Shooting Fall Colors with Portrait Films

[mtjade2007]

Perhaps this image passes a concept of death to onlookers of this forum?

 

[koraks]

Creativity is an essential element of art

Sure. But not all creativity is automatically art. And no, I don't agree with the Merriam-Webster definition for the same reason - it's so broad, it also captures crafts as if they were arts.

I don't mind if you want to work with a very broad, low entry-level definition of art. It's actually good news for me, because I'd have many boxes chock full of art in the attic myself, adding new "art" on a weekly basis. Great!

In any case, I think you've already said what the real problem is: you're worried about what other people might think of your images. Just get rid of that burden; this isn't about other people. It's about what *you* think, want, like, enjoy and find meaningful. Go create whatever you like and leave it to other people to either like or hate it, but never let it stop you from making photos.

 

[koraks]

Perhaps this image passes a concept of death to onlookers of this forum?

I won't speculate. But shooting the next series of saturated fall colors would be a difficult way of making something meaningful. As far as I'm concerned, it's been beaten to death. But as said above, don't let this stop you from doing it!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What koraks said.
Save and except, it is entirely appropriate to prefer materials and techniques that resonate with you and which you enjoy using. Don't avoid digital post-processing because that is something you think you "should" do. But feel free to avoid digital post-processing because you dislike doing it.
And of course, if you decide you want to discuss the how and why of digital post-processing, make sure the discussion is in the right part of Photrio

I don;t know if my comment belongs here but I'll say it and let you decide. I don't have a darkroom. I rarely will do a print outside anymore. I shoot chromes which I have to scan to present as a digital slide show to be displayed on a 4K HDR TV or monitor or on the web. (My slide projector is broken). So discussing color saturation and contrast through post-processing software after the fact is very apropos for me.

I don't look at the original chromes after scanning them. I adjust the digital scan results of color, contrast, saturation etc. to my liking and stop there never comparing them to the original chromes. I figure some Japanese engineer who designed Velvia 50 color palette years ago and who's probably dead now is not the photographer or artist. I am. I do enjoy their start of the Velvia color palette, but the final results are mine to decide.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I disagree, and it has to do with the notion that I think you're confusing the concepts of art and skill. While they are related, they are conceptually distinct. Art, as far as I'm concerned, is about making something that moves people, that instills a message, emotion or notion on the onlooker. It tends to involve things like conceptual thinking, a good dose of intuition and often a lot of experimentation on behalf of the artist. What it does not, however, require is suffering. I think this is a misunderstood aspect of art and probably stems from the archetypical view that we have of the 'starving artist' that has to deal with hardship and massive challenges. In that sense, there is nothing wrong with using efficient digital tools to create a work of art. Indeed, much of the visual arts these days revolves around such tools. I wouldn't want to go as far as to disqualify because all of them are supposedly 'cheap creativity' or that relatively rapid tools were used to get to a certain end result! I really think that's a bit of a misconception on your behalf.

In this sense, you can also argue that skill is only to some extent necessary to create art. You only need to have the skill necessary to get the message across effectively. Skill in itself doesn't make art, and it's just a vehicle or tool to accomplish something. As a result, staring yourself blind on skill, and employing the most skillful approach to get something done, doesn't create art. In other words: making the same end result digitally as with film wouldn't make either one more or less artistic, while it potentially does say something (or a lot) about the skillset of the artist(s) involved.

Finally, I think your argument doesn't hold much water for another reason. You started this thread by asking if you can get saturated colors with a film not designed to do this. A quick way to get what you want would obviously be to crack open a brick of Ektar and get shooting. But if I apply your own reasoning, this would still constitute cheap art: you'd be using a speedy tool to get the job done. That the tool is a film-based one as opposed to a digital one doesn't make much of a difference conceptually.

The reason I'm picking on this is not to criticize you, personally. It's because I think you quite neatly captured in words a fundamental misconception among mostly amateur photographers (whom I'm one of, mind you!) about the relationship between art and skill or technical competence. This misconception is so deeply rooted and strongly advocated, that it seems to me that if an artist comes for advice to a place frequented mostly by amateur photographers, the advice they'll get is a lot of the time counterproductive instead of helpful. There will be lots of talk about technicalities, and rarely, if ever, does someone even pick up on the actual content of the artwork itself and the question what would be necessary to accomplish that goal. I guess I'm just warning you against falling into that trap as well. Ask yourself how bad it is if you do it the quick & dirty way. If you do it like that, you preserve much of your time and energies to work on the part of art that really matters - its message, innate emotion, or whatever it is that moves the viewer.

Don't get me wrong - I like the technicalities and to a large extent, that's what a photo forum is for. It's for talking shop, and that's fun and interesting in itself. But if you talk about art and creativity, be very wary of getting lost in the woods of technique.

The thing with photography is that much of the public still believes photography unlike painting should reasonably represent what the camera captured. A slice of time created by God. Photoshop has given us the ability to create the unbelievable while still making it seem believable. It's not an exact line that is drawn. Hence we fight about where that is.

 

[koraks]

That's a valid remark, Alan. Of course, a lot can be said on that as well...I mean, when does something constitute a direct representation of the original scene, and at what point does it cease to be? Not that it's a discussion I find very inspiring, and I have the impression it's also not a game you're looking to play. It would get very tedious, very fast, I fear.

 

[mtjade2007]

An automobile is a great tool that carries us around. However, it could kill people if driven at 60 mph in a residential street with a limit set to 25. Yes, the line is drawn at 25. But some of my neighbors (especially teenagers) fight for where the line is everyday.

Photoshop is such a tool. I am a believer of its basic functions such as level, curve, contrast, saturation, etc. But beyond that it can do far more than that people wrote books about it. My question is indeed where the line should be. I am not here to fight for that. Not to talk about fart art in particular. I am looking for a consensus. Thank you Alan for pointing it out.

I should have made it clearer. I was concerned about excessive boosting of color saturation, such as +30% or even more, which is what portrait films will need when used in applications such as Fall colors.

Thank you Koraks for your comments. I appreciate them. You did dig a big hole and I think you were talking from that hole. Don't take this seriously though. I did see the lines you drew.

 

[koraks]

No worries, it's all good.

I think the consensus is going to be that there's no consensus on where to draw the line. Well, let me put it this way - if a consensus threatens to emerge on this, I'll be the first to attack it! I really feel that this is a matter where consensus isn't necessary and might in fact do more harm than good.

 

[MattKing]

I was concerned about excessive boosting of color saturation, such as +30% or even more, which is what portrait films will need when used in applications such as Fall colors.

I think you are assuming something here about the film that isn't correct.
The portrait films are quite likely to give you reasonably accurate colours, with reasonably accurate saturation. The non-portrait films will be slightly different.
If you are optically printing, the (limited) choice of printing papers will have a larger influence on the saturation of the results
If you are digitizing the results, the digitizing process will induce more change than the differences between the two types of film, and you will have to compensate for that process in any event.

 

[DF]

Ektachrome E100 GX - sadly no more:
View attachment 318609

Very nice.
How do you suppose this scene would turn out if shot with the current Ektachrome100?
I use to shoot alot of GX in it's day, and believe it was above & beyond what Kodak now has to offer....

 

[mtjade2007]

No worries, it's all good.

I think the consensus is going to be that there's no consensus on where to draw the line. Well, let me put it this way - if a consensus threatens to emerge on this, I'll be the first to attack it! I really feel that this is a matter where consensus isn't necessary and might in fact do more harm than good.

Wonderful. I like it very much. Yes the freedom to do what I feel like to do (in photograpy, not everything else) is a relief. Thank you again for setting me free!

 

[mtjade2007]

I think you are assuming something here about the film that isn't correct.
The portrait films are quite likely to give you reasonably accurate colours, with reasonably accurate saturation. The non-portrait films will be slightly different.
If you are optically printing, the (limited) choice of printing papers will have a larger influence on the saturation of the results
If you are digitizing the results, the digitizing process will induce more change than the differences between the two types of film, and you will have to compensate for that process in any event.

Thanks Matt. This is excellent info. You are right the portrait films tend to yield more accurate colors. My Canon 5D-III on the other hand is always too exaggerated. I guess I need to get used to my scanner that my portrait films will come out in shallow color depth. That's really not the problem. The problem is I want to shoot Fall colors with the film. Since I don't really like the digital look (colors) maybe my Fall color shots will come out fine with NC.

 

[MattKing]

Very nice.
How do you suppose this scene would turn out if shot with the current Ektachrome100?
I use to shoot alot of GX in it's day, and believe it was above & beyond what Kodak now has to offer....

I think you will like the current Ektachrome.
Quoting from a communication from 2018 from one of my sources about the reintroduction of Ektachrome, and some of the many changes that were either required or decided upon:

"We also adjusted the film’s sensitometric position so that the whites were whiter, and the colors more accurate."

If you are projecting the film, and would prefer a slightly warmer rendition in these sorts of circumstances, you can always use a warming filter.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Thanks Matt. This is excellent info. You are right the portrait films tend to yield more accurate colors. My Canon 5D-III on the other hand is always too exaggerated. I guess I need to get used to my scanner that my portrait films will come out in shallow color depth. That's really not the problem. The problem is I want to shoot Fall colors with the film. Since I don't really like the digital look (colors) maybe my Fall color shots will come out fine with NC.

Most digital cameras have flat or neutral modes for colors. Of course that only affects the jpegs. RAWs stay the same. Are you referring to RAWS or jpegs with the 5D-III?

 

[DF]

I think you will like the current Ektachrome.
Quoting from a communication from 2018 from one of my sources about the reintroduction of Ektachrome, and some of the many changes that were either required or decided upon:

"We also adjusted the film’s sensitometric position so that the whites were whiter, and the colors more accurate."

If you are projecting the film, and would prefer a slightly warmer rendition in these sorts of circumstances, you can always use a warming filter.

Looking at my GX's from the late 90's/early 2000's, I believe it was a warmer, if not more pleasant color palette than the current Ektachrome100.
I have in fact been shooting E100, trying to make the most of it, for it is all we have from the Big K.

 

[DF]

Actually, I believe the current Ektachrome to be much similar to the old off-the-shelf "Elitechrome".

 

[GLS]

Nothing wrong with using colour neg films for autumnal work, although re: colour saturation it's best if you don't overexpose them too much. Some examples of mine:

Ektar 100
Three Oaks by atomstitcher, on Flickr

Portra 160
Padley View by atomstitcher, on Flickr

Portra 400
Conversations by atomstitcher, on Flickr