How to get this creamy Portra-Look?

[cupcake_ham]

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, that isn't what I said. The optical system plays a part in the equation. Keep in mind however, that Canlas and Villa also photograph with 35mm and a Holga....while maintaining the look that we mention. It is the entire process that is important.

And like I said, there is still a difference. All the examples of Lightroom, Photoshop, etc trying to emulate it always gets close, but there is something missing in the skins tones and highlights that I have yet to see replicated. People seem to do a decent job of getting 3/4 of the way there....but I have yet to see anyone, no matter how much time in, match the skintones, highlights and general tonality of the film shot.

Yes, sometimes close is good enough. In this case though, I prefer the real deal.

Regards,

PS -That 17-50 is a hidden gem. I use the same lens on my 7D. As to the A700 being ultra high resolution exceeding the film shot....well, I'll just leave that alone ;-)

 

[Loris Medici]

Well, since we can't quantify what is missing and/or describe what "the look" exactly is (at least to me - just can't see what film does to the images, process-wise, that can't be reproduced digitally), all of this turns into a pointless exercise in futiliy, therefore I feel like it's better that we drop this subject right here. (At least it is that way to me, from now on...)

PS -That 17-50 is a hidden gem. I use the same lens on my 7D. As to the A700 being ultra high resolution exceeding the film shot....well, I'll just leave that alone ;-)

Well, I didn't say anything like "exceeding film" (that wasn't a blanket statement as you bring it back into discussion), OTOH, overexposed 35mm ISO 400 color negative film isn't the best benchmark to show film's virtues, no?

Regards,
Loris.

 

[Nitrofunk]

The problem is that we try to describe something that can't be described. You just have to see it in order to understand it. The characteristic tonality of printed Neg-Film is one of those things that just can't be put into words (and can't be captured digitally, unfortunately).
But thanks for this really good discussion. This is the first time I've found at least SOME people who knew what I was talking about...
Peter

 

[Rudeofus]

Remember that Portra is not just some prototype film which happens to have these properties, it has been specifically tuned by experts to look that way. There are many different films, and every one carefully tuned to their task. Don't be surprized that Portra can do something most folks can't replicate by fiddling for 5 minutes with a few sliders in some program.

I'm quite sure one could eventually recreate the color and tone performance of any film perfectly, the question remains, though, whether it is worth the effort.

 

[cupcake_ham]

Remember that Portra is not just some prototype film which happens to have these properties, it has been specifically tuned by experts to look that way. There are many different films, and every one carefully tuned to their task. Don't be surprized that Portra can do something most folks can't replicate by fiddling for 5 minutes with a few sliders in some program.

I'm quite sure one could eventually recreate the color and tone performance of any film perfectly, the question remains, though, whether it is worth the effort.

Like I mentioned, it isn't Portra, but Fuji Pro 400H. The Fuji has a different look....both cooler and warmer at the same time....especially for skin tones and foliage. Portra is a bit warmer to the magenta side and doesn't have the skin tones or greens in folaige.

All the best Rudeofus....it has been an interesting discussion. Much nicer here than in some other forums.

 

[cupcake_ham]

Well, since we can't quantify what is missing and/or describe what "the look" exactly is (at least to me - just can't see what film does to the images, process-wise, that can't be reproduced digitally), all of this turns into a pointless exercise in futiliy, therefore I feel like it's better that we drop this subject right here. (At least it is that way to me, from now on...)



Well, I didn't say anything like "exceeding film" (that wasn't a blanket statement as you bring it back into discussion), OTOH, overexposed 35mm ISO 400 color negative film isn't the best benchmark to show film's virtues, no?

Regards,
Loris.

As I said, we weren't talking about 35mm as the shots in question were taken with a Contax 645. But I get where you're coming from. I think the biggest problem is that some people become obsessed with resolution absolutes.....when for an 8x10 or 11x14 35mm, digital, MF, etc has more than ample rez to produce a fine print. What we are really after is the whole package....rez, color, tonality, perception of depth, etc, etc. The more we look at an image, the less it is easy to quantify all these attributes and put what we see on paper.

The A700, like my 7D, and 35mm and MF filom are all capable of producing exceptonal prints....in the right hands!