90s Fashion photo color techniques

[photocookies]

Hi all!

I'm just starting doing photos and I'd get a hand regarding how I can get this type of color mood that I loved from the 90s. I shot mainly 35mm then go to PS.

Thank you so much, any type of tip to start to play or thread already opened regarding this is welcome!

 

[Beverly Hills]

What I remember from the 90s with fashion shots was the
resurgence of cross developement.

Your shots here posted looks also a bit like cross.

I remember a photographer who bought a last batch of Agfa RSXII ~ 1000 rolls for cross developement in c41 because he was firmly convinced that his coloring (today we would say grading) only be realized with RSXII
Later I used it also - here is a shot with RSXII (but without crossing)

 

[Pieter12]

The last one does look like cross-processing. All professional work was done on reversal film and the first one could be mixed light, most probably tungsten film shot with strobes, maybe a little warming filter on the camera or flash. In the 90's digital post-production was rare and quite expensive, over $1000/hour for a room with a Qantel Paintbox and an operator. Not many knew how to use the few costly systems, and the operators generally came from the analog retouching field.

 

[photocookies]

Interesting, thanks! Any similar RSX film available today?

Specially for the first 2-3 shots, I feel them quite cold, so maybe its easier to start from a point where your films is quite neutral-cold, then explore digital cross processes, do you have any 35mm film with neutral-cold palette available today?

 

[koraks]

Welcome to Photrio, @photocookies !

The examples you posted look mostly the result of lighting and some color filtration during printing. But my money is mostly on lighting setup. Choice of film will be a minor contributing factor; off-standard processing is likely barely relevant - mostly because it was (and still is) simply unnecessary, so it would have just made things unnecessarily complicated.

Don't underestimate the power of 'simply' shooting the scene as close to the end result. Even in present digital days, this is often still done in many domains. It saves a lof of hassle later on down the line.

 

[photocookies]

That seems true, lightning is another really important point. Just asking to achieve similar results by the way of digital edition, as I'm still tight on budget to get a proper setup, but of course is something that I have really present to get those color palettes.

 

[koraks]

Oh, just play around with curves a little. It goes a long way! Experiment with pulling up the center part of the blue curve, or just the top end, or the bottom end. See what happens. Then do the same with green. Combine both, and observe.

 

[MattKing]

I could be wrong, but it looks to me like those examples may very well have shifted in colour from how they would have appeared 30+ years ago.
So be cautious working to old examples.

 

[kino-eye]

Cross-processing aside, I imagine the cool look in the first examples also relies on tungsten-balanced film (as Pieter12 suggests). I don't know what the default studio lighting would have been for a high end fashion shoot at the time (flash and/or photofloods, or something else, along with gels as needed). Today only movie film is tungsten balanced, so if sticking to the analog realm you would want tungsten film repackaged for stills (e.g., Cinestill) or to use an 80A or other cooling filter with daylight film, with subsequent light loss. Of course, it is likely more direct/faster to grade the colors digitally today, a workflow that wasn't (widely) available then.

 

[Pieter12]

off-standard processing is likely barely relevant - mostly because it was (and still is) simply unnecessary,

Cross-processing was a big fad in the 80s and 90s.

 

[Beverly Hills]

Cross-processing was a big fad in the 80s and 90s.

Time to bring it back !

 

[Beverly Hills]

Cross-processing aside, I imagine the cool look in the first examples also relies on tungsten-balanced film (as Pieter12 suggests). I don't know what the default studio lighting would have been for a high end fashion shoot at the time (flash and/or photofloods, or something else, along with gels as needed). Today only movie film is tungsten balanced, so if sticking to the analog realm you would want tungsten film repackaged for stills (e.g., Cinestill) or to use an 80A or other cooling filter with daylight film, with subsequent light loss. Of course, it is likely more direct/faster to grade the colors digitally today, a workflow that wasn't (widely) available then.

For example : ( ask 5 photographers and they will prefer 8 different light equipments )

 

[Pieter12]

For example : ( ask 5 photographers and they will prefer 8 different light equipments )

In the 90s, it was almost exclusively strobes. Hot lights weren't used much for fashion because they aren't necessarily strong enough to freeze action and they are--hot. The first example has some motion blur, the photographer probably had the power set low and enough ambient light to drag the shutter a bit. Notice the bright, hard reflections in her eyes, it's probably the strobe.

 

[koraks]

Notice the bright, hard reflections in her eyes, it's probably the strobe.

Since those catchlights are also smeared out, they are certainly part of continuous lighting.
Still, I agree that strobes were (still are, for the most part) the go to option in the 1990s for most commercial photography.

 

[Beverly Hills]

That seems true, lightning is another really important point. Just asking to achieve similar results by the way of digital edition, as I'm still tight on budget to get a proper setup, but of course is something that I have really present to get those color palettes.

If you are tight on budget but you have Lightroom or Capture
One : there are a lot of presets and styles !
Additional there are a lot of plugins, most are for less money.

Many are free, examples (If you still have photoshop) :
(just ask google)

 

[photocookies]

Thank you guys for the discussion, many great tips to start to experiment with. As soon I get some results, I'll post them!
Beside that, whats your recommendation for a cold-neutral color tonality film roll for 35mm? Cinestills only?

 

[Pieter12]

Ektachrome

 

[koraks]

Beside that, whats your recommendation for a cold-neutral color tonality film roll for 35mm?

Anything. Since you're going to do digital post anyway, as long as it records whatever you need from the scene, you can adjust to taste. You could even shoot Velvia under tungsten light and dial it back to something cold-neutral in digital post. Just an extreme example; I'd stick with something more sane - also economically. I'd probably just give it a go with Portra 160 or so. Heck, perhaps even Gold.

 

[kino-eye]

Thank you guys for the discussion, many great tips to start to experiment with. As soon I get some results, I'll post them!
Beside that, whats your recommendation for a cold-neutral color tonality film roll for 35mm? Cinestills only?

For tungsten balanced film in particular, I believe there's only Kodak 200T and 500T Vision3 movie film. Repackagers include Cinestill, Flic Film, Film Photography Project, Film Speed Lab, Silbersalz. Note that out of the box Kodak Vision3 needs to be processed as ECN-2 (not C-41), and you might have to seek out a specialty lab that can handle it. Cinestill removes the remjet layer so that it can be processed as C-41, but this creates a lot of halation around light sources, which is its own look.

It can be easy to add an overall color cast digitally (especially with one-click plugins), but I bet it's harder to get the overall cool look while maintaining neutral, pleasing skin tones. I think it would be a fun idea to try to re-create the look on film (or get as close as you can), then see how difficult it is to match digitally when using other film stocks--please do share your results!

 

[Pieter12]

I have shot tungsten with strobes and one strobe aimed at the figure had a warming gel to help keep the skin tones from going too blue.

 

[MattKing]

Cinestill removes the remjet layer so that it can be processed as C-41

Originally this was true. Now Cinestill has Eastman Kodak make master rolls without remjet for them, so halation is quite prevalent.

 

[kino-eye]

Originally this was true. Now Cinestill has Eastman Kodak make master rolls without remjet for them, so halation is quite prevalent.

Ah right, that's certainly the easier way to go about it—but I assume the result is the same? There's an interesting comparison of Cinestill 800T as C-41 vs Kodak 500T processed in ECN-2 here. In addition to the extra halation, it looks like the former has increased contrast, shifted colors, and perhaps less dynamic range.

 

[Helge]

Cross development and a wide angle lens one inch from the models face.

And then of course just Photoshop.

The 90s was Photoshop in full swing.
And the 90s never really stopped of course, that’s why 90s nostalgia never really gets liftoff.

 

[koraks]

Note that out of the box Kodak Vision3 needs to be processed as ECN-2 (not C-41), and you might have to seek out a specialty lab that can handle it. Cinestill removes the remjet layer so that it can be processed as C-41, but this creates a lot of halation around light sources, which is its own look.

Well yes, I see what you mean, but just to clarify two technical details:
1: Remjet-backed Vision3 can be developed in C41 chemistry just the same as the film without the remjet backing. The problem is that regular lines running C41 don't have a provision to remove and contain the remjet material, so it will foul the chemistry and equipment in such a line. However, in a home setting, it's perfectly feasible to remove the remjet from Vision3 film (or leftover Eterna) and run it through C41.
2: The halation is not due to C41 development. It's due to the missing remjet layer, which also serves as an anti-halation layer. Developed in ECN2, e.g. Cinestill film halates just as badly.

 

[Helge]

In the 90's digital post-production was rare and quite expensive, over $1000/hour for a room with a Qantel Paintbox and an operator. Not many knew how to use the few costly systems, and the operators generally came from the analog retouching field.

Quantel PB was as good as dead in the 90s when it was eclipsed by cheaper hardware.
And it was mainly for video production work. Not print.
A fully decked Macintosh II in 1990 made real full colour work possible, at a price payable for even small houses.
For bigger publishers and graphics houses an SGI Iris station was more than capable of handling print quality 24 bit files in 1990.
And Amiga 3000 was also a very effective budget option for magazine quality images and publishing from 1990.