subdued pastel colors with c41

msbarnes

msbarnes

Well-known
Local time
2:17 PM
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
841
I'm interested in playing a bit with color film so I was browsing flickr for some c41 samples.

I'd like to achieve a look like this:

原來的樣子 by HaoJan, on Flickr

憩 by yu+ichiro, on Flickr

Is this just a function of photoshop or can something similar be achieved without computer manipulation? I don't know c41 too well but i was thinking of overexposing 1 or 2 stops.
 
Two stops extra light (it's not overexposure if you want it to be that way) would be a good place to start. Be careful that the scans don't "correct" the look into a more regular exposure. In your place I would shoot a test roll with two, three, four stops and more to see how much extra exposure you like.

That or leave comments on the Flickr images you like and ask how they did it.
 
I'm not sure you'd even notice 2 stops of overexposure on stuff like Portra 160 or 400.

I understand that Portra 160 is a little less saturated than Portra 400, so you could try shooting that at various amounts of over exposure. Also Fujfilm 400H is nice.

I'd try from 2 stops all the way up to as many as you can, and see what you think of the results.
 
What you need is some halation to take place within the film, I'd say more than +3 stops but it will depend on the film.
My favourite for this 'built in softar' look was Agfa Portrait XPS160 which I'd give 4-5 stops which would kill contrast even on a bright day and crush the highlights.
83883575.jpg


Also the two shots you show have tall grass in front of the lens to break up the sharpness...
 
it looks like portra can take A LOT

https://plus.google.com/114325678117355564773/posts

I normally expose my bw stuff at box or +1 so the idea of more than +2 sounded nuts to me.

From this chart I feel that +5 or +6 is what I'm looking for. This is only a chart and not a portrait (my intention) so I'll hunt around for more samples and play around a bit myself.
 
It would be interesting to see what you come up with Michael. It's a look I like and an area where film still bests digital.
 
Portra increases in saturation through overexposure - Ektar would be a more suitable film if you want to tweak it for saturation loss.
 
sevo said:
Portra increases in saturation through overexposure - Ektar would be a more suitable film if you want to tweak it for saturation loss.
Click to expand...

No, that's not true at all. Portra decreases in saturation if you overexpose it enough.

I have found Ektar to be the worst film to play with exposure with. The colors are just too inconsistent.
 
sevo said:
Portra increases in saturation through overexposure - Ektar would be a more suitable film if you want to tweak it for saturation loss.
Click to expand...

You have that wrong, overexposure reduces contrast flattening or crushing the highlights and compressing the image tonally as well as some internal reflection softening the image.
Ektar would be a poor candidate for this as it has a more aggressive tone curve (and a wider spread on RGB values), I'd say NPH 400 rated at EI 50-25 would be better as highlights will soften more gradually with less colour casts.
If you want this effect then overexposure is the way to go. I was shown this back in the 1990's at a seminar given by Agfa where we were put in a studio with a model and shown how to flatten blemishes in skin using XPS160 overexposed 4 stops-porcelain tones in upper skin highlights.

Try it on a frame sometime!
 
msbarnes said:
Is this just a function of photoshop or can something similar be achieved without computer manipulation? I don't know c41 too well but i was thinking of overexposing 1 or 2 stops.
Click to expand...

No, no photoshop needed!

From my experience best suited films for this look are
- Fuji Pro 400H
- Fuji Pro 160 NS
- Portra 160
- Agfa Portrait 160
- Rollei CN 200

in combination with a significant overexposure from at least 3,5 stops up to 6 stops (dependant on film and scene).
Just experiment a bit. And say your lab what you have done and that they should print straight from the negative (otherwise they probably try to do some corrections).
AFAIK José Villa is using Fuji Pro 400H for his shots with this look.

A friend of mine recently experimented with Provia 100F, overexposed 1 - 2 stops, and the with a pull development of 1 and 1,5 stops, and got very good looking results with a similar look.

Cheers, Jan
 
Photo_Smith said:
You have that wrong, overexposure reduces contrast flattening or crushing the highlights and compressing the image tonally as well as some internal reflection softening the image.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Portra 160 overexposed by a stop or so will give results similar to what the OP posted.
 
I would also suggest to try using uncoated lenses with overexposing film. I have obtained similar results using uncoated Sonnar on Contax II.
 
I know all the advice here is for shooting the film in-camera, but I just want to point out that you can expose normally, and get a good negative, and then manipulate it in post. It's antithetical to what everyone is saying, but you'd have a good negative to print from or scan in case you change your mind about the look. It's kind of like keeping a RAW digital image file with all the data on it.

Just another school of thought. Don't shoot the messenger :D
 
David_Manning said:
I know all the advice here is for shooting the film in-camera, but I just want to point out that you can expose normally, and get a good negative, and then manipulate it in post. It's antithetical to what everyone is saying, but you'd have a good negative to print from or scan in case you change your mind about the look. It's kind of like keeping a RAW digital image file with all the data on it.

Just another school of thought. Don't shoot the messenger :D
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. I have never tried this on photoshop, but I'm awful at simulating film effects so getting this on the negative itself would be sweet.

I'm still looking different techniques and samples but I found another cool one online.


Reichsparteitagsgelände by jacob.robinson, on Flickr

This is +2. From what I've observed the differences between +2 and +3 isn't really that much. Scanning means a lot though so I'll ask some people how they scan/process.

This person here did an exposure test with a few different films:


160NC +4 by ezwal, on Flickr


Ektar 100 +4 by ezwal, on Flickr

These are +4 and the results for Portra (top) seem more pleasing to my eye. I'm going to start experimenting with +4 and +6 this weekend.
 
msbarnes said:
Thanks for the advice. I have never tried this on photoshop, but I'm awful at simulating film effects so getting this on the negative itself would be sweet.
Click to expand...

What you'll actually be looking at is a combination of both creative exposure and photoshop/scanning technique. Overexposing will give you the flat, muted colors but if you want to have the bright Massimo Vitali look you'll still have to increase the brightness in photoshop.
 
Jamie123 said:
What you'll actually be looking at is a combination of both creative exposure and photoshop/scanning technique. Overexposing will give you the flat, muted colors but if you want to have the bright Massimo Vitali look you'll still have to increase the brightness in photoshop.
Click to expand...

Whoa, never heard of Massimo Vitali but I quite like the look of his images.

This sounds like more work than I expected. I will contact some flickr photographers and see if they are willing to share their techniques.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom