In a message dated 1/25/01 8:28:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Supra for portraits (was Re: Who here uses a monopod?)
Date: 1/25/01 8:28:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tom)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<snip>
> And the *ONLY* film that can outscan it is... tada! SUPRA 100*!
> *World class portraits with SUPRA 100.
Mafud, in explaining his use of SUPRA, says: I shoot mostly people of color.
I used KODAK EKTAPRESS almost exclusively since 1995. SUPRA is the emulsion
replacing EKTAPRESS. Both EKTAPRESS and SUPRA, unlike emulsions formulated to
reproduce either greens and blues (Fuji) very well or reds/oranges (Kodak) do
a lousy job reproducing Black or otherwise "dark" skin.
SUPRA and EKTAPRESS take away a lot of the "white skin" penalties in color
film when shooting people of color. Both handle the dread "specular"
highlights** (shiny spots on black skin) very well. Because both are medium
contrast emulsions, both treat fair skin as it is seen.
*We've all seen the images; black male subject, looking shiny and greasy
(because the sorry photographer, who don't know diddly about shooting black
skin, (has the subject smear his face with petroleum jelly then wipe most of
it off ), and doesn't know what to do with the specular highlights decides
that "shiny all over" is the best way to shoot this client (remember all
those Michael Jordan commercials, His "Airness," bald and greasy)?
Well, by damn, today "shiny all over" is the almost universal "style" when
shooting black males.
*Almost without exception, "pro" or amateur, modern print and slide emulsions
are also formulated to give white skin a "glow" or "tan." Even Casper, the
ghostly white "friendly Ghost" would have a tan with most modern color
emulsions.
What looks "healthy" or "good" on white skin is intensified in a negative way
in Black skin.
Worse, using most modern emulsions, any shadows in portraits of people of
color are most times a sickly green-black or blue-black.
Only full face, "Hollywood lighting" (strobe on top, reflector on bottom,
strobe to camera right/left elevated just above the subject's eyes) works to
fully illuminate black skin. The worse attribute of most modern emulsions
with black skin? The eyes most times are *not* illuminated and when they are,
the whites look "distorted" (actually extra white), drawing attention to the
eyes in an unglamorous way.
*Black women wearing blue, green, white, silver, gold, light yellow make-up
over their eyelids or brows or red blush (since black people as a rule cannot
"blush") [blush: a reddening of the subcutaneous layer of human skin because
of a pooling of blood], many times look like caricatures of themselves in
that most (white) portrait photographers, skilled as they are with whites and
white skin, don't know diddly about shooting black skin or black faces.
And because they see nothing "wrong" in their white approach to shooting
black skin, they do a terrible injustice to their dark skinned clients.
*Please, no need to say "I know how" or "not me" or worse: "there's no
difference in shooting black skin and white skin."
Yeah, right!
Example: most studio strobes are from 5500 to 6000* (blue) Kelvin. If the
photographer is shooting black skin and does not use a CC 20 magenta gel over
their strobes top compensate, the black client will be "off color."
*I'm fuzzy here, but two makers manufacture strobes at 4800 and 5300 degrees
Kelvin, BALCAR being one (I forget the other name). 4800 and 5300 degree
Kelvin lights, because they are "redder" than the others, do a fair job of
compensating for the horrors of color film emulsions on black skin.
*Black skin, shot in B&W and correctly lit, looks gorgeous compared to black
skin shot in color.
The same formulation that produces "tans" in white skin turns black skin
"reddish." Add the "blue" light of 6000 Kelvin strobes and you get the
blue-black green-black shadows along with a general flattening of the skin
texture.
Whew! First lessons on how to shoot black people are over.
<<Do you have some scans to show us?>>
No, but the KODAK "pro" site does. I would rather you go there to make your
anaysis than lookat my scans, where the viewer can infer that I somehow
manipulated the images. And nope. Because if you won't believe KODAK, no way
you'd believe me.
<<How do you like it compared to the Portras in terms of color and
contrast?>>
As to PORTA. There was a raging argument on the PDML about PORTRA that only
died out when I unsubsribed from the list.
I insisted then, as now, and being a member of KODAK'S POE (Promise of
Excellence) professional program and a charter member of the KODAK Viewfinder
Forum, that you can't "rate" the PORTRA emulsions.
"Rating" the 160 0r 400 PORTRA emulsions is an excersize in futility. But
there are those who would insist, and do, loudly, that "rating" a PORTRA 160
emulsion at ISO 125 or 100 gives better exposures and denser negatives. Me
and KODAK heartily disagree.
*KODAK'S pre and post-release technical data sheets on PORTRA empahtically
state: "Shoot at box speed."
The PORTRA *VC* emissions have all the sins of regualr "pro" or amateur color
films in that they "go for the glow" (tan). PORTRA NC emulsions do a better
job handling black skin, but not that much better. PORTRA NC emulsions *do*
have their medium contrast charms to partly redeem them (in my eyes). I shoot
PORTRA NC emusions with selected clients.
Mafud, pulling on his Kevlar bulletproof protective armor, slips quietly out
the side door.
Mafud
Zawadi Imaging & Media Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
