Here's 2 photos.
The colorful one with the 2 guys yelling is from a Post photographer the other with the lady yelling is mine.
What makes the difference?
Ok, I can think of one thing.
On this day I used 1600 film and they probably used 200. Would this make the difference in color?
Also, what is the best way to view my film, through prints, having them put on a CD or through slides?
They most likely shot their picture on chrome or slide film at 100. This would certainly make a difference. Also, the lens makes a tremendous difference. What camera and lens did you use? Slides are best but need to be carefully exposed. They haven't much forgiveness for over or under exposure.
Your 1600 film will be grainier than 100 or 200, but that wouldn't account for the washed-out look of your pic.
One major difference between the two pictures is lighing. Your pic has very strong backlighting, with the sun coming almost directly behind your subject, so lens flare may be a cause of the washed out look. The backlighting may also have confused your meter and underexposed the picture. The printer then compensates by printing it lighter to look normal, but underexposing print film means the colors will not be saturated.
The light in the Washington Post pic is coming from the left side, the photographer may have used a bit of fill flash, and the pic may (or may not) have been manipulated digitally before publishing. The sky is white on the left, but turns blue in the trees, center and right. Could be the photographer used a polarizing filter, which would also help saturate colors.
|Log in to respond or ask your own question.|