Now that's the way film should look...gorgeous

pukalo · Jul 22, 2012

Stumbled upon this couple's photosteram doing a seach on flickr. There was a discussion here a bit back about how good film could look (versus the typical results seen on flickr with bad processing and expired film). Thought some of you might enjoy...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/judyandpaul/sets/72157594588545388/

Also some other fantastic collections they have:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/judyandpaul/collections/

Enjoy!

mesh · Jul 22, 2012

I am not sure there's 'one way' film should look, and frankly if there was, it wouldn't be these. There are some really nice shots here, but to be honest, nothing standout and certainly no special film rendering aesthetic displayed IMO. What did you see as the 'special ingredient' here? I may be missing something.

Araakii · Jul 23, 2012

There are tons of way better film photos on flickr.

Steve Smith · Jul 23, 2012

Is it a co-incidence that your post is followed by a link to your Flickr page?!!!

Steve.

thegman · Jul 23, 2012

Some of the shots have very nice colour, but to be honest, when I saw the thumbnails, I thought they were digital. I'd never tire of looking at those types of scenes though.

darkosaric · Jul 23, 2012

It is hard to beat apug portfolios when it comes to film look: from Gene's bromoil, Prifti's collodion up to many fine art silver prints from many great photographers.

pukalo · Jul 23, 2012

No link to my Flickr homepage there, thats just the work of a couple who I happened to stumble across while searching for wildflower field shots. They have some great shots, most importantly with great colors. One look at the biggest film groups photo pool on flickr ("I Shoot Film" group), and it can be seen that many, I would say say most actually, of the images there feauture horrendous colors due to bad processing, use of expired film, and bad scanning on flatbeds. It was refreshing to see some great shots with the fantasic colors I remember from the film days. Maybe no point in sharing here. It saddens me however, when I think how many youngsters are excited to try film for the first time, then get the typical flickr Film type results, and never try another roll. If only they could see what a fresh roll of Portra or Velvia, propoerly processed, scanned , and printed (or projected) can look like. (better yet, analog printed for the portra)....maybe more newbies would fall in love with film, and the results it can givelike I did a decade ago, and stick with it....

tnabbott · Jul 23, 2012

Not impressed. There's much more interesting film work from what I've seen on Flickr.

Araakii · Jul 24, 2012

pukalo said:
No link to my Flickr homepage there, thats just the work of a couple who I happened to stumble across while searching for wildflower field shots. They have some great shots, most importantly with great colors. One look at the biggest film groups photo pool on flickr ("I Shoot Film" group), and it can be seen that many, I would say say most actually, of the images there feauture horrendous colors due to bad processing, use of expired film, and bad scanning on flatbeds. It was refreshing to see some great shots with the fantasic colors I remember from the film days. Maybe no point in sharing here. It saddens me however, when I think how many youngsters are excited to try film for the first time, then get the typical flickr Film type results, and never try another roll. If only they could see what a fresh roll of Portra or Velvia, propoerly processed, scanned , and printed (or projected) can look like. (better yet, analog printed for the portra)....maybe more newbies would fall in love with film, and the results it can givelike I did a decade ago, and stick with it....

To me shooting film is more about the process than the results. It's true that film looks different, but I don't think it's that much different to be the sole reason for shooting film.

Poisson Du Jour · Jul 24, 2012

I really do not find anything on those two links other than opportunistic, theme-repetitive holiday snaps. Indeed, good for them for using film. If they are scans from prints, how do you qualify "that's the way film should look"?

Let me make the observation that there are a large number of high achievers here on APUG producing work of very high quality standards. Some will be found on Flickr, others will be found by links published on their posts. There will be many examples of personal interpretations of how film "should" look.

Now that's the way film should look...gorgeous

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency