MattKing
Moderator
Probably little difference - they are throwing all sorts of different sources of inconsistencies at the "wall", so changing the film probably won't make much difference in the results.
So my question is, would these same inexperienced photographers be better off working with an emulsion like Portra or Ektar that makes it easier to get consistent results? Other than cost, why make it difficult for yourself?
Probably little difference - they are throwing all sorts of different sources of inconsistencies at the "wall", so changing the film probably won't make much difference in the results.
Put simply, yes. Anyone who is relying on an automated process for consistent results is going to have a hard time and that will be compounded by using a material that your automated process wasn't designed for. If you are capable of manipulating the process in a manner that you find acceptable then the cost savings are worth the effort in my opinion. If you can not alter the processing and you are relying on automation for consistency you will have a harder time with Vision3 films simply because you are "out of spec".So my question is, would these same inexperienced photographers be better off working with an emulsion like Portra or Ektar that makes it easier to get consistent results? Other than cost, why make it difficult for yourself?
All I know, every time I look at a Cinestill, the blue skies don't look like any skies I ever saw. They whole picture seem to be washed out with no contrast. I've even seen movies on cable TV that look washed out. Who edits this stuff? I think they're awful. I can't imagine David Lean of Lawrence of Arabia or The Bridge on the River Kwai liking film colors like them. The latitude of the film has encouraged photographers and cinematographers to select palettes that are blah.
If the photographer had used the light meter correctly, the sky would not be washed out. They used the light reading covering the view of the photograph instead of taking the light reading the subject without the sky and then reaiming for the photograph, something I learned the first summer I started taking slides. They are making rookie mistakes that real photographers learn quickly to grow out of. Hence they are taking snapshots not photographs. You should stop wasting your time looking a lousy snapshots on the internet and spend your time looking as the work of knowledgeable photographers. If all you are looking at is the internet trash, how will you ever learn so that you can improve? Would you rather waste your time thrashing around or spend your time learning and improving?
The latitude of the film has encouraged photographers and cinematographers to select palettes that are blah.
Attached are multiple images over multiple looks with different lighting all shot on 500T and I believe they are consistent enough for most uses. If absolute consistency was required it would not be any harder to manipulate these than a set of standard portra negatives. But that is not because of the film, it is because they were processed and scanned in a consistent manor without any automatic adjustments (from metering, to processing, to scanning, to inversion)
I guess we just have different tastes.
I've been thrashing around all my life. Why should I stop now?
Nice use of the English language.
Forsooth!
In a round about way Alan makes a point. The film is really being used in a snapshot style anyhow. I'd venture to say that snapshots are the main focus of the majority of 'new' film shooters these days.
I see sky. This is 50D, metered by eyeball mk1.
I guess 'considerable' is a subjective term. I'd call it 'considerable' if the objective is to make a consistent series, which is the use case Alan proposed. But like you said, given the lighting conditions, consistency was limited to begin with, and not your objective, I take it.
Thanks for your explanation about the with/without remjet. I don't see a good explanation for such a difference on the basis of the film itself, so I suspect it has something to do with the specific conditions during your processing.
But I and most others here take photographs. Snapshots are what unknowledgeable people take.
But I and most others here take photographs. Snapshots are what unknowledgeable people take.
There have been far, far, far more high quality photographs taken by people whose goals are to take mere "snapshots" than all the photographs ever taken by people with expensive equipment and large amounts of technical knowledge and experience and serious intent.
Most people take photographs in order to enjoy them, and many of them get and share much joy from them.
I'm not commenting on what you find a preferable palette. I don't care about that. My comment is about your lack of understanding of how color negative film works. In itself, that's OK, but if several people come along, with experience with the material, to point out the critical flaws in your thinking, you just dig in. It's ridiculous. I'm outta here.
Forsooth!
In a round about way Alan makes a point. The film is really being used in a snapshot style anyhow. I'd venture to say that snapshots are the main focus of the majority of 'new' film shooters these days.
I see sky. This is 50D, metered by eyeball mk1.
That's a nice picture but I must have something with blue skies. Why does the shades vary from left to right? They don't seem natural.
Why does the shades vary from left to right?
That's a nice picture but I must have something with blue skies. Why does the shades vary from left to right? They don't seem natural.
The color of the sky also varies with position relative to the sun...
If you are going to cross process the film in C-41 chemistry you must adjust time and temperature to account for the mismatch dye/color developers
The color of the sky also varies with position relative to the sun...
That's not a wide angle shot. In any case, the colors are not normal and a sky never looks like that. The photographer acknowledged his process was messed up and/or film was expired.Take a very wide angle lens such as 18mm to 24mm and aim it at the sky and as @Donald Qualls stated it varies right to left or left to right.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?