Getting this type of look

nightfly said:
What type of uncoated or single coated Leica or Leica compatible glass would you guys suggest? I wouldn't be shooting up close, more like a general 35mm or 50mm (realize I'd loose the narrow depth of field, which is OK, more interested in tones/contrast/color). Would an old lens with separation or haze work? Could also do something that would fit on a Pentax MX as that's my other film body that is sitting unused and neglected.
Click to expand...

Summar 50 f2 uncoated, or you could use a Brownie Hawkeye Flash lens not flipped mounted on a Pentax body. This one (BHF lens) was the flipped version, but I can use it straight too:

4676095278_182f090c8a.jpg
 
I think we have medium format so we can sync at any shutter speed, say 1/500 to get a big aperture for throwing the BG out of focus and a couple of big soft boxes for fill. If the colors look off to you, I'd say there may be some cross processing going on, or photoshop. The images have to go digital at some point in order to get in the mag and onto the website. My alternate suggestion (which is probably better) is that it was shot digital in the first place.
VS
 
I got that look using Portra NC. I used it in a basement with and without flash at 400 and 800 ISO. The shallow depth in these photos would indicate a faster film though the grain still shows. I was using an old mamiya 1000s.
 
Last edited:
Sparrow said:
I still think Photoshop is involved personally
Click to expand...

I agree. Alien Skin Exposure 2 plugin's with all the films listed, plus lots of cross processing effects make it easier lately. It's funny how so many people try so hard to stay away from shooting film, yet demand a plugin to mimic their favorite films! 🙂
 
I'd bet it was all shot on digital MF backs. and then crunched and stylized into that look.

I used to do retouching work for catalogs, and everything is cleaned up and retouched these days.
 
Maybe ask them if they know this was shot on film or with digital, at least. My guess is it's film and probably some minor PS work (color shifts), but I think the main look is the film.

Even though it looks under saturated it still has a richness to it unlike one of the examples above. That just looks washed out and unintentional, though I understand it was for demonstration purposes.

dan_sutton said:
i sent j crew an email:

"
Hi Dan,

Thanks for reaching out - glad to hear you enjoyed the catalog. I'm
sorry to say we are unable to share the names of our photographers.

Please feel free to contact me if I can help with anything else.
"

no help there
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't believe you are going to see this straight out of a camera (even an old one with an old lens) with modern film. Could be wrong of course, but I'm in the "it's likely digital, with careful PP" camp.
 
PatrickONeill said:
I'd bet it was all shot on digital MF backs. and then crunched and stylized into that look.

I used to do retouching work for catalogs, and everything is cleaned up and retouched these days.
Click to expand...

I don't see any other way, there must have been more than one photographer on something like that, they just shot the stock files then the design director created that "look" afterwards

MF digi because the to a commissioning editor and designers size really does matter, they may need to do major cropping to fit the layouts
 
gnuyork said:
Maybe ask them if they know this was shot on film or with digital, at least. My guess is it's film and probably some minor PS work (color shifts), but I think the main look is the film.

Even though it looks under saturated it still has a richness to it unlike one of the examples above. That just looks washed out and unintentional, though I understand it was for demonstration purposes.
Click to expand...

well yes, but that was just a 135 neg that was to hand, and I didn't spend that much time on it, give me J Crew's budget and ....
 
It's not so much a following, it's that they spew catalogs endlessly into your mailbox even if you've never bought their clothes.
 
Wish i could see a printed catalog or a high-res image... but the look reminds me of Raphael Mazzucco's older work. Which would have been shot with a Pentax 67, 105mm lens and Portra 400nc. He probably shoots a lot of digital now (Hassy H/Canon EOS), but when the miconworldwide.com site comes back online, look through his campaigns.

http://stilettostetico.blogspot.com/2009/12/jarah-mariano-par-raphael-mazzucco-in.html

Why are some suggesting 35mm? Because it's not 'razor sharp?' This looks a lot like handheld Pentax 67 stuff.
 
nightfly said:
The photos in the new J Crew printed catalog/website:

http://www.jcrew.com/index.jsp

have a really nice look to them. Sort of warm and rich but soft and not too saturated. They look very film like to me (although they very well might be digital).

My question is what sort of film gives you this look? I would imagine some kind of color negative film shot wide open or close to it with an older lens?

Not trying to emulate it precisely but I do like the film like feeling it suggests. I don't have any digital capture devices so need to go with film and perhaps some photoshop post but I'd like to get mostly there with the film itself.

More pics:

June+J.Crew+cover.jpgl


Jcrew+pier.jpg
Click to expand...

Expired slide film is more pastellish in color rendering, to start with. When assuming the color tone of the shots wasn't changed, I'd say this was Fuji film, they generally are more capable of this tone of green you find here, almost slate-grey green.

Ofcourse anything can be done digitally nowadays, but if you look at the way the skin tones on the model with the bathing suit cross over into slight overexposure(on her thigh specifically), I'd say this was done on film.

Great shots, nice feel to them for sure.
 
Sparrow said:
I still think Photoshop is involved personally, this



from this in 10 min

Click to expand...

nicely done Stewart, compliments!

No doubt Photoshop was involved in the catalog shots, but what did you shoot your pictures with? Digital or film? I'm thinking film, again judging by how skin tones cross over to overexposed parts on the face in the original shot.
 
Sparrow said:
well yes, but that was just a 135 neg that was to hand, and I didn't spend that much time on it, give me J Crew's budget and ....
Click to expand...

no doubt. I understand it was to demonstrate the relative idea.

here is another take on the effect, if you don't mind... Very quick PS work. I used your undersaturated file and used some selective saturation and changed the shadow color balance.

I am sure J Crew spends much more time in post than the 5 minutes it took me to do this. For some reason I still think the catalog images were shot with film though.
revised.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom