what color film did sally mann use for her mexican landscapes?

[pbryld]

Right, no coating, but that still doesn't sufficiently account for the extremely soft colour rendition. I know nothing about colour photography, are you sure there aren't being performed tricks in the darkroom?

[E. von Hoegh]

I did not mean to imply anything about the size of your testicles, nor your willingness to try things with them. I was referring to Mann's ability to print vs. what she chooses to display. Having met her, I can say that she carefully considers everything she does in her photographs, despite what she says in the documentary.

I was using "balls" in the metaphoric sense. (winking smiley)

[MDR]

Uncoated lenses create a soft color rendition especially if said lenses have difficulties focussing all three colors on the same plane which is often the case with early lenses. Veiling Flare degrades the image even further coupled with overexposure you get these tones no Darkroom tricks necessary. Since you live in Denmark, maybe Gandolfi is willing to borrow you one of his darlings on the other hand you can use a loupe and might be able to get similar results.

Dominik

[Frank Petronio]

People, please. This is not about whether you like Sally Mann's work or not, but simply how she achieved a certain look when she did a series of colour images. If you don't have anything to say about that, you shouldn't be posting in this thread, but rather in another.

Does the look solely come from the film and exposure? It's the only explanation people have come up with so far.

I said it was the lens, probably a trashed one. Like sandpapered glass.

[codyjgraham]

People, please. This is not about whether you like Sally Mann's work or not, but simply how she achieved a certain look when she did a series of colour images. If you don't have anything to say about that, you shouldn't be posting in this thread, but rather in another.

Does the look solely come from the film and exposure? It's the only explanation people have come up with so far.

Thanks you! I was looking on how she achieve this aesthetic, I don't care if you don't like her, I honestly don't care, so take your negative attitude toward some where else. I didn't realize this forum was for hats... sorry my bad.


But thank you to the people who have helped me out, how do I know if my lens is coded or unfixed? I have a Kodak Ektar 127 f/ 4.7 (I believe I'm not sure of the f stop but its a 4. something) on a speed graphic

[Frank Petronio]

It is probably single coated, unless it is pre WW2. Not many that old.

Sorry to have missed this obvious point, but most of the look comes from printing the images "wrong" with color that is false to the scene, too light or dark, muddy or too contrasty. This is the major factor in the look, her deliberate break from traditional photo aesthetics. Compound that with a soft focus and likely inaccurately focused lens, with its scratched, dirty, and hazy glass - pointed into the often harsh light - you have a perfect storm of flare and general bad technique.

The film choice plays a minor role when you're trying to muck things up this hard. It really won't matter, any film will look like this if you do what she did.

If you are trying to copy her, in a large format Lomo sort of way, then your sharp little Ektar isn't ideal. But if you want to abuse the lens, miss focus, tilt and swing the standards without regard, and shoot into harsh light sources then you will come close. The rest can be poor filtration when printing from the enlarger or playing with Curves in Photoshop. Maybe drop the wet film on the floor for good measure.

To put her work in context, back in the 90s the Starn Twins were making mint $$$ with their distressed photos and she was trying to tap into that trend. Of course fast forward to present and it's an Instagram filter. Frankly I'm skeptical of anything like this, the wave crested and broke years ago. Just like typography, people will come back around and want clean photos that couldn't possibly be done with an iPhone.

[cosmicexplosion]

if sally finds the right old lens, points it at the sun, over exposes it, tilts it, blurs it, scratches it, filters it, does a voodoo chicken dance on it, soaks it in the sea, squirts her breasts milk on it, then under develops it, dodges it burns it, looks at it, ignores it, dreams it up, lets her imagination float away with it, pulls a swifty with it, bangs it, sandpapers it listens to it....

how is that of less value than someone who exposes a film according to the directions on the box?

my support goes behind any one doing something different.

even if i dont like it. it shows creativity, to just go with what you like as an artist, and like van gogh, people might only catch on years later...

but my answer would be.... i think she gets that effect from experimenting.

[Bill_1856]

It appears to me that she's just trying to make her pictures look in color like what she's been doing for the last several years in B&W. My guess is that she's using a negative material, not a transparency film.
Have you tried emailing her directly?

[codyjgraham]

It appears to me that she's just trying to make her pictures look in color like what she's been doing for the last several years in B&W. My guess is that she's using a negative material, not a transparency film.
Have you tried emailing her directly?

I have not tried that, I might do that, thanks!

[pbryld]

Someone also mentioned cross processing. Seems quite plausible.

Thoughts?