make me appreciate color film

T

Teus

Thijs Deschildre
Local time
8:02 PM
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
197
okay, this is going to be a bit of a long shot. I've been shooting B&W negative film for a few years now, and start to know my way around films, developers and light.. so I can have my photos the way I like them.

for color, apparently I like digital better. I got my D200 a year ago, and shot intensively with it for months. I like the colors it gives me, they looked great and required little editing once I got my workflow. limited dynamics, but vivid and without color cast. some samples: http://www.pbase.com/teus/jamboree07

Color slides can be nice. Velvia is great with some editing, the roll of Astia 100F I tried was OK. but, color slides are expensive. I've shot color negative film at a wedding, but don't really like it. it all looked murky and flat... Fuji reala, shot some 160S, 400H,..

so: show me some photos of yours on color film. Please tell me what film you used, what lighting circumstances, and how much/how you edited. maybe I'll get the right feeling for color film then :)
 
I can't - I agree with you. I shoot color print film only when I wish to quickly test a used 35mm camera. Otherwise, for film I shoot B&W and for everything else, digital. I do have some remaining stocks of outdated slide film to burn through, but once that's done, that's the end of it. I'll shoot B&W as long as it is available.
 
The only film I use is colour negative. Having it processed is easy. There are no longer many places which do a good job with B&W film. With scanner and computer, conversion to monochrome is the work of a moment.
 
payasam said:
The only film I use is colour negative. Having it processed is easy. There are no longer many places which do a good job with B&W film. With scanner and computer, conversion to monochrome is the work of a moment.
Click to expand...

I do my own B&W, and although color is quick and easy to have processed (which is why I use it to test cameras), and I have it processed only (no prints, no scans), it is generally scratched up and requires anywhere from a little to a lot of post-processing to clean up when scanned.

When I process my own B&W, it often comes out very nearly perfect with regard to scratches, dust, etc.
 
Teus said:
ahaa!
colors seem very poppy. is this because your photos are often with parts deep in the shadows, or in backlight? you edit your scans a lot?
Click to expand...

Recently I've stuck on UC. I like it colours, they help me feel better in our gloomy gray days. Especially I like it in fall colours.
Yes, mostly I wanted the coloured leaves be backlit to show the beauty of autumm in our place.

As for editing I made the noise reduction spontaneously and it gave a blurry effedt that I liked. So few of shots were noise reducted on purpose :)


400 UC, ultra colors eh. I recently bought a roll of 160VC, just to get away from the Fuji stuff.
Click to expand...

We have UC here as a cheapest film out of Kodak's (I do not mean Gold, Ultra gold, etc, they are cheap but they worth their low price)
And we have it USD 4.49 vs VC or NC USD 6.99.

I think I can desaturate if I need for USD 2.50 myself :)
 
couple of books to check out

couple of books to check out

possibly at your library or used bookstore:

early John Shaw Nature photog. books.

Ansel Adams "In Color"

both very sharp photos, without the over saturation and contrast of many digital and photoshopped snaps.

Teus said:
okay, this is going to be a bit of a long shot. I've been shooting B&W negative film for a few years now, and start to know my way around films, developers and light.. so I can have my photos the way I like them.

for color, apparently I like digital better. I got my D200 a year ago, and shot intensively with it for months. I like the colors it gives me, they looked great and required little editing once I got my workflow. limited dynamics, but vivid and without color cast. some samples: http://www.pbase.com/teus/jamboree07

Color slides can be nice. Velvia is great with some editing, the roll of Astia 100F I tried was OK. but, color slides are expensive. I've shot color negative film at a wedding, but don't really like it. it all looked murky and flat... Fuji reala, shot some 160S, 400H,..

so: show me some photos of yours on color film. Please tell me what film you used, what lighting circumstances, and how much/how you edited. maybe I'll get the right feeling for color film then :)
Click to expand...
 
teus- a bit off topic, but I have to ask. Is that the World Scout Jamboree or World Explorer Jamboree?

I'm a proud Eagle Scout and just had to ask- especially in light of seeing females at the Jamboree. I quite enjoyed looking through those and appreciate your sharing them here.
 
Colour film is for colourful subjects. All too often colour is distracting. It just happens, particularly in street shots. I imagine if I did more shots of landscapes or flowers I would feel differently, but I don't.

Nine times out of ten I shoot chromogenic B&W. On my recent trip to Seville I took and used 6 rolls of Fuji Reala alongside 4 rolls of Kodak 400CN.

So.

This is a shot that only really works in colour:

2351309406_47f4aff546_b.jpg


As is this:

2350436863_435a6cd2a3_b.jpg


This, on the other hand, is a shot that only works for me in black and white:

2351052935_59b71b336d_b.jpg


Bear in mind with all of the above, that I had an M7 loaded with colour and an M2 with B&W, so for each of the above shots I made a conscious decision at the time of shooting.

Effective colour shots, to me at least, have a very limited palette. Colour is used to "make the point".

Here is an example of a shot that works better in colour than in black and white:

2401934164_e9a512477f_b.jpg


It works because the monochrome environment makes the colours of the castle keep stand out. The same shot taken on a Summer's day will lack impact (the foreground, by the way, is a bowling green).

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Bill
 
I can't make you appreciate color film.

However, I recently was a speaker at an event and a pro photographer was there with a (giant) pro Canon DSLR. I saw the photos on-line and thought they looked terrible. Very "digital" -washed out and that awful "digital" look. Some blown highlights and - I dunno, they just didn't look good to me at all - no "pop", images kinda flat, no oof, not interesting.

When I shoot with UC Professional, I know that the colors are vivid and they pop. I don't have to worry about blown highlights, I have better latitude and dynamic range, I have almost imperceptable grain (color) without worry of ugly digital artifacts. I have a physical negative to archive, which I can also digitize with a scanner, I can shoot slide film and a still robust variety of color and black and white films which would be like changing the sensor in your DSLR every time to one with vastly different signature and image characteristics. I have a "high resolution, full frame" sensor with every shot that matches the very highest pro end DSLR, and I have truly tiny descrete cameras with wicked glass (like a Konica Auto S3) - almost all smaller, easier to handle, and more fun to use, and are way cheaper to purchase with far greater longevity, and without battery worries than any DSLR.

And that's just 35mm. If you want to see true image beauty, get a 120 camera and slap any of the 120 color films in there and admire the beautify tonality and just gorgeous image quality of MF.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom