How to get this creamy Portra-Look?

[Nitrofunk]

Hi!
I've posted this question about a 100 Times on various Forums without a proper answer.
How can one get this kind of look:
http://canlasphotography.blogspot.com/2009/10/carter-family-and-then-some.html

I guess that those are Handprints made from Portra-Films. Althought I'm not new to scanning (I use (and know how to use!) Vuescan with the Nikon Coolscan 9000), I find it almost impossible to achieve this certain creamish, pastellish look with scanned Film - even with Portra. For Post-Processing, I use Lightroom. So does anybody know how to get this characteristic color with scanned Film? Oh - and post your samples, please!
Thanks!
Peter

 

[cupcake_ham]

The shots were obtained using Fuji Pro 400H, overexposed by 1 to 4 stops. He scans using a Fuji SP2500 scanning module.

I have posted the question in numerous places asking for advice on how to obtain this look digitally. To date, I've had dozens of workflows recommended.....some requiring many layers, adjustments, etc, etc, etc. Something that could take 10 to 20 minutes each.....and they still don't have the look.

I've decided to lgo back to color film use for a lot of my wedding work to obtain this look. Richard Photo Lab scans for pros and obtains this look for photographers like Jose Villa, among others.

 

[Nitrofunk]

Thanks for your answer. Finally not one of those "oh - you just have to fiddle around in PS and you're there!"-answers. I also have the feeling that this kind of look is just not possible to achieve with ordinary scanners. Which leads me to the most interesting question: Why do those Lab-Scans have this kind of "look"? Somehow those Lab-Scanners (such as the Fuji 2500) seems to get it right...
Peter

 

[cupcake_ham]

You can do it yourself with something like a Nikon or Minolta scanner for example. But through trial and error, you'll need to dial it in through your settings in Silverfast or Vuescan. I believe Richard Photo uses the "All Hard" setting on the Frontier to maintain the highlights and shadows....and then dials in the color, etc.

Man, you should have seen some of the workflow suggestions for trying to do this digitally. I messed around for nearly and hour once with multiple layers and two suggested actions. And then when I tried it on another shot, I had to start all over as the settings don't follow with each shot.

After trying all this stuff out for the last few months, I decided that it would be easier to "just shoot film." I did a portrait session for a client. What normally took hours in post processing to get it the way I wanted (from a Pentax K20D and Canon 7D)......now was done in a half hour....mainly to sort and resize. Talk about getting my life back!

 

[mrred]

You think too deep.....

It's just flat lighting + desaturate colours + increase contrast + soften (blur). Easy to do in LR. But sorry, it only takes 3 seconds....

And as stated, kinda natural with portra.

 

[Loris Medici]

Seems something that can be done in LR indeed. Using a lens with non-coated or single-coated elements will help too...

OTOH, isn't Fuji Frontier (or any modern mini-lab) a digital image processing environment!???

I absolutely don't feel like that particular look is strictly bound to the film (and pretty straightforward C-41 process)...

Regards,
Loris.

 

[Nitrofunk]

It's just flat lighting + desaturate colours + increase contrast + soften (blur). Easy to do in LR. But sorry, it only takes 3 seconds....

And as stated, kinda natural with portra.

Sorry - but it certainly isn't. I've tried to achieve this look for *years*, but it's just not the real thing. But I'm curious to see some of your examples that have this look and were scanned and processed with Lightroom/PS.
Peter

 

[Loris Medici]

Peter, can you please describe the non-digitally-reproducible (or impractical-to-reproduce) aspects of that specific "look" in form of a numbered list, letting us understand what exactly you are looking for? I just don't get it...

 

[Nitrofunk]

Peter, can you please describe the non-digitally-reproducible (or impractical-to-reproduce) aspects of that specific "look" in form of a numbered list, letting us understand what exactly you are looking for? I just don't get it...

Ok - I'll try.
1) Warm, slightly pastellish Skintones
2) Strong, vibrant, "candy-ish" but silkysmooth Colors
3) An overall warm Colorbalance

But it would be easier if you post some examples of scanned Film that (in your opinion) have this certain look. This would be a good starting point for further discussions.

 

[mrred]

Sorry - but it certainly isn't. I've tried to achieve this look for *years*, but it's just not the real thing. But I'm curious to see some of your examples that have this look and were scanned and processed with Lightroom/PS.
Peter

Before

After

Lightroom settings Clarity -86, vibrance -21, Saturation -33, Contrast -3. Serriously about 3 seconds.

 

[Nitrofunk]

Sorry - but this looks not a bit as close as the Samples from Jonathan. The Skintones are pale, there is some kind of unnatural Blur over the picturen, the colors are lifeless. But thanks anyway. (No offense!)

 

[Loris Medici]

My stance is that "it seems like it's not bound to a particular film and can be reproduced digitally" (I mean digital capture!), therefore, it would be meaningless to provide film samples. I'll try with LR at home tonight...

All what you listed above can be pretty easily achieved with digital capture in my view. (OTOH, doesn't 1 and 2 contradicts?)

Regards,
Loris.

 

[cupcake_ham]

Before

After

Lightroom settings Clarity -86, vibrance -21, Saturation -33, Contrast -3. Serriously about 3 seconds.

Are you suggesting even for a second that those settings mimic the color, tonality, and look that is seen with film on Jonathan's or Jose's sites? That looks absolutely nothing like the colors I see on there sites. I mean no offense, but I keep hearing that this effect is easy to do in Photoshop, Lightroom, etc, etc, etc.....yet whenever a sample is posted, it looks nothing like the film shots at all.

 

[cupcake_ham]

My stance is that "it seems like it's not bound to a particular film and can be reproduced digitally" (I mean digital capture!), therefore, it would be meaningless to provide film samples. I'll try with LR at home tonight...

All what you listed above can be pretty easily achieved with digital capture in my view. (OTOH, doesn't 1 and 2 contradicts?)

Regards,
Loris.

Loris, I'd love to see some digital capture samples that have the look that we see on Jonathan's or Jose's sites. Really, I would. That aside, even if we can do it with various settings, adjustments, layers, etc.....I don't want to spend more time on the computer. For me, I'd rather have this look right out of the camera with the film scan than spend 10 minutes on each shot to get what I want. And as I said, I haven't been able to replicate the look at all digitally.....and that is after trying myself for nearly a year, and having other photographers try as well.

I think the issue here is that the look is obtained with a great deal of overexposure....something that can't be done with digital capture as yet because of the problem of blowing highlights. If I could achieve this look with ease, digitally, than I wouldn't bother with film.

 

[Nitrofunk]

David hit the nail on the head.

 

[Nitrofunk]

FYI, I wrote a Mail to Jonathan (the guy that made those beatiful Pictures in my Reference Link) and asked him how he achieved those colors. Here's what he said:
"Thanks for the kind note.

To get the look I do it is Fuji Film start to finish. I shoot almost everything on 400h. I develop it in FujiHunt chemistry and scan it on a Fuji Frontier scanner. I do not do post processing besides some possible levels/curves/color balance as needed. I would say most of my stuff is straight out of camera. My post-processing comes in camera with my exposure (over exposing) and having it scanned on a Fuji Frontier. You should try Richard Photo Lab in LA, they'd be able to help you get that look."

Somehow those Fuji Frontier Scanners manage to capture this certain look which other scanners cannot do...

 

[cupcake_ham]

I am going to use Richard Photo Lab for most of my work. That said, I will be trying to get the same look from my old Minolta Scan Dual IV. That would only be for the odd shot as I like the idea of having the scanning done for me so I have more time to market my biz and be behind the camera.....where a photographer truly belongs.

All the best everyone!

 

[Loris Medici]

How about this? Few clicks (in roughly 30-45 secs, next time will be faster since I know better what to do..) in the LR development screen. White balance (for warm colors), exposure (for creamy/pastel tones), recovery (for overexposed color), brightness (for fine tuning the exposure/recovery settings), clarity (to soften details), sharpness (to bring back coarse details). And once done you can port those settings to all the images that were shot in the same place/lighting, the computer will handle the rest in seconds... Can be still fine tuned (especially the sharpening + can play with the reds and yellows, maybe intensify green...) or I may add a soft focus effect later. (The camera/lens combo I used for that image has very high resolution, and overexposed film simply won't give that much resolution, due inflated grain... BTW, I always tend to overexpose - w/o causing clipping! - with digital cameras, to get less noise / cleaner shadows, correcting is easy as long as you are careful enough to not loose highlight detail.)

See the image below:

Regards,
Loris.

 

[cupcake_ham]

Much nicer example Loris. Not quite there...but closer. Depending upon the lighting, etc, this could quite often pass....at least for the color. Tonality is still a bit hot....but changing exposure in camera with the idea of needing to recover less highlights in post processing could work.

Of course, one could just shoot with film :rolleyes:

 

[Loris Medici]

I said there's still room for improvement + I still just don't get what's so special about the other examples and their intrinsic nature, therefore it's natural that I may have missed it a little bit, more so when thinking I only fiddled with the controls few seconds...

Frankly (as a hardcore real B&W film shooter - still), shooting digital is easier and much more cost/labor effective.

 

[cupcake_ham]

A lot of the look comes from the very shallow DOF obtained with shooting FF 645 at F2 with the Zeiss optics. There is something in the bokeh, contrast (both global & local), DOF, color, tonality and sharpness. The resolution isn't the issue....he'll get a grain free 16x20 at 300dpi from the 645 that will be creamy smooth, with all the detail that is required.

That said, if I can mimic a lot of the look with my 7D at f/1.2, then it reduces the amount of film I may require. In the end though, as I can obtain the look I want from the film, with no further work at all, I'll still continue shooting with the Fuji 400H. Where mimicing the look is important to me is for the few digital shots I take to fit in more or less with the film shots.

 

[Nitrofunk]

Loris. This one is indeed better (but not perfect). Was it shot with a Digicam?
Peter

 

[Nitrofunk]

P.S.: This is one of my best attempts. Kodak Portra, shot with a MamiyaRZ67, scanned on the Nikon Coolscan 9000 with Vuescan, posprocessed with LR.
Peter

 

[Loris Medici]

A lot of the look comes from the very shallow DOF obtained with shooting FF 645 at F2 with the Zeiss optics. There is something in the bokeh, contrast (both global & local), DOF, color, tonality and sharpness...

Exactly! This is what I'm trying to say since from the start; it isn't a special "film" look, it's more about the optical system. (That's why I mentioned the soft focus effect for instance...) I simply didn't see something strictly bound to film usage/processing (and non-reproducible with digital capture) in the provided samples.

Regards,
Loris.

 

[Loris Medici]

Yes, it was shot with a Sony Alpha 700 with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens.

Loris. This one is indeed better (but not perfect). Was it shot with a Digicam?