how does he get this look?

dwdmguy · Oct 20, 2009

Hi, I happen to love the look of wedding and all around photographer of this gent as well as Jose Villa. Both 100 pct film photographers.

I've been trying for months to get this look. Using such as 400H and 800z Fuji films with over exp. a stop or so. (I listen to their Analog Radio interviews with Scott)

Does anyone have any suggestion.
I understand there is no PS work here.
Tom

dwdmguy · Oct 20, 2009

Opps, forgot the link...
http://canlasphotography.blogspot.com/2009/10/carter-family-and-then-some.html

Ektagraphic · Oct 20, 2009

Have you tried Portra 160VC overexposed? Maybe....?

dwdmguy · Oct 20, 2009

No I've not. But his interviews state the above films. What do you think?

keithwms · Oct 20, 2009

Looks rather lensbabyish to me. That is probably giving the lower contrast, in addition to the selective focus effects. Filmwise, I'd say that just about any of the standard non-vivid films shot at box speed and normal average metering can give this pallete. I mean, not ektar, and not 160 C or VC etc...

Recently I was playing with pro h and pro z at an evening dinner party, using a 645 afd. Here is a fairly representative shot; I don't remember whether it was pro h or pro z, I can check later. Anyway, rating either at box speed and developing normally gives me what i consider to be nice, subtle colours.

dwdmguy · Oct 20, 2009

It does look a bit "lensbabyish"
Very nice photos Keith, I'd be interested in knowing. I use the 800z quite a bit and don't get that.
This guy uses a Contax 645 a lot and I don't think they make a lensbaby for that.
Thank you.

keithwms · Oct 20, 2009

Oh you can put a lensbaby on anything now!

What are you getting from 800z? When shootign it at box speed and developing for 800, this is what I get. If I want more primary colours / saturation then I rate it at 800 and dev for 1600, or if I need the speed, I rate it at 1600 and dev for 3200. The latter works quite well too, (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Far as I am concerned 800z is the bomb! In medium format, at least.

rphenning · Oct 20, 2009

with all due respect keith ( and I mean that ), I don't think the shot you posted is really like of the shots the OP posted. I think the photographer the OP posted is over exposing a VC film. Just a personal observation. I like your photo though, way good tones.

dwdmguy · Oct 20, 2009

This is what I get but perhaps he is shotting directly into the sun. And this was a nasty day so I'm sure I did not over exp.

800z is no doubt my fav color neg.
When it looked like they were going to discontinue it, I cried...

Thank you much.

keithwms · Oct 20, 2009

rphenning said:
with all due respect keith ( and I mean that ), I don't think the shot you posted is really like of the shots the OP posted. I think the photographer the OP posted is over exposing a VC film. Just a personal observation. I like your photo though, way good tones.

Oh okay, and thanks I was seeing fairly pastel tones and low contrast, but I admit that I am sitting at a crappy uncalibrated monitor so maybe I am not seeing what you guys are seeing Anyway it all looks pretty run of the mill to me, just with some lensbabyish effects and almost certainly a bit of postprocessing (but I am not 100% sure of that)

Anyway, if it's an issue of exposure then dwdmguy can simply bracket and pick what he likes.

keithwms · Oct 20, 2009

dwdmguy said:
This is what I get but perhaps he is shotting directly into the sun. And this was a nasty day so I'm sure I did not over exp.

Okay. Well, you know this already, but... how you meter can make all the difference. Suppose e.g. that you average metered this. The camera will see all that backlighting and get tricked into a shorter exposure. Which will then cause you to underexpose her and the foreground... hence more grain and less optimal colouration there. There is a good dose of contrast in this scene and I'd guess you could easily have 3-4 stops difference in the optimal exposure for the foreground and for the background. This is a case where avg. metering can really screw you.

Did you bracket this scene perchance?

perkeleellinen · Oct 20, 2009

Have you seen this?

http://solitariness.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/the-art-of-jose-villa/

I use a Contax 645, and then I have two 35 mm Canon 1Vs and use the Canon 16-24 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, and a 100 Macro f/2.8. I also use Fuji Film because I love its natural skin tonality but also the beautiful saturation of color which is what people know me for, my color.

When I overexpose images on Fuji color films like Pro 400H or 800Z, the colors come out almost pastel. To augment this look, I back light and let the light wrap around the subjects for beautiful color thats reminiscent of a painting. A lot of my clients book me specifically because of this approach to color.

I do as much as possible in camera. First, I set my camera so that Im overexposing my images by a stop to a stop-and-a-half. This produces a nice, soft glow. I want light wrapping around my subjects and giving off a sense of warmth. Typically, I expose for the shadow I also like to shoot with an extremely shallow depth of field. The shallow depth of field works well with the overexposure to create that soft, wrap-around glow.

Tim Gray · Oct 20, 2009

No photoshop work? How is he getting them on the computer? He must be scanning somewhere, and if he's scanning a negative and not a print, then there are very probably some adjustments going on, either behind the scenes by the minilab-style scanner they are using, or in the scanner software on the desktop scanner. Otherwise we'd see a very orange negative image

dwdmguy · Oct 20, 2009

I think bracketing is a good idea. Also, I notice on a lot of his images he has shot directly into the sun....
I'll give this a try with the 400H first, then the 800z. I really do love fuji color films. Even use their instax...

dwdmguy · Oct 20, 2009

Tim, he own a Noritsu Minilab, the 2500 I believe.

keithwms · Oct 20, 2009

Ta da, fuji film.

Incidentally, Tom, I just checked and that shot I linked to earlier was indeed on 800 z.

Looking at the links from a proper monitor, it still looks pretty normal 400h or 800 z output to me, maybe a bit of auto levels done by a scanner. The nice thing about these films is that you get good saturation in the primaries but the skin tones still look credible.

Shooting into the sun.. no problem. The passionflower shot in my portfolio was on 400 H, as I recall. Obviously I metered for the detail on the flower and let the sun do whatever it wanted. I think the film handled it like a champ. Could be a tad less grainy in the midtones if I'd done a slightly longer exposure but my subject was moving, so there was no way to do that.

dwdmguy · Oct 20, 2009

Ta da indeed.

Just for info guys, here is another photographer that gets that same look that I am trying to get. I don't always want to shoot this but sometimes I wish I could.
http://josevillablog.com/

markbarendt · Oct 20, 2009

dwdmguy said:
This is what I get but perhaps he is shotting directly into the sun. And this was a nasty day so I'm sure I did not over exp.

800z is no doubt my fav color neg.
When it looked like they were going to discontinue it, I cried...

Thank you much.

I researched and played with this a while back but I'm really waiting until the darkroom is done to get serious.

This is from very limited experience.

Overexpose seriously, 1-3 stops with no change in processing. The closer to +3 you get the more pastel the colors will go.

Use backlit situations meter for the face then go plus 1,2,or3 for the effect. An incident meter will help here.

For processing Jose uses Richard Photo Lab and they do the scanning and proofs. (They do great work.) Jose, from what I understand does no processing himself.

Richard photo processes to the photographers exact spec. I use them to process my wedding work, they keep list of my preferences; do I like things warmer/cooler, darker/lighter, on 5x5 or 4x6 with a 1/4" border or sloppy border, blah, blah, blah... My preferences are applied to the whole order, nothing more or less, the jpeg scans look just like the proofs.

Poisson Du Jour · Oct 20, 2009

To me the images have been shot with tilt/swing function employed in a high-end lens (or 5x4 + 6x6), certainly not the vague, imprecise LensBaby optics.
It's a very specialised skill; I suspect he's spent a lot of time refining his technique to work at speed when and where required (kids that age aren't going to remain still for long!). In some examples the tilt (or swing) of the lens can be discerned as a peg, but there are also some peripheral irregularities i.e. symmetrical lines of delineation are not where they are expected... possibly post-image print tweaking (that doesn't mean Photochop).

nickandre · Oct 20, 2009

To me it looks like some lensbaby/soft focus lens. You can use flare and whatnot to enhance that look. However, you're also looking at very careful deliberate lighting techniques. He may even be giving some fill in there or using natural reflective surfaces like buildings. The bodies are generally nearly backlit by sun but off by a few degrees so the rear of the head gets a nice accent to it. If the careful choice of scenery and lighting don't get you there, you can try a fill flash or reflection to even out the light because something tells me it doesn't look like that on it's own.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fHt1JYhaJAE/StoUjANGVEI/AAAAAAAAiY4/6mQiww3z6cQ/s1600-h/13.jpg

Looking at that image, compare the shadows. Something is weird in the lighting. The shadows of the people are black while the shadow of the building is pastel blue. Something's off...

The first images are also very well lit, with an even fill. I think lighting is going to get you closer than screwing with film types.

polyglot · Oct 20, 2009

The cats-eye bokeh screams tilt/swing to me, but it's also possible that he's just shot wide-open on a lens that vignettes a little and then cropped the image, which will bias the direction of the cats eyes. There's a post above stating the lenses used and they have no movements.

I think there's also some careful choice of colour balance in his scanning - in many of the shots I see nasty green shadows, which probably goes with the pastel nature of the highlights and the way he's overexposed by what looks like a couple of stops.

dwdmguy · Oct 20, 2009

markbarendt said:
I researched and played with this a while back but I'm really waiting until the darkroom is done to get serious.
Overexpose seriously, 1-3 stops with no change in processing. The closer to +3 you get the more pastel the colors will go.

Use backlit situations meter for the face then go plus 1,2,or3 for the effect. An incident meter will help here.

Mark, thank you a great deal. I'm going to try this. I've been over exp only 1 stop but sometimes not backlit. So you think I should place the incident dome at the face and have it face the camera?

I've used Richards and I felt they are by far the best I've ever used but now with my darkroom built and a jobo ATL2300 I keep it in house.

Thank you again.

dwdmguy · Oct 20, 2009

That picture is interesting tiber, that is very close to the style I'm trying to get at here.

dwdmguy · Oct 20, 2009

keithwms said:
Okay. Well, you know this already, but... how you meter can make all the difference. Suppose e.g. that you average metered this. The camera will see all that backlighting and get tricked into a shorter exposure. Which will then cause you to underexpose her and the foreground... hence more grain and less optimal colouration there. There is a good dose of contrast in this scene and I'd guess you could easily have 3-4 stops difference in the optimal exposure for the foreground and for the background. This is a case where avg. metering can really screw you.

Did you bracket this scene perchance?

Keith, I did not bracket this as it was more of a snapshop but I did indeed use avg. metering which I use to use quite often before I've begun turning to my hand-held almost all the time now.

dwdmguy · Oct 20, 2009

Perk, thank you for this, this seems to fit exactly what a lot of folk here at stating.
I'm going to run with this in the next few days and see. Today I shot my first 4x5 film. Having issues with the polaroid back but I'm working on it.
It's all fun.
Thank you all.
Tom

how does he get this look?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency