Film Versus Digital With A Jaguar F-Type R

"Raphael Orlove" (orlove) 10/02/2015 at 12:45 • Filed to: Photography, Jaguar F-Type R

33

100

So I had a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! for a day and I had wanted to shoot it on film because I’m a turdbucket. But the light meter on my old camera was acting up. Why not use my digital camera as a really, really expensive light meter?

The film is on the left, the digital on the right.

So I ended up using my recently-acquired Canon 6D as a thousand dollar light meter for my Pentax Spotmatic I picked up for $40 off of a guy on Craigslist outside the 38th and 8th Two Bros.

On the Spotmatic I was using my beloved 50mm f1.4 Super Takumar that got me started on this whole old camera stuff mess.

On the 6D was my maybe not beloved but certainly most used lens at the moment, my 50mm f3.5 Industar 50-2. It is wonderfully tiny and fantastically cheap. I got mine for $20 off of eBay.

I had intended on driving to the Brooklyn Navy Yards for some very dramatic shadows, but I ended up driving to Hunts Point in the Bronx. And just before the light was going to get really interesting, cloud cover took over.

In any case, I got a lot of chances to take the same photo, once in digital format, once in film.

Above is film, below is digital.

Some of these digital shots I edited a bit, and the processing for the film I handed over to my local one hour place around the corner because I’m lazy. The film is some way-too-expensive Kodak Portra 400 I bought in a big pack before Nick Stango over in the video department got me hooked on Fujifilm.

In all, it was a fun exercise. The film comes out really nicely on its own and don’t need much editing to look cool, while the digital shots have lots of room for editing but don’t look that cool straight out of the camera. My 6D aggravates this by turning everything kind of maroon on its basic setting, which I haven’t figured out how to defeat.

The sun was out for a short spell in the Hunts Point meat market. The guy working the gate let me in even though they were closed. A hundred grand’s worth of Jaguar does open some doors.

Digital offers me more chances to experiment, the film makes me think harder about my shots before they happen. Trade-offs on both sides.

And a hundred grand’s worth of Jaguar closes others. I can’t say how wary everyone was of me up in the Bronx.

The Jaguar was very much a hundred thousand dollar wall between me and anyone up there.

Though some people were just happy to see the car, most were just like what the fuck am I doing here.

In short, if you have a Jaguar F-Type R and a camera you’re not going to come out with anything too bad, and you’re not going to have a bad time either.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Photo Credits: Raphael Orlove, that’s me!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Contact the author at !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

deprecated account > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 12:51

0

This one definitely looks way better than the digital! Great shot man!

TheHondaBro > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 12:53

2

H-He... He who is from the Motherland walks among us...

*bows* I am not worthy.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 12:57

1

What type of film did you use? There’s plenty of room for experimentation with it, you just don’t get the same immediate results you do with digital. Personally, I love high ISO B&W (think 3200 ISO) pushed an extra stop or two, but I want everything to look like a French New Wave movie.

Leadbull > TheHondaBro 10/02/2015 at 13:38

0

You’ve now met a celebrity.

Feel free to post about it on Facebook!

and 100 more > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 13:47

12

I like how much warmer the film pictures are, but the digital captures so much more contrast.

Have you processed your own exposures before? Does that give you more control over the color balance, or is that more a factor of the type/brand of film you choose?

Anon > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 13:48

0

Are you shooting raw or Jpeg?

Trevor Slattery, ACTOR > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 13:59

0

The white balance is throwing me off. Did you use auto or a setting with the digital?

Raphael Orlove > and 100 more 10/02/2015 at 14:04

3

I’ve never processed film myself, no. My apartment does have a balcony though, so I’m tempted to try playing around with chemicals there.

Raphael Orlove > Trevor Slattery, ACTOR 10/02/2015 at 14:06

0

I used the auto setting at first, then switched to ‘cloudy’ when it got... cloudy. The camera still made everything kinda maroon, like this:

Raphael Orlove > Anon 10/02/2015 at 14:06

1

raw

Raphael Orlove > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 10/02/2015 at 14:08

0

I was shooting 400 speed Kodak Portra, though I’m really enjoying the cheap 200 speed Fujifilm I’ve been buying more of lately, like in this

https://www.flickr.com/photos/2801101…

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:25

0

I’ve always liked the way greens appeared in Fuji best now that all of the kodachrome is gone.

The-Ever-Socially-Apathetic TBAL > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:35

0

I much prefer the film style to the digital style.

jamisparker > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:35

0

Both look off to me. Film is washed out, digital is way oversaturated.

360ad > and 100 more 10/02/2015 at 14:39

6

Not just contrast, the color is day and night different/better. It’s like having your own speedy retouching crew inside the camera. It’s much easier and cost effective to make your digital shots look like film (warmer) than it is to make your unretouched film shot have accurate/faithful color while retaining the warm tone.

Maxxuman > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:39

0

So what color is the Jag? It seems blue in some of your digital shots but gray in the film ones. You could probably find a good gray point in the asphalt or similar to try and fix the white balance.

If you’re using Lightroom then you could tune the colors in the camera calibration panel if you want to change how they’re rendered from your 6D.

Gary Yogurt > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:39

2

Film is irreplaceable, I sold my SLR and lenses several years ago but bought a Canon F1 for my birthday a few months back. I really missed the forced economy of shots that really makes you treasure the whole process and puts real value into the ones that turn out. Film can get expensive, especially if you bracket your shots. (I don’t.) But the buy-in is relatively cheap for really stellar equipment. Digital can take you hostage as you feel forced to document everything— because you can.

Also, invest in a polarizing filter. Sometimes it can really make the difference taking pictures of cars.

POD > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:40

3

I mean, in all honesty (and shot film and digital), you can edit the digital images to have a similar warm tone to them while retaining the high contrast and sharpness if you want. This was taken with a 5DmkII (which I think might have the same sensor as the 6D? Not sure on that, it’s been a while since I’ve looked).

Gary Yogurt > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 10/02/2015 at 14:40

2

Plus with a fast lense you can shoot at night with the cap still on.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Gary Yogurt 10/02/2015 at 14:41

0

Push all the stops!

360ad > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:43

0

Just have to tone down the reds in post processing, that’s all.

cazzyodo > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:44

2

Look to see if there’s anywhere near you that you can develop and make prints on your own. There’s a place a bit too far to make it worth it for me but you could have something right down the street!

I’ve only done my own processing at school but found it immensely satisfying and calming.

burnin4youse > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:44

0

DJ $hrimp $campi > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:45

0

Damn, that dynamic range. And that’s coming from another 6D owner & 35mm shooter.

Thor's Hammered > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:46

2

How are you going to build a dark room on you balcony? Really as you said you edited the digitals a bit, this is not an Apples to Apples comparison. The one hour places usually do a pretty shitty job developing prints. The development process is where all the magic happens.

factsonly1 > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:46

0

Holy crap film sucks. Thank god for digital.

Titan-E34 > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:47

14

I prefer the digital pictures. The Film looks comparatively over exposed. Also, I’m colorblind so the sharp contrasts in the digital images are much more appealing to me.

Mike Murthy > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:49

0

Plymouth Beef Company is in the Bronx? When I think Plymouth it is pretty close to the opposite of the Bronx. Good job in marketing I guess. http://www.plymouthbeef.com/history/

IWouldAddai4U > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:49

0

This is neat. FYI, if you’re not familiar with them VSCO Film makes some really cool presets for Lightroom. I use their Gold 100 preset that I tweaked a bit to my liking. They have a free pack (samples) and then you can buy different packs.

http://vsco.co/film

VoltRon > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:51

0

So hipster.

Johnnyazz > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:51

0

this is something you just cant get with digital.

EarlBurner > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 14:52

0

I would suggest getting a Kodak gray card to use to meter the against. Setting the white balance against a white card will get the color more in tune. That said the film is much sharper, see the picture of the brick wall. It’s sharper even after the film was scanned to compare the shots.

Maxxuman > POD 10/02/2015 at 15:00

1

Yep, and the film shots could be edited to add contrast and sharpness - often more successfully than the other way around. My concern would be how much detail’s left in the highlights of the film shots though, as they see to have been exposed more than the digital ones.

Raphael Orlove > Thor's Hammered 10/02/2015 at 15:01

2

If I have stuff I really care about I take the film to B&H in Manhattan (you can see my most recent batch here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/2801101… ) but for little stuff, I don’t mind a drop in quality for being able to drop off and pick up on my way to work.

Raphael Orlove > 360ad 10/02/2015 at 15:02

1

yeah, that’s what I did, but I do want to figure out how to change it in the camera and there’s one reason why: the nice thing about the 6D is it’s got WiFi, so I can send pics right from my camera to my phone and then to Instagram. It is very nice to post stuff from races and in the middle of shoots, and I’d love if the pics weren’t so rosy.

Pessimippopotamus > cazzyodo 10/02/2015 at 15:02

1

I miss doing it. I mean, I don’t miss the smell or constant worry that something went wrong, but when things go right, it’s like a meditative ritual.

Raphael Orlove > Gary Yogurt 10/02/2015 at 15:03

0

yeah, I had one on my last lens and really enjoyed playing with it.

SZRimaging > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:03

0

You really should make some custom profiles for your 6D. It’ll be night and day as every sensor is slightly different than each other.

Raphael Orlove > POD 10/02/2015 at 15:05

1

yep yep. the thing that bothers me the most about my shooting these days is that I seem to be at a real stumbling block on my digital editing. I can never seem to get shots looking as good as I want, without looking totally overprocessed.

Practice makes perfect, and I haven’t been doing much practicing with my digital editing lately.

Raphael Orlove > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:05

7

(ooh baby I like it)

MikeofLA > and 100 more 10/02/2015 at 15:09

0

Processing your own film gives you a lot of the same options that a computer can with digital, at least in the forms of non manipulation. You can dodge and burn areas that are too bright or dark and you can leave the negative in the bath for more time to develop the contrast. Also, the type of film and chemicals you use can make a huge difference.

POD > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:09

0

I hit a similar stumbling block as well. I found the key to getting the look I wanted (warm tone with sharp detail that didn’t look like it was put through the HDR wringer) was bumping the color temp about 400-600K from what the camera selected, add fill light, and use a series of selective gradient filters to taste to add contrast, sharpness, and saturation. Varying the ratio of those 3 has really gotten things where I like them. Of course it’s all subjective.

Everything pops nicely, good warm tones, and sharp.

POD > Maxxuman 10/02/2015 at 15:10

0

Agreed on all points. Full frame digital (shot in RAW of course) takes edits much much better than your crop frames. I’m still waiting to get my hands on a medium format digital back to play with.

tapzz > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:11

1

Your photos remind how much the effort, time and skill of photographing has shifted from taking the snapping and processing it later for me.

I’m no great photoshopper, but shooting digitally has meant taking tons of photos with little effort, and then spend ages selecting the good ones, and only then muck about with framing, cropping, white balance, exposure etc.

The Jaguar was very much a hundred thousand dollar wall between me and anyone up there.

I’m starting to appreciate more and more that a well designed econobox is one of mankind’s great achievements. Eking maximal functionality and joy out of a minimal amount of raw materials is just seems so much more interesting & satisfying than any supercar. And the social dimension is just one aspect of it (cf. DeMuro’s Ferrari)

Slave2anMG > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:12

2

Raph, get yourself some Fujichrome, push it one stop and prepare to explode your brain from saturation. I still love slide film, still shoot it, but digital is just too damn easy.

Home processing...start with b&w negative. It’s much more forgiving than C41 color print. Nothing quite matches the fun of opening up the daylight tank and unrolling the film to see what ya got on that roll. For real fun get a medium format and shoot 120 b&w negs. THEN shoot some 120 Fujichrome negs and you’ll be ruined. I never shot larger format Fujichromes because I didn’t want to be utterly jaded forever. But a medium format neg...oh my....

REX2RS > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:12

0

Your WB is way off on your Canon pics.

AntiLag > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:18

0

It seems like almost all digital photos are color and contrast boosted these days. I blame Instagram and all their filters.

TheStigsGermanCousin > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:19

0

The film looks a bit better.

toomanymotoguzzis > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:20

0

I am the unabashed prince of overprocessing (just a quick shot I took for posting a bike on Craigslist)...

Quattro-luvr, Powered by Datsun & Stinger > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:22

0

Very cool Orlove. Everyone’s already made comments about white balance and contrast. But what I really see is a large difference in fine point detail. The film maintains detail in the picture of garbage much better.

Notice the sharpness on the edge of the semi tires tread.

Curious, what was the ISO setting on the 6D?

Also, might mention, a circular polarizer would be a great investment.

lrochfort > and 100 more 10/02/2015 at 15:25

3

Assuming it’s not the lenses or processing and scanning are different that is.

Portrait 400 is quite low contrast, Fujitsu would have been much more contrasty and saturated.

SonicTooth > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:25

1

Not sure if the 6d has the feature but the 5d has custom white balancing adjustment that will let you pull balance to your liking, allowing you to compensate for the maroon (or any other color that’s unnaturally prominent) much like a color correction post plug. Same feature can be used to artificially enhance colors you want to bring out (the pink in a sunset, for instance).

This plus RAW plus Lightroom and you should have all the room you need to dial in what you’re looking for.

Elumerere > 360ad 10/02/2015 at 15:27

0

Oh wow, I would argue the exact opposite.

Jimmy Joe Meeker > 360ad 10/02/2015 at 15:28

3

You’re not going to get the quality color with prints from the 1 hour photo place. You’re just not. You need your own darkroom set up, enlarger, paper, chemicals, etc to just do it right. Or you can pay someone good money to do it right. Film done right does not look like that. Film done by the 1 hour photo place does. Of course for getting the same results to a web page digital is infinitely cheaper. If you want the same results to hold in your hand I don’t know how cheap the digital printing is per photo but the hardware isn’t cheap.

lrochfort > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:30

3

Sunny 16 is the way forward. Film has so much exposure latitude and so much room in the highlights you can be out by two stops and still get a good image.

If in doubt, lean towards over exposure. “Expose for the shadows” is the maxim.

Take your meter with you and take a couple if reference readings and then try to guesting the rest. You’d be surprised how well you do.

The industar is a great lens, the 61 L/D is a great version. Just don’t tell everybody about them!

bag_of_bees > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:31

1

Nice experiment. I was kind of surprised at which was which at first - in my experience, digital straight out of the camera is superflat. But you did play around with it a bit.

I love film for what you can do with it, but to get an original of a high enough quality to be able to make adjustments from you need to spend some money getting it scanned. Then you can all of the same kind of RAW adjustment that we’ve all come to love in digital - although without the benefit of the intuitive controls that Lightroom or VSCO gives you these days.

Rev Les Crowley > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:33

0

If your output is going to the web, it honestly doesn’t matter. Some time in Lightroom could get either to look like the other. (print) film has more forgiving highlights; digital handles underexposure better.

If you think film is more fun shoot that. Another nice thing about film is that old mechanical cameras are pretty weatherproof. I grew up with film, loved the freedom of digital - but now have a film setup just for bad weather.

The cost of entry for film (buying 2nd hand) is cheap, but consumables add up $s. Digital is the exact opposite.

Suggestion: the sweet spot for film now is medium format. The gear is cheap now, and you’re still capturing more info that a FF digital sensor. (Depends, also, on how you scan, of course). I’ve got a bunch of Mamiya 645 kit, but will probably switch to Fuji 6x9 - with film, as with cars, there’s no replacement for displacement.

When digital cameras have 18 stops of dynamic range, and the smooth forgiving highlights of analogue, will I still care about film? Unclear, but we’re not there yet.

Raphael Orlove > POD 10/02/2015 at 15:33

1

whatever you’re doing, it’s working, man. Nice shots! I need to keep playing around with stuff.

Raphael Orlove > SonicTooth 10/02/2015 at 15:35

1

definitely. I’ll check around some forums (or talk to Freddy who also has a 6D) and see what I can get out of a custom WB.

POD > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:36

0

Thank you very much! Keep playing around and you’ll find a style you like, good luck!

Rev Les Crowley > and 100 more 10/02/2015 at 15:36

3

C41 processing is VERY critical of temperature; ideally it must be controlled with +1 a quarter of a degree (Fahrenheit). Water PH matters too. Plus, you don’t save any money.

Doing your own scanning has advantages, though. Your 1 hour lab will only give you jpegs; an Epson 600 can give you 16 bit .tiff files.

That said, developing your own film is fun, to some people, and it’s another way to tweak the unrelenting “literalness” of color film (and digital), so may be worth experimenting with.

Joseph Shaul > POD 10/02/2015 at 15:37

0

That’s quite the shot. How do you do your fill?

Rev Les Crowley > 360ad 10/02/2015 at 15:38

3

Commercial 1 hour lab scanners do a good job of eliminating dust spots and minimizing grain. But they’re jpegs.

An Epson type scanner can give you 16 bit color, but oh, my lord, the dust!

Ideally you’d own your own drum scanner. I’m buying one as soon as I marry that wealthy, gullible widow.

Mustang 'DontHitTheCrowd' GT > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:40

0

Great article and good comparisons, but just curious, why is this in Oppositelock if written by Raph?

marcoaml78 > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:42

4

You need to get yourself a gray card, and use it to calibrate your WB. you should also think about calibrating your monitor, there’s places where you can rent a calibration tool and do it. Your results will be night and day

Xyl0c41n3 > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:42

0

Kodak Portra was engineered to be a warm-toned film because it was meant for portraiture, which explains the flatter contrast and soft yellows, oranges and reds in your photos. It’s gorgeous film. Fujifilm is generally a little cooler-toned and slightly higher contrast compared to Kodak in general. There’s nothing wrong with either, nor is one superior to the other. It’s all about your personal tastes and what you hope to accomplish with any given shooting situation.

It’s actually good that you overexposed the film photos as that means you have more information to work with. Physically speaking, there are more silver halides left on your negatives because they were overexposed, and that gives you greater editing latitude in the darkroom (or the digital darkroom). Anyway, thank you for sharing! Nice photos. :)

acme64 > 360ad 10/02/2015 at 15:43

0

how do you retain a warm tone AND have accurate color?

Xyl0c41n3 > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:44

0

Oh, also... have you checked out Photography yet? If you’d like to become an author there, let me know. I’d be glad to add you.

Raphael Orlove > marcoaml78 10/02/2015 at 15:44

1

mmm, yeah, calibrating the monitor would do me good. I remain annoyed that my pics always look a little different on phones than when I’m editing them on my laptop.

Berang > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 15:47

0

If you want a real adventure in film shooting, I’d send you some slide film and something a bit more exotic, old, and german to shoot it with.

Rev Les Crowley > Slave2anMG 10/02/2015 at 15:49

1

Agreed - medium format is the sweet spot for film - especially now that the equipment is so cheap, Hasselblad and Linhof excluded.

cazzyodo > MikeofLA 10/02/2015 at 15:50

0

I did this for a shot of the sun over a body of water...was able to get the sun to be approximately the orb I wanted while still showing details of the water without making everything look off.

Went through so many test strips and pages of paper......

Raphael Orlove > Slave2anMG 10/02/2015 at 15:54

0

Oh, I do like shooting Fujichrome and have three rolls waiting for shooting on my shelf right this very moment! I just bought some portra 400 a while back and foolishly loaded a roll when I wanted to put my Fuji in. Love that stuff.

Raphael Orlove > Quattro-luvr, Powered by Datsun & Stinger 10/02/2015 at 15:57

0

I was shooting ISO 400 on the 6D so it matched the film.

And yeah, I had a circular polarizer a while back and really enjoyed it.

Raphael Orlove > Berang 10/02/2015 at 15:58

0

this sounds quite interesting

Raphael Orlove > Mustang 'DontHitTheCrowd' GT 10/02/2015 at 15:58

0

I like to post on oppo every so often! But yeah, I probably shoulda posted this on jalop

Raphael Orlove > Maxxuman 10/02/2015 at 15:58

0

it’s asphalt color

POD > Joseph Shaul 10/02/2015 at 15:59

2

Depends. When I’m not the primary photographer on the site, or I’m doing event photography, I’ll add it in post (when editing in RAW, photoshop has a “Fill Light” slider). Doing it this way I can’t blast out the shadows completely, but I can certainly soften them (Fill light in post shown below)

When it is my shoot/I’ve got the time, I’ll use off camera flash and whichever modifiers I think will look best for what I’m going for. In these circumstances I may use ambient light for fill, or off camera flash for fill. I use Alien Bee’s with Cybersync triggers. Inexpensive but good quality, tons of modifiers, and great customer support (Off Camera flash shown below).

Tony Northrup > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 16:05

2

Re: pics being maroon, leaving the WB set to cloudy is part of it; that makes the picture bluer. I’d just use AWB.

I bet your lens is the other part. Less-expensive lenses can cause color shifts because they let through more cool colors than warm colors. You might be happier with a Canon 50mm f/1.8.

Ken Moromisato > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 16:08

0

This guy still make some work with Film.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

ivan256 > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 16:12

1

When did film go from “that thing I’m used to looking at” to “OMG how did you get that Jag back in time to 1985?”

Maxxuman > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 16:15

0

If that’s true then the blue in some of your digital photos is due to the white balance being off, combined with the added saturation or vibrance.

Gated Manual > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 16:19

0

I like the “film” photos. Reminds me of when i was growing up and my dad was taking pics with his Old 1965 Nikon camera. Everything had to be manually set. It seems the digital pics are too digital almost not real.

Maxxuman > POD 10/02/2015 at 16:26

0

Nah, I’m with Zach Arias on this - the difference is negligible with current cameras.

Kin Polaj > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 16:27

0

ahhh, film is much better. Then again I much prefer warm tones to cool. Then again who doesnt.

POD > Maxxuman 10/02/2015 at 16:31

0

I’m generations old. 5DmkII and 7D. I can push an edit much farther with the mkII than I can the 7D. That said, as long as my exposure is nailed down, I can push the edits far enough with both that I’ll be happy with the results.

unaware1224 > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 16:32

2

Film is short of like selecting a Lightroom/Photoshop preset before you take the shot; each film responds differently and each often fits certain subjects best. Whereas the digital camera is (more or less) a more neutral result. You could achieve near identical results if you took your 6D shots and gave them the same treatment your selected film gave through a tool like DxO’s Filmpack (which has your film [ Kodak Portra 400 ] as one you can emulate) or developed your own similar preset.

Raphael Orlove > Xyl0c41n3 10/02/2015 at 16:33

1

that would rule! yeah, I check over there every once in a while

M. Gurrola > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 16:39

1

On the 6D go into your menu and select manual white balance (the K) and adjust accordingly. You’ll also want to set up you color profile as user defined and adjust in there as well.

Maxxuman > POD 10/02/2015 at 16:40

0

Great shots. But it seems you’re generations behind with your version of Photoshop as well as the camera bodies. The Fill Light slider was removed from Photoshop a few years back. The Highlights, Shadows, Blacks and Whites sliders in Lightroom and Adobe Camera RAW (sort of) took its place.

M. Gurrola > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 16:41

0

What software are you using to edit?

POD > Maxxuman 10/02/2015 at 16:43

1

That I am. 5.5 is what I use since it can be fully loaded on my editing rig (which is also generations behind). No need to upgrade really since I can get the results I (and my clients) are looking for. The camera’s will be upgraded eventually. Photoshop will only be upgraded once the RAW files of whichever new camera I get is no longer supported. I’d rather spend the money on lenses.

Raphael Orlove > Rev Les Crowley 10/02/2015 at 16:45

1

I will admit I have a hankering for a Pentax 67 (or any of the variations) but they’re so damn big.

mk4wagon > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 16:47

2

I should try shooting shot for shot like this sometime. I find that when I shoot with film I think more about the composition and I end up happier with my photos, vs when I shoot digital I’m never as happy with the composition so I end up trying to crop and preposition it in post. Great photos overall, I always love the warmer tone you get from film, especially when shooting cars.

macanamera > Raphael Orlove 10/02/2015 at 16:53

0

Hope it's a dark ass balcony

drock905 > POD 10/02/2015 at 16:56

1

That's a really nice shot

Raphael Orlove > factsonly1 10/02/2015 at 16:56

0

I know right? I just wish I didn’t like my film shots so much more than my digital ones.

Maxxuman > POD 10/02/2015 at 16:56

1

I have enough lenses. Most of them are old but there are some real gems among them. I would like an FF body to use them on since they’re mostly FF lenses. But DR isn’t an issue for me.

360ad > acme64 10/02/2015 at 17:01

0

By accurate I meant realistic/natural, close to what the human eye sees. Or what color a car’s particular paint is suppose to look like... but skewed a little towards the warm tone. Everything in sunlight will have a slightly warm tone.

POD > Maxxuman 10/02/2015 at 17:01

1

Truth be told, I’m set on lenses at the moment as well, so it’s all going into home renos and retirement fund at the moment (joys of being an adult). I might upgrade someday, but it’s hard to justify the cost of new camera bodies and editing software when the older stuff I have is more than up to the task.