« Why It's Been Quiet | Main | Learning Something New Every Day »

September 26, 2012

Comments

Gordon, the "soft and subtle" example is absolutely fantastic. I love the mirroring of the colours between the persons' clothes and the umrellas.

I have no idea if it was shot on film or not, and honestly I don't care one bit. As you wrote yourself, the image is all that matters.

I'll have a guess that the first shot was taken on Acros 100.

>>I'll have a guess that the first shot was taken on Acros 100.

You are correct! (You see what I mean, folks? If you shoot enough of a certain type of film you can recognize its visual signature almost instantly. Digital sensors and post-processed RAW images, not so much...

I agree with Richard above. The "soft and subtle" example is probably my favorite photo that I've seen from you, whether digital or film. Nice work.

Got to love history repeating itself. In photography's early days, everyone wanted their photographs to look like paintings (monochrome paintings, of course), and worked hard in the darkroom to create that effect.

A guess: was the second photograph, the high contrast and saturation one, taken on Kodak Ektar?

I'm guessing the last image was shot on Kodachrome?

Zeeman and Dharuma,

The second photograph was shot on Fujicolor 100, a very "snappy" amateur film. The last image was shot on Ektachrome--not quite a famous as Kodachrome, but still quite popular in its day.

- Gordon

Ha! I thought it was ACROS, too, but I've shot probably more than a thousand feet of the stuff over the last 5-6 years (including 6 rolls today) so its look is kind of burned into my retinas... Even so, I've found settings for the X-Pro1 that mimic that look remarkably well.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Thank you!

Tip Jar