It would be interesting to see this experiment in a more neutral light environment, like the photo in the hotel room. Times Square's conditions are so specific that I don't see how the results would transfer to other situations, but I might (probably am) be wrong. I didn't like the colours that much in these light conditions, but I will try it someday!
It definitely gives a look- you can tell pushing film was standard practice in the pre-digital times, at least for people who knew what they were doing. I shot a roll of Fuji 400 at 3200 the other day and was surprised at how well a lot of them came out....I got roughly same batting average as shooting under normal conditions. I suspect the rigid adherence to film's ISO rating is a byproduct of having the option to shoot digital.
On two occasions I've shot portra 160 pushed one stop to iso 320 in daylight (first roll was getting closer to sunset though). I absolutely loved the results, they looked so good and complimented every scene I shot so well. Would highly recommend, especially because the grain isn't as bad with portra 160 being a slower film
It would be helpful for reference when you talk about a film's "look", to provide details about how the negatives were digitized. Noritsu or Frontier scan, flatbed scan, or camera scan with negative lab pro are all going to give you different looks from the same negative. Nice video and pics..
I love pushing Portra, though I generally push 160 to 400, and the colors are crazy rich. Interested in pushing the 400->1600 though since we have so few options for high iso color stocks.
In my experience with shooting Portra 800 at indoor track meets (fast movement, low light) and pushing it, the green shift is definitely a common sight. But interestingly the amount changes a decent bit from shot to shot.
How did you afford 40 rolls and developing on one trip? I don't mean that facetiously, I'm asking for real advice here. I'm going on a trip to Panama in a few months and I really want to shoot film there, but I recently came back from a trip where I sort of accidentally shot 13 rolls of film and was already shedding tears over the price. On a trip to a foreign country, I definitely would want to bring as much as I can because who knows I'll be back - but my budget has a thing or two to say about that.
This, people need to stop comparing themselves to RU-vidrs. They make a living off of creating this content. He Probably claims his film rolls as a business expense. @@CharlieLederer
You do not need to shoot 40 rolls for a small trip, its so unbeleivably overkill that it is honestly hilarious. Less is more, especially with color film prices.
That grain in the shadows was a bit too much for me, didnt really enjoy the look, and the colors a bit weird sometimes. Not at all bad pictures, you know what youre doing, and some was def good! Just didnt really enjoy this look of pushing here.
You’re shootings it without a filter for the lighting. I would always use a faster lens. 80A or 80B depending on the lights. But at 125 or 100 ISO but that’s more for studio. But you run into the same issues with color shift. That’s why you should use a filter. Not worth it let alone shooting at 3200 with this film. Most films are only good for two stops under exposed, which is what you do ironically by pushing the film. It’s only so sensitive to light. It’s not a film as far as I know made to be pushed. You have already lost too much detail. Always use the right film and lens for lowlight photography, and or a tripod.
Only because he shot these at Times Square, with red/warm lights around. That is why you see people's skin like that. But true, in that regard it looks like Kodachrome, but only in this environment.
