subdued pastel colors with c41

msbarnes said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not a lot of work at all. Just overexpose the film and when you shoot and if it's not bright enough when you scan it, adjust the brightness with "Levels" in photoshop. Doesn't take more than a few seconds (the photoshop part).

The only reason why you need to do anything in photoshop at all is because when you scan it the scanning program will probably bringt he brightness down to normal to a certain extent. If you just overexpose and let bring the brightness levels down to normal you'll have a look similar to that of Eva Vermandel's work (www.evavermandel.com).
 
OlliL said:
To get this look, I'm pretty sure you need at least +3 stops.

Jose Villa said in an interview, that he exposes up to +5
http://josevillablog.com/
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of this claim. The majority of his shots appear to be backlit. If he's using a reflective meter, then he's getting the overall scene. Of course if he went by this reading, the subjects would be underexposed. So he pumps that reading by +5, and the shadowed subjects aren't actually getting overexposed by that margin--perhaps 2, maybe 3 stops at the most.

Also, the shots that the OP posted are also backlit (somewhat). This effect seems to take advantage of C-41's graceful highlight falloff, and that's why it comes out best with backlit subjects, and more so in diffused evening or morning light.

So yea, take a reflected reading of a backlit subject in diffused light with a low-saturation C-41 (like Portra 160) and increase exposure by 5. In this scenario, you're blowing the background, and overexposing the primary subject by 2 or 3 stops (I said this earlier), and that should approximate the effect. Bracket. Shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 shots to figure out what the best combo is.

Oh, and if you shoot Kodak, just make sure they aren't wearing anything red. For some reason, that color seems to saturate like crazy with overexposure.
 
Would be an interesting comparison to should the same scene with Porta +3 and a digital +3. The transitions to the blown highlights in Maxwells portrait look really cool. In digital I bet they would look horrid.
 
wilonstott said:
I'm skeptical of this claim. The majority of his shots appear to be backlit. If he's using a reflective meter, then he's getting the overall scene. Of course if he went by this reading, the subjects would be underexposed. So he pumps that reading by +5, and the shadowed subjects aren't actually getting overexposed by that margin--perhaps 2, maybe 3 stops at the most.

Also, the shots that the OP posted are also backlit (somewhat). This effect seems to take advantage of C-41's graceful highlight falloff, and that's why it comes out best with backlit subjects, and more so in diffused evening or morning light.

So yea, take a reflected reading of a backlit subject in diffused light with a low-saturation C-41 (like Portra 160) and increase exposure by 5. In this scenario, you're blowing the background, and overexposing the primary subject by 2 or 3 stops (I said this earlier), and that should approximate the effect. Bracket. Shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 shots to figure out what the best combo is.

Oh, and if you shoot Kodak, just make sure they aren't wearing anything red. For some reason, that color seems to saturate like crazy with overexposure.
Click to expand...

It's true that the examples provided are probably not that overexposed but still, I wouldn't have a problem overexposing Portra 400 by 5 stops. In fact, I have done it already under very controlled studio settings. I once forgot to close down the aperture on a 4X5 camera when I wanted to shoot at f32. The shot was taken wide open at f5.6 and the only thing that was really influenced was color saturation. If I hadn't had the comparison with the shots that were exposed correctly I probably wouldn't even have noticed.

Personally, for anything that has to do with either over or underexposure I would go with Portra 400. That film seems to tackle everything you throw at it.
 
Jamie123 said:
It's true that the examples provided are probably not that overexposed but still, I wouldn't have a problem overexposing Portra 400 by 5 stops. In fact, I have done it already under very controlled studio settings. I once forgot to close down the aperture on a 4X5 camera when I wanted to shoot at f32. The shot was taken wide open at f5.6 and the only thing that was really influenced was color saturation. If I hadn't had the comparison with the shots that were exposed correctly I probably wouldn't even have noticed.

Personally, for anything that has to do with either over or underexposure I would go with Portra 400. That film seems to tackle everything you throw at it.
Click to expand...

Even saturation across the board?
 
I got my negs back. I overexposed about 5 stops. I shot my Rolleiflex at f2.8 at 1/60 second at the beach.

I scanned the negatives and adjusted the brightness. However, when I restore color for the scans I think that the software tries to make it look normal and so I am not getting the full effect.

This works, for now...but any advice in scanning C41? getting the color right is such a difficult task.


Untitled by Michael_Sergio_Barnes, on Flickr
 
As pretty much everyone else has already mentioned: overexposure.

Overexposure will push the average tonal response deeper into the shoulder - resulting in natural analog saturation (*nothing to do with color saturation*) and tonal compression. This is where the "flat" look comes from.

No difference here between C-41 and standard black and white. All silver films respond the same way - even E-6 films. The only reason you can't play these games with E-6 is that the reversal stage is chemically induced - and ultimately that's the phase that has issues with severe under/over. The actual film is silver (and obviously dye) just like any others.

Let me also point out that the exact effect we're taking advantage of here - natural tonal compression and shoulder saturation - can't be done with digital mediums!
 
I also will add that an uncoated or single-coated lens will yield a lower-contrast image than a multi-coated lens.

Agfachrome 64 was a lovely film with softer colors.
 
Sorry for reviving the thread but I thought it is more appropiate to continue this rather than open a new one.

So, recently I've gotten a small taste Portra 400 beauty roughly shot 1 stop over (EI 320 + 1 stop for shadows / backlight) and scanned by the lab.
While it's just about ordinary Portra and not as brutal as the examples or typical José Villa colors, I liked its softer rendition and find it appropiate for portraits.
Might try Fuji 400H for this reason.

I am interested in the comments about "crushing the highlights". This particular frame I like was a portrait shot at sundown in shade, and the previous frames were contrasty sunlight. I wonder if exposing Portra 400 or 400H @ 100 would lift the shadows to the midtones and compress the highlights quite a bit, all while having a high-key look.

Thinking about this because the ISO400 films are quite handy on the Fuji 6x9 RF I want to use, the mild guesstimation for exposure and that it would soften a bit the brutal noon light.
Even though I guess good light is that, and taming hard light might help but not give the same results.
Might be a nice excuse to go through the alleys with their shaded light.

On the other side I thought about the advantage of strobes and the leaf shutter of the fuji, and maybe doing the above... Might have to borrow one to test.
 
you are looking at two changes in photoshop, possibly 3.

First desaturate, then decrease density, then reduce contrast.

contrast is best reduced with curves. lower the upper right point a little.
raise the left point 2x as much. Observe and adjust as you go.

Most people sadly prefer punchy saturated images and the film maker will cater to this demand. Pro films with natural colors will be the first to go. Most pros have gone digital. I work with a pro lab for wedding and event photographers and they have no film customers anymore.
 
The best way to get the Pastel look is to have your film scanned on a Fuji Frontier scanner.

Meter for shadows +1 and that's it. Portra works great too but Fuji Pro 400h is the best one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Redseele
Problem with flat colors in negative scan?
Replies
11
Views
3K
Photo_Smith
P
R
Better Color Fidelity
Replies
0
Views
1K
robertdfeinman
R
Back
Top Bottom