Less saturated color slide/negative?

[kristopher_lawrence]

Hi,

I have a question that might look silly, but I am looking for a «low saturation» not too punchy color film. I actually prefer slide, but negatives suggestions are welcomed too.

I shoot 99% B&W and I felt in love with slide. Now, I would like to shoot a project on slide and for this, I need a not too vivid film.

Is there any other way of getting this kind of effect? i.e. filter of other means?

Thanks in advance for the advice!

Kris

 

[Glenn M]

Fuji's Astia is the most natural looking (normal) slide film, with extremely fine grain, and also an excellent choice for pastel and skin tones. Fuji's Provia has a very slight punch, slightly more saturated than Astia, but still provides natural color tones... and also does very well with very long exposures. As I don't haven't used Kodak films very much, can't really comment on their fare.

 

[keithwms]

Slightly underexpose print film or slightly overexpose slide film. But obviously this option has implications for shadow and highlight detail, respectively, so you'd only want to do this when the scene is within the range of the film.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Kodachrome, if you are willing to process it at Dwayne's, is a solution. What surprised me the most when I got my first pack of K64 slides back, is how "normal" they looked.

I'm not sure I have the proper vocabulary, but it's like the colour is less "pure" while remaining rich. For example, yellows will not be epilepsy-inducing yellow. They will be a tad more brownish, but the colour still feel gorgeous and plentiful.

Otherwise I'd go with Fuji Astia or Kodak E200.

 

[df cardwell]

The most controllable way to mute color is with a filter. Harrison & Harrison are wonderful, and there are other cine filters available. Tiffen makes some 'low contrast' filters that might please you. Shop wisely: test if you can.

 

[benjiboy]

Another vote for Fuji Astia, for neg film Fuji Pro 160 ,C both aren't too contrasty or high in colour saturation, and don't produce " Mickey Mouse colours "

 

[2F/2F]

1st choice, Fuji Astia. Then, if still too saturated, try rating it at 50 and developing -1.

Re: "Slightly underexpose print film or slightly overexpose slide film."

er...no. You would "overexpose" both. "Underexposing" increases saturation with negs or transparencies. Remember: they are both negative films. It's the process that makes transparencies into positives; not the film itself. Therefore you expose them both the same. The advantage of transparencies is how far you can pull them compared to negs.

 

[keithwms]

"Underexposing" increases saturation with negs or transparencies.

Eh?

Underexposing most certainly does not increase saturation with negs.

What you are apparently talking about is pull processing, and that is a different topic involving subject brightness range and contrast index etc.

What I am talking about is a minor tweak in EI with respect to ISO, with no change in development.

 

[2F/2F]

Eh?

Underexposing most certainly does not increase saturation with negs.

What you are apparently talking about is pull processing, and that is a different topic involving subject brightness range and contrast index etc.

What I am talking about is a minor tweak in EI with respect to ISO, with no change in development.

"Slightly underexposing", as you originally put it, does indeed increase saturation with pos or neg films. Overexposing does the opposite. I am not talking about any changes in development...My comments about your quote were separate from my recommendation to pull.

First of all, why would overexposure make colors more saturated? That makes no sense at all. Making the whole pic slightly darker would increase the apparent saturation, not making it slightly lighter.

Second of all, why would there be any difference at all between neg or pos film? They both end up giving a darker pic if you give less exposure and a lighter one if you give more exposure. Pos versus neg is irrelevant.

Slightly overexposing a neg DOES give you a less saturated *neg*...but a lot of good that does you, since you will be making it into a print to view it and not just showing the film on a lightbox.

If you want to get technical, we are using the wrong terminology entirely in our discussion. Saturation is not affected by either of these, since saturation is purity of color; how much or now little a color is mixed with other colors. By definition, an orange is always more saturated than an orange-red, regardless of tonality. It has to do with the color response of the film, which is set by the designers of the film. . Very few photographers actually use the term this way, however. It is the intensity or richness of the colors we are talking about. It is not only in regards to photographic exposure, and is the case with slightly "darker" or slightly "lighter" than "realistic" interpretations in all imagery.

 

[Shane Knight]

Kodak E100G (or E100S) is nice neutral slide film. A little warmer than Astia (very nice film also.)
I have used E100SW which is too warm for my taste.

Good Luck
Shane Knight
The Shane Knight Gallery
horse photography

 

[davetravis]

Kodak E100G (or E100S) is nice neutral slide film. A little warmer than Astia (very nice film also.)
I have used E100SW which is too warm for my taste.

Good Luck
Shane Knight
The Shane Knight Gallery
horse photography

I'll second this.
I've shot Astia and E100G side by side, and the big yellow is most natural to these old eyes. I use it when I want the most wide of tonal gradations, and still mantain a neutral grey color balance.
Very personal choice.

 

[benjiboy]

Correction.

Another vote for Fuji Astia, for neg film Fuji Pro 160 ,C both aren't too contrasty or high in colour saturation, and don't produce " Mickey Mouse colours "

Sorry , I meant Fuji Pro 160S, 160 C has more colour saturation and contrast.

 

[John Shriver]

Kodak Portra 160NC is about as low-saturation low-contrast as it gets. The ultimate wedding portrait film. Very honest colors, too.