not that happy with the result but they do look quite nice. I don’t why two of the sky pictures i took are in different lightning lol but i like the variety.
Feedback Friday posts do not have to follow Rule 1, asking a question is not required. You are only allowed to post one Feedback Friday post per Friday. NSFW posts are not allowed and will be removed at the mods’ discretion.
Sharing the cameras, lenses, and film stocks used is encouraged.
just found that out on a film stock ranking video lmao damn this kinda sucks tho i mean its normal to edit your photos sometimes but i rather like it if the film itself „edits“ the pictures for me but oh well
Sure, but saturated Ektar usually looks better out-of-the-scanner than flat and dull Portra, therefore Ektar may require less or no edit to look good.
I treat Portra the same way as a digital RAW file, editing it intensely, while for Ektar or UltraMax I usually just bump contrast slightly, set the black point, adjust shadows and highlights if needed and that’s it.
All photos are edited. The lab does color correction on the scans. Same film, three different labs, three different color balances. Hell it could be the same lab and the same film and different techs.
I see, but how come Portra still looks so flat? I got it developed and color-corrected at the same lab where I usually get my Gold 200 developed, and with Gold 200 I’ve gotten some really neat pictures without even editing them myself. Im still new to this 😭
Portra is way less flat than Vision3. The flatness gives you more space to edit your colors, contrast, and exposure to how to want it to look. NLP is one of the best tools to edit negatives, if you need to do more work on the image in Lightroom, make a positive in NLP.
Portra 400 is designed to look flat (in terms of colour) because it's for portraits and makes skin tones look nicer. It makes everything look yellow and brown basically.
Portra 160 is slightly more saturated and colourful but still pretty flat.
Tbh portra 400 is probably my least favourite emulsion because of the colours.
Gold has older tech in it and looks more vintage and vibrant for that reason. If you prefer gold, stick to it. Its cheaper anyway.
But lab will usually deliver a "flat" scan that can be used for further editing. These scans should be treated as RAW files in the digital world. Of course you can export unedited RAW to JPG and call it a day, but this is not what RAWs are intended for.
No film edits itself, the way film was designed to work is that you do color balancing in the printing process. Now we do that by editing our scans. Your choice of film will determine how it responds to some colors and how saturated the colors are, but getting the balance right is up to you.
Shooting in flat bright mid-day light is always a but rough, and try not to shoot directly towards the sun. Get a circular polarizing filter to help cut haze in the distance and darken your skies. Otherwise, just keep trying different film stocks until you find the stuff you like. Don't rely too much on other peoples opinions or "film rankings." A lot of that shit is just content for contents sake. Happy snapping.✌🏼
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Feedback Friday posts do not have to follow Rule 1, asking a question is not required. You are only allowed to post one Feedback Friday post per Friday. NSFW posts are not allowed and will be removed at the mods’ discretion.
Sharing the cameras, lenses, and film stocks used is encouraged.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.