Jump to content




Photo

What defines the look of these pictures?


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Jacob Moeller

Jacob Moeller

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Director
  • Denmark

Posted 06 September 2014 - 01:16 PM

Hey!

 

I'm making a short film and I want the look of it to sort of resemble the attached photos. Yet I'm having a hard time actually articulating what the look of those photos are, without simply saying "See, like this!"

 

They all to be have a sort of 70s vibe i think (the JFK one obviously having to be pre-1963...) and I want to say the colors "pop" yet at the same time, that the colors are somewhat "faded" - so I am royally confused.

 

So yeah, what defines the "Look" of these photos? I'm looking for some technical terms i guess. Is it a desaturated look? High contrast? Faded colors?

 

Again, just so i can better articulate the look of the film to my crew.

 

Also, the images obviously have a film/celluloid sort of texture.... and feel.... We are not shooting on film but the RED Epic and will of course have to try and recreate the look digitally, probably in the grading process (without plunking on a cheesy instagram filter..), but it would be nice to know the look before so we can shoot with that in mind.

 

Thanks alot!

 

/Jacob

Attached Images

  • 2.jpg
  • 1.jpg
  • bowmore-1970s.jpg

  • 0




#2 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2264 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 06 September 2014 - 02:01 PM

The two photos have definitely faded over time, but they still "pop" as you say due to the viability of film.  Creating that kind of desaturated look would probably look best if you originated on film and then desaturated it digitially.  You will still have a "digital look" by shooting on the RED.


  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 September 2014 - 02:02 PM

What you often have is a faded color photo of a color saturated subject (front-lit boldly-colored objects like a red jacket against blue skies.)
  • 0

#4 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 06 September 2014 - 03:13 PM

Hey!

 

I'm making a short film and I want the look of it to sort of resemble the attached photos. Yet I'm having a hard time actually articulating what the look of those photos are, without simply saying "See, like this!"

 

They all to be have a sort of 70s vibe i think (the JFK one obviously having to be pre-1963...) and I want to say the colors "pop" yet at the same time, that the colors are somewhat "faded" - so I am royally confused.

 

So yeah, what defines the "Look" of these photos? I'm looking for some technical terms i guess. Is it a desaturated look? High contrast? Faded colors?

 

Again, just so i can better articulate the look of the film to my crew.

 

Also, the images obviously have a film/celluloid sort of texture.... and feel.... We are not shooting on film but the RED Epic and will of course have to try and recreate the look digitally, probably in the grading process (without plunking on a cheesy instagram filter..), but it would be nice to know the look before so we can shoot with that in mind.

 

Thanks alot!

 

/Jacob

 

Photographs and color movie film have fading or desaturation, color shifts due to differential color fading, and color casts, due to the other reasons as well as the base material 'aging'.

 

So in order to 'reproduce' these effects you have to use all three 'effects'. Different materials aged in different ways. But for me many 'old color photos' typically eventually resulted in a heavy 'redish' cast. But then some seemed to have a cyan cast... and yet others 'yellow'.

 

For black and white the white base would yellow along with the shadow/dark areas becoming lighter. If the print was toned with sepia, then one could also see a more 'redish' cast as the image aged. While there was quite a bit of B&W from the 50-70's... most people were transitioning to 'color'... because it was so much more 'real'... well... until the photos sat in the cupbord or cardboard boxes for a few years...

(There are also effects due to poor processing, such as B&W showing fixer stains, or the like...).


  • 0

#5 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3081 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 06 September 2014 - 04:51 PM

Pic #1 has a Kodachrome look to me, contrasty with rich blacks and deep saturated dark reds and blues, but less saturated greens tending toward yellow, and under-saturated skin tones again tending toward yellow. Brighter tones on the greyscale are increasingly desaturated, topping out in a creamy white.

Pic #2 looks like a faded print from old color negative, possibly overexposed in camera or printed too high. Again, brighter tones look bleached out, but darker colors still pop. Overall warm color bias. Though the blacks look good here, you could play with this look more by lifting the blacks and tinting them magenta to get a more faded, vintage look.

Pic #3 looks like colorized black and white to me. I'm not sure color film technology of the time could have produced some of those bright saturated cyans, pinks, and maroon colors in the background.
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 September 2014 - 04:51 PM

New prints made from old color negative often has a cyan cast to the shadows and somewhat yellowish highlights due to compensating in printing for the cyan cast, whereas an old color projection print often has a magenta cast.
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 September 2014 - 04:53 PM

Older optics also have some visual impact though it can be subtle depending on the subject.

And there is grain to factor in, a grainless digital image will look too clean to feel like an old photo.
  • 0

#8 Stephen Gelb

Stephen Gelb

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 September 2014 - 06:18 PM

I would try shooting with uncoated lenses.  Astro Berlins, or Kowa Cine Prominars.   Super baltars are also a goos choice but they have more coatings and can be more contrasty.  Vintage Anamorphic lenses also can give this look.

 

uncoated lenses can soften and make the image a lot more milky.. in turn losing the extreme sharpness and pop associated with digital sensors and multicoated lenses.

 

I would think u could also easily overlay grain into your final digital intermediary quite easily.  

 

 


  • 0

#9 Jacob Moeller

Jacob Moeller

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Director
  • Denmark

Posted 06 September 2014 - 08:05 PM

Thank you very much for your thoughts. Very helpful indeed.

 

Some of you have suggest shooting it on film and oh how i wish i could. But you litterally cannot get it developed in Denmark anymore (or probably get ahold of the stock!), and the budget does not allow us to send it abroad :) I have previously experimented with adding grain digitally and whereas it doesn't come close, it does give me a tiny bit of that texture i like in film.

 

Anyway! Thanks again.


Edited by Jacob Moeller, 06 September 2014 - 08:06 PM.

  • 0

#10 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 06 September 2014 - 09:35 PM

Photos 1 and 3 are from the 60s.  Photo 1 is probably a large format camera.  I'm guessing a Hasselblad.  They were very popular with photo journalists, and caught lots of detail and textures, which is why that photo stands out so much.


  • 0

#11 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2575 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 September 2014 - 10:22 PM

Photos 1 and 3 are from the 60s.  Photo 1 is probably a large format camera.  I'm guessing a Hasselblad.  They were very popular with photo journalists, and caught lots of detail and textures, which is why that photo stands out so much.

Hasselblads are in fact Medium format cameras, shooting a square (6cm x 6cm) neg, although pic #1 could, of course, have been cropped to that shape. It could also easily be 35mm  slide film, which has much less grain that the equivalent neg stock.


  • 0

#12 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 06 September 2014 - 11:20 PM

Well, maybe it wasn't a Hasselblad, but it still looks like a large format camera to me.  I can't imagine anyone taking slides of the Kennedys while on the water.


  • 0

#13 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 07 September 2014 - 01:47 AM

Well, maybe it wasn't a Hasselblad, but it still looks like a large format camera to me.  I can't imagine anyone taking slides of the Kennedys while on the water.

 

In the era Rolleiflex was a more likely candidate for a photojournalist to be using. Hasselblad's 'star' accended, especially in the US, as NASA began to use that camera for space photo activities. Some photojounalism was still done with 4x5 Speed Graphics, but most people had moved to medium format roll film.

 

Here's a image of St. Kubrick of the Eternal Cinema in his youth:

 

tumblr_mcnr0eYxju1r1oldwo1_500.jpg


Edited by John E Clark, 07 September 2014 - 01:48 AM.

  • 0

#14 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2182 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 07 September 2014 - 07:24 AM

The third one is a postcard. The offset screen is clearly visible. The strong colours -the reds and possibly the turquoise Ford Anglia- have been masked out and augmented to make up for the poor reproduction of those colours. On the sweater you can see the red bleeding out because of the inaccurate regustration of the mask. But it's a colour original.


  • 0

#15 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 07 September 2014 - 02:07 PM

Older films, especially Kodachrome were higher contrast, which makes the colors pop a little more. The rich blacks, density, and grain structure help define it as well. 


  • 0

#16 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2264 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 07 September 2014 - 02:17 PM

Older films, especially Kodachrome were higher contrast, which makes the colors pop a little more. The rich blacks, density, and grain structure help define it as well. 

 

Kodak "reds" have always popped more than any other color, in my opinion.


  • 0

#17 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2264 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 07 September 2014 - 02:18 PM

The third one is a postcard.

 

Mark...that actually looks more like a canvas print, no?...


  • 0

#18 Ed Davor

Ed Davor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 15 September 2014 - 05:59 AM

Try and force a curve sholder to the highlights of the image. This goes for the second two images. The first one has "healthier" highlights. What I'm saying here is, create a nonlinearity to the highlights, instead of just changing the slope of the entire curve. The third image has some contrast masking in it (it's looks like it's from some rotogravure print material) which tended to produce edge effects. It's a bit difficult to be specific, because these 3 images all have unique artefacts, and they aren't exactly of the "same look". This is an example of what I'm talking about:

 

http://www.imageuplo...15/DSC04304.jpg


  • 0

#19 Ed Davor

Ed Davor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 15 September 2014 - 06:09 AM

 

Mark...that actually looks more like a canvas print, no?...

 

It's rotogravure (instead of offset) printing, this is why it has such a texture.


  • 0

#20 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2575 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 September 2014 - 06:30 PM

Well, maybe it wasn't a Hasselblad, but it still looks like a large format camera to me.  I can't imagine anyone taking slides of the Kennedys while on the water.

I'm curious as to why you think that shooting slide film would have been unusual, given that both Kodachrome and Ektachrome were widely used by photojournalists for many years.


  • 0


Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Pro 8mm

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Zylight

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

CineTape

Abel Cine

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Zylight

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Pro 8mm

Glidecam

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies