Getting this type of look

If anyone has a crappy scratched up Summar or similar uncoated lens they want to get rid of PM me. 50mm or 35mm or whatever. Haze is probably OK, heck even desirable.
 
J Crew images and Terry Richardson style photos seem all the rage lately. Perhaps we should all shoot with a Yashica T4's and cross process some Kodak Royal Gold 400 to get the best of both worlds? 😛
 
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...

The old Thambar from Leica would give this kind of look, as would the Hektor 125f2.5. There is really no new lens out there that will "diffuse" wide-open. without looking artificial. Nikon had (or still has) some SLR lens that will "de-focus" slightly and accentuate the diffusion.
 
I'm guessing photoshop, but if the question is how to do this with film... I like Portra NC and a soft lens or filter. These were taken with Portra 400NC and a Canonet 17. Different sharpness and pallets but something about the color is similar to me:

4439630401_a8b68bcc0b.jpg

4439629093_57bd6fe24c.jpg
 
Or I suppose something random and expired. Here is Kodak Gold 400, 20 years out of date by 20 years. Shot with an XA, probably somewhat over exposed because it was insanely bright out there:

4593105809_533a5d635a.jpg


Good reminder that I need to shoot more of this film this summer. 🙂
 
Given the catalog/advertising purpose of the shots, I expect it's important that the clothing is kept the right colors and look... and the background is adjusted for the atmospheric appearance.
 
buzzardkid said:
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.
Click to expand...

That was a Fuji superia 135 neg that I happened to have a draft scan to hand, the odd blown bit is just a scanning artifact.

If I were shooting that to go in a catalogue I'd choose MF Digi and get the best IQ and saturation I could to hand over to the Art Dept

If I had to do it on film, out of date Ektachrome and shoot it through a smeared filter or a gel, at one time I had a thing about GAF500 shot through sweet warpers
 
Last edited:
Guys..

This is a photoshop technique.
It's been around for a number of years.
Take a look at Jesh's website (if you can deal with Flash and all that):
http://www.jeshderox.com/

Hit up the Galleries and scroll through the weddings.. it's been done for the past 4 years and I really think Jesh started the trend.

Dave
 
Actually couldn't deal with the Flash and especially the music, but believe you that it can be accomplished with a photoshop technique and has been popular in the wedding world for years and that you consider it an outdated cliche at best. Point taken. You are frustrated with our collective ignorance of this fact.

My question though was about doing something like this with film and lenses and minimal photoshop:

From my original post:
"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."

The general discussion on this has been very informative and enlightening to me and have given me some good ideas.

Thanks

dcsang said:
Guys..

This is a photoshop technique.
It's been around for a number of years.
Take a look at Jesh's website (if you can deal with Flash and all that):
http://www.jeshderox.com/

Hit up the Galleries and scroll through the weddings.. it's been done for the past 4 years and I really think Jesh started the trend.

Dave
Click to expand...
 
If the case is, that you want this sort of look with film, get old expired kodachrome and use it or get new slide film and use it and then let the slides age. Without doing some sort of process to the film itself, even if you're shooting with an older lens, you'll be hard pressed to emulate the look and feel exactly. The 1970's look is that way because it came from that era.

As I stated in my previous post - if you like the look, that's your prerogative - but others here seem to belaboring the request and wringing their hands over whether it's photoshop or not. My point was trying to show them was that it was, in fact, a photoshop technique.

Cheers,
Dave
 
nightfly said:
Actually couldn't deal with the Flash and especially the music, but believe you that it can be accomplished with a photoshop technique and has been popular in the wedding world for years and that you consider it an outdated cliche at best. Point taken. You are frustrated with our collective ignorance of this fact.

My question though was about doing something like this with film and lenses and minimal photoshop:

From my original post:
"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."

The general discussion on this has been very informative and enlightening to me and have given me some good ideas.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I remember Spielberg discussing Saving Private Ryan's processing during the hype about that when it first came out, it had a similar look I think, if higher contrast, he heat stressed col-neg stock by leaving the cans out in full sun in his yard then used a bleach bypass or partial bleach bypass process, very brave if you ask me anything could have gone wrong, I’d committed it to memory but never got round to trying it
 
dcsang said:
If the case is, that you want this sort of look with film, get old expired kodachrome and use it or get new slide film and use it and then let the slides age....
As I stated in my previous post - if you like the look, that's your prerogative - but others here seem to belaboring the request and wringing their hands over whether it's photoshop or not. My point was trying to show them was that it was, in fact, a photoshop technique.

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

1. I find it hard to believe any photographer would shoot expired film on a catalog shoot of this prominence/importance. The results are just too unpredictable. Who would risk it? You have an Art Director to shoot for. This is no Sunday dalliance.
2. The website posted is NOT evidence of photoshop use in the example. Whether Photoshop was responsible for some/part of it or not, the examples shown are merely Similar, in some ways, to the original example.
3. The thread is, inherently, about speculation. So how long it goes versus a "belaboring" effort is in the mind of the reader. I, for one, am (still) interested.

I still think it was a Pentax 67 with Portra and then some 'retro' PS post, but i'd be thrilled to find it was all Canon 5D and a Takumar lens or somesuch....
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
1. I find it hard to believe any photographer would shoot expired film on a catalog shoot of this prominence/importance. The results are just too unpredictable. Who would risk it? You have an Art Director to shoot for. This is no Sunday dalliance.
2. The website posted is NOT evidence of photoshop use in the example. Whether Photoshop was responsible for some/part of it or not, the examples shown are merely Similar, in some ways, to the original example.
3. The thread is, inherently, about speculation. So how long it goes versus a "belaboring" effort is in the mind of the reader. I, for one, am (still) interested.

I still think it was a Pentax 67 with Portra and then some 'retro' PS post, but i'd be thrilled to find it was all Canon 5D and a Takumar lens or somesuch....
Click to expand...

I would recommend that whoever is interested in determining exactly how "that look" was created then contact the advertising company and see what they say. They may be able to tell you, at the very least, the name of the photographer and, from that, one can contact the photographer to ask the question.

Really, that's the only way that people will truly know how the look was created.

Then all will be happy and that look can be emulated accordingly.

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
I would recommend that whoever is interested in determining exactly how "that look" was created then contact the advertising company and see what they say. They may be able to tell you, at the very least, the name of the photographer and, from that, one can contact the photographer to ask the question.

Really, that's the only way that people will truly know how the look was created.

Then all will be happy and that look can be emulated accordingly.

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

I'm guessing JCrew does their stuff in-house, catalog-wise. And the OP already wrote to Customer Service. I'd recommend calling their design offices directly and speaking to an Art Director or assistant. Actually, i have a design business.... Maybe i'll do it, as a fellow AD, looking for talent....
 
Arthur Elgort, Leica user, has shot many of their catalogs, especially the "beach" themed ones in Long Island. He uses a hodgepodge of nice vintage 35mm-120-4x5 cameras including Graflex SLRs, but most often he shoots with an old Leica SL.

I suspect it is medium format whatever film with a good scan and lots of selective post-processing.
 
I actually have clients who might be interested in hiring a photographer who does this kind of work, but when i tried to make a professional inquiry, the receptionist said they do not "freely" release such information. I was given a general email "in-box" for further correspondence, but didn't get the feeling anyone would be forthcoming with intel. Can't imagine why it's so classified, unless, as Frank suggests above... it's a high-profile fotog who might not want to be connected to major chain catalog work.

Oddly, there are some photographers who have sites online and who do list JCrew as a client, but the work i found earlier doesn't match this. So, presumably, there isn't a confidentiality agreement/NDA on that end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom