HOW TO SELECT FILM/CAMERA FOR THIS AESTHETIC?

court2407 · Mar 14, 2011

Dear APUGS,

I am posting this article as I need assistance in selecting a film/camera for a particular aesthetic. I am a third year student at a professional photographic college. I have extensively used digital slr's, 5"4 cameras, studios and have a collection of plastic cameras and old polaroid cameras.

I also have extensive experience in photoshop. The thing is, I am drawn to the raw aesthetic of film and havent had to much of an education in this realm of photography. Unfortunately, my college asserts that digital is the way of the future, therefore doesn't educate us about film. Some of my favourite photographers are Todd Hido, Stephen Shore, William Eggleston and Dash snow.

I am looking for find a film with a similar aesthetic to the colours of polaroid 600 film. I love the subdued warm colours and retro 70's vibe it has.

Please refer to these images.

Can anyone please recommend a film with a similar colour pallette to these images? Are these colours in the film, or to do with the processing? So far none of my teachers have been much help.

Courtney

rawhead · Mar 15, 2011

I know a lot of people who use Fujii Pro 400H to get this kind of aesthetic.

e.g., just randomly
http://www.flickr.com/photos/naosun/4741162607/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/christoph_z/4570787335/

I'm sure you can try some good ol' Xpro. Here's what I did with CDU-II xpro'd

http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&ss=2&w=88929764@N00&q=CDU&m=text

Paul Green · Mar 15, 2011

I second rawhead's suggestion, also consider over exposing it.

SuzanneR · Mar 15, 2011

I've moved this post to the color film forum, as it's not an article, but a question about film. Also, it's not entirely appropriate to post pictures that are copyrighted to others... a link to the examples would be better.

removed account4 · Mar 15, 2011

i have gotten images like this by using
color negative film ( expired ) and over exposing it
but greg's right, email is easy ... and not
a bunch of people's opinions

jd callow · Mar 15, 2011

The palette looks to b kodak. The first image looks very over exposed and slightly under developed (3 stops and 1 stop). the highway shot looks to be a shitty lens image film would be immaterial. If I were to guess the beach image looks to be portra 160vc fully exposed -- ei of ~80. The last image looks like NPS or possibly 160nc.

holmburgers · Mar 15, 2011

The last two images are high quality, ultra-sharp photographs. Any quality camera (are those MF??) can do that with good color film. The first two are, like others have said, probably some cheapo camera with a crappy lens and expired film.

Go to goodwill, get a camera, and start shooting! There's more to this "look" than equipment.

Shadowtracker · Mar 15, 2011

And Tell your School....

Also, tell your school "Film Is NOT Dead!" and that much about photography in general is learned by developing/printing film.

My skills are much improved as a result of taking film classes in b&w and in color (they teach the printing of color, and this has taught me quite a lot about what to look for and how to control it; they don't teach developing color film because the temperature controls are so tight and that's not realistic in a community college).

jp498 · Mar 15, 2011

You can do some retro aesthetic stuff using fuji instant film, with variation in color/contrast provided by disobeying the time suggested for peeling it apart, and/or buying expired.

jp498 · Mar 15, 2011

Here's an example of the potential retro look of fuji instant. Speed graphic's lens provides the lack of depth of field.

Replace the child with a girl dressed in brown corduroy leaning on a babyfood colored volvo p1800es and you're hitting retro on all cylinders.

holmburgers · Mar 16, 2011

jp498 said:
Replace the child with a girl dressed in brown corduroy leaning on a babyfood colored volvo p1800es and you're hitting retro on all cylinders.

cs_foto · Mar 17, 2011

Are you really experimenting with film? start trying as many different emultions (positive/negative) as you can then you will see which one leads you to where you want to go.

From your examples I don't believe you are looking to replicate those images, you are just bothered to be so far away from them: maybe its because you keep shooting digital?

nworth · Mar 17, 2011

The top and bottom photos benefit from high contrast. The bottom one can benefit from high saturation as well. Something like Kodak Ektar 100 would work decently. The other two are more ordinary, and would benefit from a professional film like Kodak Portra. In general, an amateur film like Kodak Gold 200 would be a good compromise for all.

CGW · Mar 17, 2011

This look is largely achieved now in digital post-production. With film, it's hit-or-miss with no combination of film, processing or gear assuring immediate, consistent results. Jonathan Leder is getting this and other vintage looks with film--purportedly with no digital processing--at Jacques magazine. I'd try current films with chalky, dialed down saturation and contrast like Fuji 400H and rate it at ISO100 for starters or just over-expose the bejessus out of it. I had some luck with Kodak's now-departed E200 slide film which was almost pallid compared to other Ektachrome materials. I'd avoid consumer C41 films which tend toward ramped-up saturation and contrast. It'll be a fishing trip but worth it if you can nail a few.

TimVance · Mar 18, 2011

The second shot is from Ryan Mcginley Dead Link Removed

For that shot he used a yashica t4 and what looks like cheap consumer film.

captainbedworthy · Apr 11, 2011

court2407 said:
Dear APUGS, .... So far none of my teachers have been much help.

Courtney

Not surprised.
The shots, which are very typical of a point and shoot camera like the top two are also two or more stops overexposed, are on a cheap C41 stock like Kodak Gold or maybe a store branded film (Ritz/CVS etc.)
The streakers show a shutter lagging PS camera (middle overexposed, edges fine). Think CHEAPO.
You should get your flea-market shoes on and look for anything under a buck. Buy several. Get some 12 shot rolls and try out some shots on bright days, some right into the sun, and some while running, etc.

A durable tool for this is the Pentax WR-90, which can be had for cheap. It may be too good a lens though. Reloading a disposable works too.
Good luck.

holmburgers · Apr 14, 2011

I wonder if the original OP vanished from Earth?

NO BUT SERIOUSLY, this thread is still in the "Articles" section, where it does not belong. Strangely, when you click on it it takes you to this thread, which is also (simultaneously?) in the forums.

I've already hit the ! triangle and mentioned this but nothing happened. It doesn't belong in the articles section, even if it does link straight to the thread. It's very odd, please hit the ! triangle and bring this to the attention of the moderators and let's preserve the sanctity of our articles section!!

bblhed · Apr 14, 2011

I vote for Kodak Gold 200.

jon · May 21, 2011

What about the PX680 from the Impossible Project?

Sosha · Aug 11, 2011

Shame that the teachers are/have not taught them about film. I agree with the OP that film does have a distinct quality to it. I guess that's why we're on a film forum.... Even looking at those photographs, there is a certain charm in them. I remember when I first started my photo course back in college. Our first project was learning about the film camera and there was no digital involved. I definitely didn't appreciate it then but as time came closer to today, film started to grow on me. Its not to the point that I find myself only using digital for certain specific things...

I just find it a bit unfortunate that while getting out of uni with £20,000 worth of debt (min you, I'm only 19 and havent been through it myself) that they're teachers have only taught them digital. No doubt that the future is digital, but that doesn't mean that people aren't happy with how things once were,and want to continue with their passion for film in the modern day.

williamkazak · Jan 13, 2013

I am not so sure what my film background has done for me as I am here now but it has gotten me here I will say that. The new photographers can learn so quickly on DSLR's but do they realize what there is to learn? Are they learning lighting, exposure, emotional captures, fill flash techniques? Are they learning marketing and how to make money to survive? Shooting multiple pics and looking at the immediate results does not necessarily mean that they see these essential things.
I am putting my B&W darkroom together again, after looking at some of my 11x14 model pics from the studio that I used to work at in Chicago in the 80's. Why give up all of the lessons learned there as I perfected my lighting and processing techniques?

Sirius Glass · Jan 13, 2013

Welcome to APUG!

I echo the choice Kodak Gold 200.

Do not let the school control your life choices. In the past I was an Electrical Engineering & Computer Science professor for a decade and there is some truth in

Those that can, do

Those that can't, teach

Those that can't teach, teach others to teach

nworth · Jan 13, 2013

You specifically asked for softer colors and not too much contrast. Kodak Portra 160NC used to be the choice for this sort of thing. The new Portra 160 has somewhat more intense colors, but it still may work for you. Fuji Astia, a transparency film, was outstanding at this sort of thing (a shock for a transparency film), but I'm not sure of its current availability.

EASmithV · Jan 13, 2013

Shadowtracker said:
Also, tell your school "Film Is NOT Dead!" and that much about photography in general is learned by developing/printing film.

My skills are much improved as a result of taking film classes in b&w and in color (they teach the printing of color, and this has taught me quite a lot about what to look for and how to control it; they don't teach developing color film because the temperature controls are so tight and that's not realistic in a community college).

pfft, i do it in a sink with a fish tank heater

wogster · Jan 14, 2013

williamkazak said:
I am not so sure what my film background has done for me as I am here now but it has gotten me here I will say that. The new photographers can learn so quickly on DSLR's but do they realize what there is to learn? Are they learning lighting, exposure, emotional captures, fill flash techniques? Are they learning marketing and how to make money to survive? Shooting multiple pics and looking at the immediate results does not necessarily mean that they see these essential things.
I am putting my B&W darkroom together again, after looking at some of my 11x14 model pics from the studio that I used to work at in Chicago in the 80's. Why give up all of the lessons learned there as I perfected my lighting and processing techniques?

One thing I find interesting, most of the stuff I learned in film photography, applies just as well to digital imaging. Lighting, exposure, capture, fill flash, they all apply, picking the right film speed, yeah, higher ISO's are noisier to slower ones, evaluating an image for exposure and colour balance, just as much. Darkroom stuff, not so much...

HOW TO SELECT FILM/CAMERA FOR THIS AESTHETIC?

court2407

rawhead

Paul Green

SuzanneR

Moderator

removed account4

jd callow

Moderator

holmburgers

Shadowtracker

jp498

jp498

holmburgers

cs_foto

nworth

CGW

TimVance

captainbedworthy

holmburgers

bblhed

jon

Sosha

williamkazak

Sirius Glass

nworth

EASmithV

wogster

HOW TO SELECT FILM/CAMERA FOR THIS AESTHETIC?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency