60's color 120

[polyglot]

I would actually like to find a way of printing more subdued color saturation without "washed out" tonal values - in other words, less saturation without lighter tonal values. If there's a way to do this in wet printing I don't know what it is, other than to choose a less saturated film and there really aren't any anymore. There are moderately highly saturated films and very saturated films.

You can do a spot of bleach bypass. Simple bypass results in crazy-high contrast but I think with some pulling (which will also decrease saturation) or bleach+redevelop, you can achieve low saturation.

As for the OP, I suspect that lighting and dress will be more important than any particular film choice...

 

[jbl]

I'm curious about this thread.

From what I can tell, over-exposing a film like Ektar causes its saturation to increase. Why is it that over-exposing Portra causes the saturation to decrease?

Also, I'd like to understand why over-exposure causes you to have less grain.

Thanks!

-jbl

 

[Roger Cole]

I'm curious about this thread.

From what I can tell, over-exposing a film like Ektar causes its saturation to increase. Why is it that over-exposing Portra causes the saturation to decrease?

Also, I'd like to understand why over-exposure causes you to have less grain.

Thanks!

-jbl

In my experience it doesn't. The only way I can see it getting that kind of look is if one either uses machine prints that aren't very good and don't expose the paper enough to compensate for the increased negative density, hand prints the same way (IOW underexposes the print for that negative) or uses a scan with the same sort of problem. But of course if you're going to use digital or hybrid it's trivially easy to just decrease the saturation on Photoshop, so again there's no point in overexposing, except for better shadow detail and less apparent grain. Those are the reasons I usually expose color neg and chromegenic black and white a bit more than box (or a full stop more than box in the case of XP2 - it's a beautiful film shot at 200.)

 

[Henning Serger]

Strange request, but I'm shooting a clothing catalog/lookbook next month and the owner wants me to shoot medium format film in the studio, which is exciting for me! (All previous catalogs have been digital 5D/D3)
He wants it to look like it is from the 60's, regarding the color tone and amount of grain. Obviously, modern film will not do, so does anyone have any recommendations for a film that will render like that? Perhaps slide chromes?

Thanks for the help.

Hello,

- you need more significant and visible grain compared to the modern Kodak and Fuji films: Than give Rollei CR 200 (that is the Agfa RSX II 200 emulsion coated on a PET base; the film is from Agfa-Gevaert, Belgium) and Rollei CN 200 (Agfa Aviphot color negative film) a try. Both films have significant coarser grain and less resolution than the Fuji and Kodak films. It is much older emulsion technology.

- The color rendition of these two films remind most photographers of the 70's. Maybe it is the look you want or need. In any case with these films you are much closer to a "retro" look than with the modern Fuji and Kodak offerings.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[tycho]

Ok, I just got a test roll back from Wallgreens (so straight autoscan I assume - testing out my newly bought Nikon FE for light leaks). I used Superia 400 from Walmarts but forgot to change the film speed, and had it set to 200. I over exposed a stop, sometimes 2. In direct sunlight I blew out skin tones, but in shade and overcast situations it gave a great vintage look. I was surprised by the result and shooting a second roll with the same settings, shooting at meter for direct sunlight this time.

I'm new to film and not sure what I did here. Was it because I shot a 400 film at 200? Or just simply overexposing a stop or 2 / combination? I'd like to do this on purpose when I want to, why does the Fujifilm give this look?

 

[MattKing]

Ok, I just got a test roll back from Wallgreens (so straight autoscan I assume - testing out my newly bought Nikon FE for light leaks). I used Superia 400 from Walmarts but forgot to change the film speed, and had it set to 200. I over exposed a stop, sometimes 2. In direct sunlight I blew out skin tones, but in shade and overcast situations it gave a great vintage look. I was surprised by the result and shooting a second roll with the same settings, shooting at meter for direct sunlight this time.

I'm new to film and not sure what I did here. Was it because I shot a 400 film at 200? Or just simply overexposing a stop or 2 / combination? I'd like to do this on purpose when I want to, why does the Fujifilm give this look?

There are so many variables involved in your "workflow" that it is just about impossible to ascribe the results you obtained to any particular one.

Assuming the Walgreens film development was of good quality (there is no absolute guarantee of this) it is most likely you could obtain a wide variety of results if you had someone with more knowledge and resources do your printing (optical) or scanning and printing (if hybrid) work.

The over-exposure may very well contribute to the results you obtained, but only because the Walgreens people and equipment didn't handle it well.

 

[CGW]

Ok, I just got a test roll back from Wallgreens (so straight autoscan I assume - testing out my newly bought Nikon FE for light leaks). I used Superia 400 from Walmarts but forgot to change the film speed, and had it set to 200. I over exposed a stop, sometimes 2. In direct sunlight I blew out skin tones, but in shade and overcast situations it gave a great vintage look. I was surprised by the result and shooting a second roll with the same settings, shooting at meter for direct sunlight this time.

I'm new to film and not sure what I did here. Was it because I shot a 400 film at 200? Or just simply overexposing a stop or 2 / combination? I'd like to do this on purpose when I want to, why does the Fujifilm give this look?

Like Matt said, this was really more a matter of dumb luck. If there is any certainty now, it's that Noritsu/Fuji minilabs will gin out utterly inconsistent results thanks to low maintenance, low volume and low skilled operators. Consistency usually results from experience with a given film, a good lab, and dialed-in lighting. It's easier to get this look with digital or hybrid workflow. Glad you're happy.

 

[tycho]

Thanks guys. I want to run a couple more rolls through the FE and pony up for a scanner after. I'll go hybrid at that point - even try my hand processing my own film.

Apologies to the OP, didn't know it was 120 discussion.

 

[nworth]

Although Kodak Vericolor had a following, most fashion work in the 1960s was done using Type B transparency film with 3200K lighting. There are still a couple of Tungsten color transparency films around, although you might have a hard time finding the lights. A useful althernative would be a high speed daylight transparency film with strobes. What I think you are looking for is high contrast with moderate saturation.

 

[tycho]

@nworth

Would x-proc of slide film do the trick to C-41, or is that too high(rich?) in saturation? Thanks, trying to learn as fast as I can.

 

[williamkazak]

The studio I worked with in the 70's used studio strobes with KR64 film. Sometimes we needed a filter for better skin tones so we would buy a bunch of film with the same emulsion number to test it before we commited it to paying jobs.
Hasselblad with 150mm lens was a standard for our people pics. Sometines the 250mm lens or the 80mm was used. We rented a 50mm wide if we needed to. Good times. Nikon F, my boss used also, mostly with the 85mm F1.8.

 

[newcan1]

Get a 100ft perforated bulk roll of konica 160 professional from ultrafine, roll your own, and shoot 35mm. Just a thought.