experimenting with color negatives a bit. Fuji Reala stank badly, didn't like the look of Fuji 160S/400H very much when I shot it a year ago.Kodak portra 160VC seems to be good: contrastier and warmer than Fuji films. got myself 2 more rolls of it, along with a roll of Fuji 160Csome protips to see comparison charts of films and their use:http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e103nf/e103nf.pdfhttp://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/prophoto/pdfs/Pro_Film_One_Page_Guide.pdfEXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:04:16 20:18:46
It looks terrible to me.
It looks not terrible to me.
The lines look good to me, but the colors do look bland.
colors aren't too wild but I like it like this. photo got some editing, but I can still bump up the contrast and everything. I'll try some Kodak UC, not too great for portraits but should be more vivid for allround stuff
painfully oversharpened dribble.
OP pic looks like the film equivalent of HDR.Any of the films you mentioned should be pretty good. Its just personal preference, but I've shot all 3 and gotten ok results.
Very good by my standards, and the colors are fine.
>>163407I think the sharpness gives the picture a good texture
>>163570>>163569thanks, good to know my feeling was right. sharpening is a bit aggressive here alright>>OP pic looks like the film equivalent of HDR.what do you mean?
>>163574No shadows + weird hilights tend too look HDRish.This is ofc because film IS HDR compared to digital, which was exactly the point of HDR to begin with.