I don’t really think that it has that much to do with the film vs digi itself. to be honest I think that it’s more the 1/500 sync, larger format negative that makes for a diffrent look. Chrisian Raaes stuff looks really good. (mf digi)
and then you got -like allen said, scanning, printing, paper, post process and so on that will affect the end results. to be honest I think that the “boring” pictures in the magazines today is just as much a result of really low editorial rates, alot of new, younger people that slipped in without learning the basics and now shoots with riders which magazines wants to publish anyway
I really want to take a look at 43mag, I’ve been so bummed on pretty much every magazine that ive checked out the last year or so
@allen – yeah that’s what i mean in my rambling thoughts. Since a lot of the new(er) independent mag’s and freebie ‘zines have more of a balance of medium/styles you don’t get those big swings that make stuff stick out.
I do think looking back at those classic shots on chromes is partly through rose-tinted spectacles. We’ve never had it so good from a purely technological point of view, right?
well, it makes me sad that it’s not available in sweden, unless a book store there ordered it from central books in the UK. but there are some online stores that have it, though we ran out today. i think a lot of online shops only got like 5 or 10, so they might be out quick as well.
maybe www.theoriesofatlantis.com if you want to order a hopps board as well, i imagine they can ship together. or our german or finnish distributor.
hmmm rose tinted glasses.. and the filter of time as well huh?
we don’t see all the photos that failed to come out cause of slide film incapabilities huh?
maybe newer technology making things easier isn’t always better.
if only i could get myself to load one of these various rolls of portra or ektar already purchased.
i was recently pointed to oilinki’s work.
i wasn’t previously familiar with it.
some pretty cool stuff, and the most flashed color neg skate photos i’ve seen.
this was one i picked randomly, out of the many, that you would never know if it was color pos or neg unless you were told.
I think Oilinki moved to digital a couple of years back as he hasn’t uploaded a film shot to his stream in a long time. Maybe he’s keeping stuff under-wraps. If you look at his skateboarding set i think there are a few shots that would definitely have had a different look if they were shot on +ve rather than -ve. The newer emulsions are better too, keep that in mind.
Well it looks like Kodak film might be fucked sooner than we think: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2200811/kodak-to-sell-off-film-division?WT.rss_f=All+the+latest+articles+from+BJP&WT.rss_a=Kodak+to+sell+off+film+division
does that include their motion picture film business?
last i was reading, the new portra and ektar have the newest emulsion technology adopted from motion picture films. so pos film is a generation behind in technology, and probably won’t be updated since there’s so much less demand.
my first impressions on shooting neg, mostly with 35mm non skate, only a couple rolls of 120 skate, is that neg sucks to look at, super hard to edit flashed skate photos, trying to see flash and ambient light, etc, and feels,
sure you get all the extra latitude in case you fuck up. but overall it feels more like digi editing the scans than color pos. it kinda takes away some of the magic of seeing film on lightbox.
the photo lab’s scans come out better, and the film & processing cost less, but flatbed scans on my epson 4490 are super dark and green, i’ve heard on the v700, color neg scans on the new portra come out almost finished straight out the scanner.
i havent compared imacons yet, not sure if/when i will.
It’s not about how it looks straight from the scanner, it’s the finished product that counts. As far as colour balancing and levels, If you know the look you’re after it’s easy.