than the equipment. That's all. And if you ask me about it, my opinion is that the character of those shots, depends even more on the colors than on the DOF: if you preserve the tonal contrast, you could have more DOF without harming the image, but if you keep the narrow DOF but add other colors, you'll start to lose the sensation of calm.
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
Some of us having photographed models don't consider it important, difficult or interesting.

Sharing a technical opinion on that subject is not for everyone, certainly...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Well, i have photographed models.* I was actually prepared to say that people who HAVEN'T photographed fashion usually think it's very easy.... But, it's very, very difficult, especially with film. 'Back in the day,' pre-digital, film used to weed out the pretenders. You'd shoot Polaroid tests with your second MF camera body, then expose film with the main.... Then, after the shoot, you'd have to do Clip Tests on each lighting setup. You'd tell the lab to take a roll, clip off a few frames and develop only that small piece. They send it back to you, and you'd evaluate it for exposure. You'd tell them to increase/decrease development of the rest of the roll/s by increments as small as a third of a stop. It was that precise with chrome film. Then, invariably, you'd get all the film back and nothing on all those rolls was as good as the Pola test shot.... And you'd cry.

That's why i think it's very doubtful that a photographer shooting a high-end catalog, with this huge budget, and a huge crew would be shooting expired film. Firstly, with film, traditionally commercial photographers would buy BATCHES of film, so that the emulsions were all made in the same manufacturing batch. You'd shoot 50-100 rolls in a day and you'd need consistency across the board. Expired film, one is lucky to be able to acquire only small amounts from the same source, and who knows from which batches and which dates. So, it's too unpredictable - you may have gotten great results at one time with one particular roll of expired film, but the next roll may be altogether different, and you just don't risk a project like this on something you can't predict.

And, the point of this 'exercise' isn't that the execution of these particular photographs was "difficult" for THAT photographer. It's that recreating this look, with any measure of exactitude, requires specific components. The photographs themselves are not super remarkable. But, they are well-executed for what they are. If you ARE Paola Kudacki or Mei Tao or whoever they hired, and you're on that pier with your 6x7 and Portra and the girl is there, styled and made up, it's practically a done deal. But, one of us, in the same location, with a different girl, trying to emulate this with a D60 and a 50/1.8 and photoshop is not going to give you the same results.

What IS "interesting" to me is how many different pieces of advice are offered. It's also interesting (and quite sad) that JCrew is so tightlipped about the talent that works for them. It's also interesting to me that they went with an aesthetic that is a bit retro, a bit 'soft' and a bit 'imperfect.' I appreciate that.

On the matter of which lens.... The shots look 'normal' to even a bit wide because of the matter that is captured behind the model. A tele is almost definitely going to isolate the subject more, depending on how far back the stuff in the background is, and the rest of the pier and the boat aren't that far behind. If it's a Pentax or Mamiya, i'd think maybe a 90mm for the second shot. 105 or 110 for the first.

Did i post the Paola Kudacki blog thing?
http://pepperandpikey.blogspot.com/2010/04/jcrew-shoot.html
I think she's the one in the photoshoot videos, but i'm not certain.

*___________________
www.derekstanton.com
 
Last edited:
CK Dexter Haven said:
On the matter of which lens.... The shots look 'normal' to even a bit wide because of the matter that is captured behind the model. A tele is almost definitely going to isolate the subject more, depending on how far back the stuff in the background is, and the rest of the pier and the boat aren't that far behind. If it's a Pentax or Mamiya, i'd think maybe a 90mm for the second shot. 105 or 110 for the first.
Click to expand...

Hi,

There's a contradiction there... The 90, 105 and 110 lenses are short teles, not normal or wides... But again, it's the use of color, and not the lens, what matters.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Thanks JSU: I know he's talking about medium format.

Some photographers consider 50 in 35mm, 80 in 6x6 or 90 in 6x7, short teles.

I meant the shots don't look done with a wide normal. For me, the background is narrow. But as I said before, maybe there was some cropping... But what really matters is that those images, if we talk about their character, which is the OP interest, can be done with any format or lens... I can do them in 35mm with a 35mm lens with a wider background of course, or with a 150mm in 6x6 with a narrower background, and both would retain the character as long as I respect the tonal contrast. The equipment has little relevance compared to what color in first place and DOF in second place give to those images.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Is it time for more pictures? :) Now that firm opinions have been expressed as to the materials and techniques to attain this "look", it would be most interesting to see it done with known methods... on the cheap. Who's up to try?
 
Doug said:
Is it time for more pictures? :) Now that firm opinions have been expressed as to the materials and techniques to attain this "look", it would be most interesting to see it done with known methods... on the cheap. Who's up to try?
Click to expand...

Hi Doug,

Yesterday I was thinking just the same... Would be nice to see some shots in that style... I'm not motivated, though... But even if I find no beauty at all in those images, yet I really enjoy a delicate use of colors... And I'd like to see several members can actually get similar results with different FL lenses... Maybe some forum members are on it already...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan, I was particularly hoping to see your entry in the "challenge"; please find that motivation! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom