Hi, can you guys help me? I'm trying to understand what makes the colors in these photos appealing. Is it the saturation, the yellow light from the Sun, or something else? Thanks
Anonymous
9/15/2025, 3:14:54 PM
No.4468220
[Report]
>>4468224
The sun makes white light, not yellow.
These were shot on film, likely slide film which has intense, saturated color. Film will always look better than digital in daylight. It has more soul, skin tones are gorgeous and smooth, and the way highlights roll off is more natural.
Look up subtractive saturation, where when colors become more saturated, they get darker and denser. This is a byproduct of analog printing, and a big part of the film look that most people overlook. When you crank the saturation on a digital photo, it will start to look garish pretty fast if you don’t also control the brightness as well.
These are also scanned from paper, which has a limited dynamic range, essentially producing a lifted black point and very low white point relative to what a digital display can do.
Anonymous
9/15/2025, 10:01:57 PM
No.4468313
[Report]
>>4468315
>>4469554
>>4468222
I bet this isn’t kodachrome. More like Kodak Gold 200 pushed 1 stop. Or something warm-ish from fuji.
Anonymous
9/15/2025, 10:06:05 PM
No.4468315
[Report]
>>4468222
>>4468313
in ye olde days, most professional shit was shoot on slides and these at minimum must had been shoot on medium format or bigger, so probably that
but also
>>4468240
Anonymous
9/20/2025, 4:47:26 PM
No.4469379
[Report]
>>4469385
>>4468240
don't know about film but in digital you can underexpose to get more saturation without it becoming garish.
Anonymous
9/20/2025, 5:20:51 PM
No.4469385
[Report]
>>4469418
>>4469379
thats not how it works. exposure doesnt change colors, just noise. your raw editor has a bug.
Anonymous
9/20/2025, 8:58:43 PM
No.4469418
[Report]
>>4469440
>>4469385
A change of exposure influences the colours. Look at your histogram.
Anonymous
9/20/2025, 10:44:18 PM
No.4469440
[Report]
>>4469418
easier to see on a parade or vectorscope
Anonymous
9/21/2025, 11:59:42 AM
No.4469554
[Report]
>>4468313
lol lmao, no one shot professionally kodak gold and no one ever pushed color negative stock
It was shot on a slide film definitely most likely kodachrome. Slide film had much better color accuracy and could be quickly edited on the fly before printing for ads or magazines
Anonymous
9/24/2025, 4:39:01 AM
No.4470170
[Report]
>>4470172
>>4468212 (OP)
flat shading
you can post your perfect digital pics in photoshop by overlaying posterize filter over the photo with a blend modifier of your choice
Anonymous
9/24/2025, 4:48:35 AM
No.4470172
[Report]
>>4470175
>>4470170
I am actually curious to recreate it over modern digital photos... gonna try a few. 1st one
Anonymous
9/24/2025, 10:02:59 AM
No.4470219
[Report]
>>4468212 (OP)
maybe these are from era when E100 was at original version and assistant loaded other f5 while other f5 + 400mm clacked away
Anonymous
9/24/2025, 10:26:33 AM
No.4470221
[Report]
>>4470175
this just looks like a shitty insta filter
Anonymous
9/24/2025, 10:45:25 AM
No.4470223
[Report]
>>4470277
>>4470175
do the usual edits and then convert to some sort of a working cmyk paper profile and back to rgb, trims the oversaturated colors in a similiar way to ops pics
Anonymous
9/24/2025, 5:46:47 PM
No.4470284
[Report]
Digicucks btfo time and time again by a piece of funny plastic
Anonymous
9/24/2025, 7:13:00 PM
No.4470298
[Report]
>>4476336
>>4470294
id happily lick the sand from her feet
Anonymous
10/20/2025, 11:10:29 PM
No.4476336
[Report]
>>4470293
so pretty much what
>>4468222 said
Given that it's not made anymore, just use whatever fresh slide film you can get, and consider a polarizing filter as well.
And since E100 is basically all you can get now you might also want a warming filter for that.
I've heard even Gold 200 with a polarizer can give similar results so that might also be worth a try.
>>4470298
based
