One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
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.
Rød grød med fløde.
pbryld you forgot the lens, the lens seems to be a huge part of it, look at the out of focus area they look like those from a Petzval or Aplanat/Rapid Rectilinear. The lack of coating + the lack of coverage + exposure = these pictures the film is irrelevant imho buy the cheapest color negative film you can buy if it's out of date even better. You can get these results with slide film as well but it's more of a hit and miss.
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?
Rød grød med fløde.
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.
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
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.