>>4461060
For many here (possibly including OP) it is. There's this widespread thot that film is a magic can of looks, especially among genztards. People often fail to realize that certain films forced you to blast the subjects with light to even get an usable image at all, but when you did they were gorgeous.
>>4461051
Second for portra. If this was shot with porta, it was most likely portra 160. Maybe 400 if your flashes aren't that bright or you wanna shoot stopped down.
>>4461091
Yes of course, but I think it’s up to OP to figure light out for xerself. It asked about film stocks and colour. Of course one can be super anal and go over every single detail necessary to get the look OP wanted. But there is no need to unless one is very very autistic or simply loves to argue with strangers on the interwebs
>>4461127
Yea, I was wondering which film stock would register colors and dynamic range in manner similar to that picture. I understand that lighting, developing, printing etc affect the final result
>>4461147
Thanks, was wondering for a while if this could be just a medium format slide film and a really good scanner, but going bigger film sheet would not hurt in such case.
>>4461157
They not only affect it but they're the main factor here. >>4461091 >>4461147
This. >>4461082
They do, but much of it is negated with filters. This image is quite warm, possibly undercompensated daylight film.
>>4461338
As long as it's Kodak it'll get you in the ballpark if all the rest is the same. Even Ultramax would do the trick. The exception are tungsten films with their cold bias but even those could be somewhat corrected with a CTO.
>>4461361
I do believe that ultramax gets you close but not as much as portra.
But I have no claims to back this up and it’s pure gut feeling from having used both film stocks before
>>4461394
Yes. Portra VC was fantastic stuff. Just enough saturation and contrast to make for a good multipurpose film, while still retaining excellent and flattering skin tones.
