The thing that strikes me with so many of these great Film shots, is the lack of 'black white contrast'.
So often film needs to be heavily corrected, as it can so easily come out looking... washed out, either straight from the camera or via dodgy scanning.
For the last 8 years ive gone by the motto 'I want my blacks, FUCKING black', to the point where i tell this to photo processors... cos if you dont, you get roll after roll of drain, tunnel and night pics back looking muddy n washed out.
As it goes, a quick stop down of 'shadows' or 'darkness' in a computer photo editor normally solves it.
The rule of a well exposed film shot is indeed that the blacks should be black... as black is the only uncompromising colour. Its the only 'shade' that you can bank upon.
If upon darkening your shot till the blacks are black, the picture is too dark, then you've indeed fucked it... it is indeed underexposed.
Heres two examples of this issue i have with DODGY FUCKERS WHO RUN Jessops/Snappy Snaps LABS!
As intended:
As Snappy Snaps scanned it:
Fuckers might as well had taken a shit on the neg beforehand. NOOOO i dont wanna see every detail. This wasnt shot on a disposable, rather on a Nikon SLR that cost £1400 when new... back in like... 1997, yet they will just assume, that cos its a 'dark shot' that it 'needs to be brightened' to the point where i looks like someone's smeared horse jism all over the shot for that 'soft exposure look'. *puke*
I ask you, which shot do youse prefer? If you prefer the former... then do likewise... And get those blacks... black.
My eyes hurt me otherwise
N before you say 'get a better developer', its £8 a roll as it is. Pro labs charged almost £20 and ive still got 12 rolls in backlog...
Have fun ya'll XOX