What is the best film around to capture that 1970s look?

Dear OP,

the Schlecker film is rebranded Fuji (I think it's Superia? Most likely it's their cheapest film that they rebrand for drugstore chains). Any cheapo Fujifilm should be fine as long as you shoot older lenses.

I picked up a lot of Schlecker film in Berlin last October, Schlecker is in financial trouble but as far as I know shops have not yet closed down.

There is a nice 'Berlin?' thread on here as well.
 
shadowfox said:
You can do this with any film, fresh or not:

1. Overexpose your negative film when shooting.
Because as film fade, it becomes brighter when scanned, not darker.
Click to expand...

Overexposure can have interesting effects.

1. Ektar 100 with Canon 50 mm f/1.8, massive (accidental) overexposure (somewhere 8x - 32x due to non-working long times at Canon IV Sb)


Canon IV Sb_Canon 50 1,8_01_Ektar 100_006 von thomas.78 auf Flickr

2. the same film with a Leica IIIf and Summitar 50 mm 2.0
(I tranferred the film from the Canon to the Leica):


Leica IIIf_Summitar 50 2,0_02_Ektar 100_014 von thomas.78 auf Flickr
 
Lucky 200 Color is pretty poor film to be honest. Might just be what you're after......if you can stand the spots in the emulsion...

fpp11066.jpg

Leica IIIc + Summar, and a very poor negative scanner.
 
shadowfox said:
You can do this with any film, fresh or not:

1. Overexpose your negative film when shooting.
Because as film fade, it becomes brighter when scanned, not darker.

2. Then in post-processing, increase the white balance temperature, this can be done even with the simpler programs than PS. By doing this, you'll contribute to the warm/worn look of yesteryear photographs.
Click to expand...

1. yes, I agree. Not only will it be brighter, but highlights will be a bit washed out and the color quality overall will not be as saturated.

2. if you want it warmer, then DECREASE the color temperature.

Also, there were many films in the 70s and they all age differently and have different "looks". For instance, Ektachrome turns magenta. And also color prints were done on a whole range of papers that faded in different ways. So it would be good if you were more specific.
 
buzzardkid said:
Dear OP,

the Schlecker film is rebranded Fuji (I think it's Superia? Most likely it's their cheapest film that they rebrand for drugstore chains). Any cheapo Fujifilm should be fine as long as you shoot older lenses.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure the same el-cheapo color film is sold by the name "AgfaPhoto Vista". It's Fuji film even though the name suggests Agfa.
 
SirAlien said:
I did read Roger's article with the Ektar after the recommendation near the top of the thread.
The adjusted in Photoshop image looks nice. Sadly I can't afford that level of software although I suspect with a little reading I could do the same in Aperture. :)
Click to expand...
Try using the Gimp. It is free, and can allow you to do most anything that you would do in Photoshop.

http://www.gimp.org/

Probably the easiest way to get that "old magazine look" would be by reducing the numbers of colors (limiting the available pallete) in the image (posterizing). See this set, this expired film overexposed quite badly, but after some image manipulation (adjusting color and black levels and reducing colors) came out with kind of a vintage "Hot Rod Magazine" feel, if that is what you are looking for:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greyscale3/sets/72157626901033710/with/5805639652/
 
Pablito said:
2. if you want it warmer, then DECREASE the color temperature.
Click to expand...

Thank you Pablito.
I was thinking the slider in Ligthroom going to the right for warmer look and I unconsciously think "increase" :)

The bottom line is, the lower in Kelvin (K) the number is, the warmer the image should look. By warmer, I mean yellow-er, not blue-er. This numeric scale also have a different range for different lighting situations like indoor vs outdoor.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
The colour you see in books from the seventies, I believe, is the effect of the limited pallet allowed by four colour printing at the time. They hadn't yet perfected miscible inks, so what you got depended very much on how well the platemaker and the machine minder could balance the separations, to mimic the original image.
Click to expand...

I've been an offset printer since the 70's, and inks have not changed that much, nor has the basic mechanics of the printing process. The pallete is still the same four colors for photo reproduction that it was then, a dot is still a dot, a rosette is still a rosette, many printers are still using the same 40-year-old Goss, Heidelberg, and Harris presses that they used in the 70's, and offset inks were as transparent then as they are now. Four-color photo-offset lithography still uses the same CMYK pallete that it always has, colors are created not by an actual blending of the inks, but as an illusion created by a rosette pattern of tiny dots. There are some "fade resistant" inks now that were not common then, and also UV coatings that will make printing more fade-resistant, used mostly for advertising products and expensive fancy stuff, but the vast majority of printing is still produced using less expensive procedures.

Most of the advances in the printing process are more a factor of advances in pre-press technology and CTP platemaking (the darkroom is a thing of the past in many print shops now), and by changes in the paper substrates, primarily to stocks with an alkaline substrate rather than an acidic one, which are less prone toward discoloration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom