Getting this type of look

[Sparrow]

I still think Photoshop is involved personally, this



from this in 10 min

[wblanchard]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I still think Photoshop is involved personally

I agree. Alien Skin Exposure 2 plugin's with all the films listed, plus lots of cross processing effects make it easier lately. It's funny how so many people try so hard to stay away from shooting film, yet demand a plugin to mimic their favorite films!

[PatrickONeill]

I'd bet it was all shot on digital MF backs. and then crunched and stylized into that look.

I used to do retouching work for catalogs, and everything is cleaned up and retouched these days.

[Ranchu]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I still think Photoshop is involved personally, this

Wow, good job. Glamorous with a satiny sheen.

[gnuyork]

Maybe ask them if they know this was shot on film or with digital, at least. My guess is it's film and probably some minor PS work (color shifts), but I think the main look is the film.

Even though it looks under saturated it still has a richness to it unlike one of the examples above. That just looks washed out and unintentional, though I understand it was for demonstration purposes.

Originally Posted by dan_sutton

i sent j crew an email:

"
Hi Dan,

Thanks for reaching out - glad to hear you enjoyed the catalog. I'm
sorry to say we are unable to share the names of our photographers.

Please feel free to contact me if I can help with anything else.
"

no help there

[Paddy C]

I don't believe you are going to see this straight out of a camera (even an old one with an old lens) with modern film. Could be wrong of course, but I'm in the "it's likely digital, with careful PP" camp.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by PatrickONeill

I'd bet it was all shot on digital MF backs. and then crunched and stylized into that look.

I used to do retouching work for catalogs, and everything is cleaned up and retouched these days.

I don't see any other way, there must have been more than one photographer on something like that, they just shot the stock files then the design director created that "look" afterwards

MF digi because the to a commissioning editor and designers size really does matter, they may need to do major cropping to fit the layouts

[Paddy C]

After some digging...

This guy may be the photographer (but I gather they use a variety):

http://www.daymion.com

Looks like a similar look for July:



I had no idea J Crew had such a following.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by gnuyork

Maybe ask them if they know this was shot on film or with digital, at least. My guess is it's film and probably some minor PS work (color shifts), but I think the main look is the film.

Even though it looks under saturated it still has a richness to it unlike one of the examples above. That just looks washed out and unintentional, though I understand it was for demonstration purposes.

well yes, but that was just a 135 neg that was to hand, and I didn't spend that much time on it, give me J Crew's budget and ....

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Paddy C

After some digging...

This guy may be the photographer (but I gather they use a variety):

http://www.daymion.com

Looks like a similar look for July:



I had no idea J Crew had such a following.

that surprised me too

[Ranchu]

It's not so much a following, it's that they spew catalogs endlessly into your mailbox even if you've never bought their clothes.

[CK Dexter Haven]

Wish i could see a printed catalog or a high-res image... but the look reminds me of Raphael Mazzucco's older work. Which would have been shot with a Pentax 67, 105mm lens and Portra 400nc. He probably shoots a lot of digital now (Hassy H/Canon EOS), but when the miconworldwide.com site comes back online, look through his campaigns.

http://stilettostetico.blogspot.com/...zzucco-in.html

Why are some suggesting 35mm? Because it's not 'razor sharp?' This looks a lot like handheld Pentax 67 stuff.

[buzzardkid]

Originally Posted by nightfly

The photos in the new J Crew printed catalog/website:

http://www.jcrew.com/index.jsp

have a really nice look to them. Sort of warm and rich but soft and not too saturated. They look very film like to me (although they very well might be digital).

My question is what sort of film gives you this look? I would imagine some kind of color negative film shot wide open or close to it with an older lens?

Not trying to emulate it precisely but I do like the film like feeling it suggests. I don't have any digital capture devices so need to go with film and perhaps some photoshop post but I'd like to get mostly there with the film itself.

More pics:

Expired slide film is more pastellish in color rendering, to start with. When assuming the color tone of the shots wasn't changed, I'd say this was Fuji film, they generally are more capable of this tone of green you find here, almost slate-grey green.

Ofcourse anything can be done digitally nowadays, but if you look at the way the skin tones on the model with the bathing suit cross over into slight overexposure(on her thigh specifically), I'd say this was done on film.

Great shots, nice feel to them for sure.

[buzzardkid]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I still think Photoshop is involved personally, this



from this in 10 min

nicely done Stewart, compliments!

No doubt Photoshop was involved in the catalog shots, but what did you shoot your pictures with? Digital or film? I'm thinking film, again judging by how skin tones cross over to overexposed parts on the face in the original shot.

[gnuyork]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

well yes, but that was just a 135 neg that was to hand, and I didn't spend that much time on it, give me J Crew's budget and ....

no doubt. I understand it was to demonstrate the relative idea.

here is another take on the effect, if you don't mind... Very quick PS work. I used your undersaturated file and used some selective saturation and changed the shadow color balance.

I am sure J Crew spends much more time in post than the 5 minutes it took me to do this. For some reason I still think the catalog images were shot with film though.

[nightfly]

If anyone has a crappy scratched up Summar or similar uncoated lens they want to get rid of PM me. 50mm or 35mm or whatever. Haze is probably OK, heck even desirable.

[wblanchard]

J Crew images and Terry Richardson style photos seem all the rage lately. Perhaps we should all shoot with a Yashica T4's and cross process some Kodak Royal Gold 400 to get the best of both worlds? :P

[charjohncarter]

Sorry, I think I'm wrong about the Brownie Hawkeye Flash, C-41, and leaving it in rubbing alcohol for 30 minutes. Sparrow is right digital and PS.

[Tom A]

Originally Posted by nightfly

What type of uncoated or single coated Leica or Leica compatible glass would you guys suggest? I wouldn't be shooting up close, more like a general 35mm or 50mm (realize I'd loose the narrow depth of field, which is OK, more interested in tones/contrast/color). Would an old lens with separation or haze work? Could also do something that would fit on a Pentax MX as that's my other film body that is sitting unused and neglected.

The old Thambar from Leica would give this kind of look, as would the Hektor 125f2.5. There is really no new lens out there that will "diffuse" wide-open. without looking artificial. Nikon had (or still has) some SLR lens that will "de-focus" slightly and accentuate the diffusion.

[Brian Legge]

I'm guessing photoshop, but if the question is how to do this with film... I like Portra NC and a soft lens or filter. These were taken with Portra 400NC and a Canonet 17. Different sharpness and pallets but something about the color is similar to me:

[Brian Legge]

Or I suppose something random and expired. Here is Kodak Gold 400, 20 years out of date by 20 years. Shot with an XA, probably somewhat over exposed because it was insanely bright out there:



Good reminder that I need to shoot more of this film this summer.

[Doug]

Given the catalog/advertising purpose of the shots, I expect it's important that the clothing is kept the right colors and look... and the background is adjusted for the atmospheric appearance.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by buzzardkid

nicely done Stewart, compliments!

No doubt Photoshop was involved in the catalog shots, but what did you shoot your pictures with? Digital or film? I'm thinking film, again judging by how skin tones cross over to overexposed parts on the face in the original shot.

That was a Fuji superia 135 neg that I happened to have a draft scan to hand, the odd blown bit is just a scanning artifact.

If I were shooting that to go in a catalogue I'd choose MF Digi and get the best IQ and saturation I could to hand over to the Art Dept

If I had to do it on film, out of date Ektachrome and shoot it through a smeared filter or a gel, at one time I had a thing about GAF500 shot through sweet warpers

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Brian Legge

I'm guessing photoshop,..... edit

Is that the Hyatt on Dearborn in Chicago? By that Chinese library

[akremer]

First post here - I signed up wanting to ask about this kind of look.

My examples are below - shots by a young australian photographer

http://www.amandaaustin.net/images/e...t[1]-2.jpg
http://www.amandaaustin.net/images/e...t[1]-3.jpg