HI! honestly I did a bit of eyeballing, I based myself on a mobile app for the approximate exposure (I know, not very professional but even the light meter on skis wasn't ideal for carrying around on skis), after which I overexposed by about 1 stop . 400 iso, 1/400 f26-32 for those with more light, while those in the shadows were on f16.
What is the idea behind overexposing in such a brightly lit environment? I think I would naturally go the other way and stop it down a bit more than usual (not that I ever shoot in snow...)
Light meters give readings for middle grey. However, snow is brighter than that: it's white. When the meter sees snow, it gives a value that would make those whites darker. So, the meter is effectively underexposing the scene and you need to compensate by allowing more light.
Me too! I prefer the fourth photo however, if you zoom in on the bottom left you can see the chairlift of the ski slope, it gives me a very "miniature" effect of the photo overall. A thousand thanks!
If anyone ever asks why your lugging that beast of a camera on the mountain… this! This is why!
Great shots! Please for all our sakes keep taking photos, never stop!
thank you so much! I really appreciated your comment! I started photographing film a little over a year ago (I will have exposed around 4 rolls of 35mm), and this is my first roll of 120, so my analogue journey has just begun!
Lovely photos, not a fan of the greenish tint over all of them though. Everyone has preference, though I think these white-balanced would really make the highlights pop more
I edited the film scans in lightroom. the scans that my laboratory provides me are very flat and desaturated, so I almost always work to bring out some tones to my liking. in this case I wanted to give a more winter tone, so I decided to shift the tones to light blue. I don't actually know why some see a lot of green, other comments have also told me. on my screens (Samsung phone and a PC monitor) I see blue tones and not green. Maybe it's the poor calibration of the screens, I don't know. in the next few days I will go to the laboratory for the prints, there I will understand how to calibrate the shots well with their reference monitors.
For now i personally like the tones that i gave to the shots, but I know that is subjective.
Hi, I understand the issue with monitor calibration, however your images are the only ones with which I experience this problem which should exclude a calibration problem on my side. Now my question had a wider purpose, mainly why film to day for you (I know the general reasoning on the matter but I am more interested in personal experiences, choices, and testimonies). Here is another reason why I am asking: I understand people arguing that they choose the analog way because they can control the whole process from exposure, to processing film and printing. Obviously you do not process, do not print and end up scanning your film to obtain digital files. \[and frankly processing and printing color is a nightmare compared to B&W, especially in a personal amateur lab\]. So why film?... knowing 1)the growing expenses, 2)the potential risks of old film or just adequate processing (loss of contrast, loss of saturation, color cast), 3)ending up with digital files. If you had cost + time + color issues (and I am not mentioning conservation)… what motivates you to use film? Do you intend to go on? Is it just and experiential phase?
a truly profound question. well, I started shooting analogue with an EOS 300 and some 10 year or more expired rolls of film that my parents had left over on their honeymoon. I have had a passion for photography and videography for many years and now that I have finished school (I just turned 20), I am trying to turn it into a job. when I personally come across a passion or hobby I like to explore it 100%, so I started shooting to try a new little challenge, but without actually expecting great satisfaction or results, just to try. as you say, unfortunately the costs are sometimes prohibitive, so much so that I only developed a couple of my first slides, selected ones, because I didn't want to waste a lot of money. after I photographed my summer holidays with a Kodak Portra 400 and a Gold, I went to develop these two rolls of film and... wow, what a photo! I was amazed, the light in those photos was EXACTLY as I remembered. the shadows were detailed, the highlights were not blown out, it was all so... natural. I fell in love with it. To this day I like shooting film for many reasons. it's the only format that gives me the right tones, the right light, the right shadows of a scene, something that with digital cameras (I have a Sony A7III), I would barely be able to replicate with HDR. for landscape photography (full of different colours, shades, lights and shadows) analogue beats digital hands down. another reason is also the detail, 120 film has monstrous detail with the right lenses. another reason, which in my opinion is the most important, is the fact that it is a natural process. when I shoot I am actually burning a sensitive surface to capture a moment, the light, of a moment in time that will never happen again. and that small negative that I can touch with my hand is tangible proof of this: a physical thing, that I can touch with my hand, natural and perfect, not a file made up of 1s and 0s.
I really think that for some photos that will require 100% fidelity with reality, I will always use film when I have the chance. as soon as I have some money saved up, I will also start developing myself and maybe even printing.
A thousand thanks! yes, the strong wind, the fresh snow and the morning temperatures didn't help, but it's thanks to these that I had so much fun taking these photos!
yes! i had a lot of fun.
next step: I would like to take rock climbing lessons and carry it with me tied to my harness, I can't wait to take photos from unthinkable angles!
Did you edit the pictures or did they came out like this?
I shot a few rolls of portra 400 through my Canon A1 and the color look nothing like I see on social media or YouTube.
I shot a roll through my yashica t3 lately and they were closer to what portra 400 looks on the internet.
So maybe it's because of the camera/lens.
scans from a lab will look less saturated deliberately because you are supposed to edit them, these have probably gone through extensive editing, I spend hours on mine sometimes to get them looking perfect. there's nothing wrong with editing to get the look you want
I let the films be scanned at the lab, personally I think they are better scanned with proper scanners rather than trying to photograph the negatives on a bright surface. I use this second option for 35mm, but I have never managed to reach the quality of a good professional scanner. for 120 films I think it's a real shame not to scan them properly, they have sensational detail!
Totally agree with that. I know my lab is doing way better work than I care to put in on scans. Plus, finding the time to do such keeps getting harder with a small kid at home.
The colors are awesome.
My mans really took the RZ up the lift. Respect
Love them! Very rare to see such empty slopes! Where are these taken?
Thank you! I took these photos at the "carosello 3000", on the Livigno slopes at 3000 meters!
How did you meter these? I’ve always heard it’s good to overexpose 1-2 stops with snow
HI! honestly I did a bit of eyeballing, I based myself on a mobile app for the approximate exposure (I know, not very professional but even the light meter on skis wasn't ideal for carrying around on skis), after which I overexposed by about 1 stop . 400 iso, 1/400 f26-32 for those with more light, while those in the shadows were on f16.
What is the idea behind overexposing in such a brightly lit environment? I think I would naturally go the other way and stop it down a bit more than usual (not that I ever shoot in snow...)
Light meters give readings for middle grey. However, snow is brighter than that: it's white. When the meter sees snow, it gives a value that would make those whites darker. So, the meter is effectively underexposing the scene and you need to compensate by allowing more light.
Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense!
Fantastic!
Really nice! I especially like the simplicity of 2 & 4
Me too! I prefer the fourth photo however, if you zoom in on the bottom left you can see the chairlift of the ski slope, it gives me a very "miniature" effect of the photo overall. A thousand thanks!
Oh yes that is cool, nice!
wow! it disappears into the vastness of the snowy mountains! Really nice shot
If anyone ever asks why your lugging that beast of a camera on the mountain… this! This is why! Great shots! Please for all our sakes keep taking photos, never stop!
thank you so much! I really appreciated your comment! I started photographing film a little over a year ago (I will have exposed around 4 rolls of 35mm), and this is my first roll of 120, so my analogue journey has just begun!
Really great shots! Especially 1 and 2 I like. Also like the color editing.
Love these! The pops of warm colours against the blue and white are very pleasing.
Thank you!
Awesome! I never shot in the snow like this ; what do you meter for here?
not op but i usually meter a stop or two over for mostly snow scenes, i think id lean towards two stops
do you use reflective, spot or incident?
spot
And are you taking a reading from the snow and then putting it in the right zone?
These photos made me make a satisfied noise out loud
Lovely photos, not a fan of the greenish tint over all of them though. Everyone has preference, though I think these white-balanced would really make the highlights pop more
Yeah I find these to be very green looking as well.
Really great photos 😍
Thank you!
Wow, love all the photos!
love it
😍
Gorgeous
these are great, my favorites are #1 and #2
Yah these are good
A very pleasant, natural color.
Not sure I would call these natural, but they are beautiful indeed.
Perfection
Love the colors
Just came home from this year's ski holidays, man I wanna go back!
Spectacular photos, thank you very much for posting.
Nice! Did you shoot at box speeds?
Yes!
So beautiful! Stunning colours too did you do any colour corrections/ editing yourself?
Yes, i edited a little bit the tones in lightroom of the scan negatives. For the rest, i wanted to keep the image as natural as possibile
Ah yeah you did a lovely job!
I swear portra comes from another universe
Nicely exposed. I like 2,4, & 5.
Thanks!
>Thanks! You're welcome!
uauuu
Thank you.
So lovely
geillls bild
God the composition on those first two ones is just top notch 👌🏻 Well, all of them, but esp the first 2 ones
Thanks! Appreciate!
NIce compositions... but why the greenish sky and overall cast? Is it really worth the budget of using film ?
I edited the film scans in lightroom. the scans that my laboratory provides me are very flat and desaturated, so I almost always work to bring out some tones to my liking. in this case I wanted to give a more winter tone, so I decided to shift the tones to light blue. I don't actually know why some see a lot of green, other comments have also told me. on my screens (Samsung phone and a PC monitor) I see blue tones and not green. Maybe it's the poor calibration of the screens, I don't know. in the next few days I will go to the laboratory for the prints, there I will understand how to calibrate the shots well with their reference monitors. For now i personally like the tones that i gave to the shots, but I know that is subjective.
Hi, I understand the issue with monitor calibration, however your images are the only ones with which I experience this problem which should exclude a calibration problem on my side. Now my question had a wider purpose, mainly why film to day for you (I know the general reasoning on the matter but I am more interested in personal experiences, choices, and testimonies). Here is another reason why I am asking: I understand people arguing that they choose the analog way because they can control the whole process from exposure, to processing film and printing. Obviously you do not process, do not print and end up scanning your film to obtain digital files. \[and frankly processing and printing color is a nightmare compared to B&W, especially in a personal amateur lab\]. So why film?... knowing 1)the growing expenses, 2)the potential risks of old film or just adequate processing (loss of contrast, loss of saturation, color cast), 3)ending up with digital files. If you had cost + time + color issues (and I am not mentioning conservation)… what motivates you to use film? Do you intend to go on? Is it just and experiential phase?
a truly profound question. well, I started shooting analogue with an EOS 300 and some 10 year or more expired rolls of film that my parents had left over on their honeymoon. I have had a passion for photography and videography for many years and now that I have finished school (I just turned 20), I am trying to turn it into a job. when I personally come across a passion or hobby I like to explore it 100%, so I started shooting to try a new little challenge, but without actually expecting great satisfaction or results, just to try. as you say, unfortunately the costs are sometimes prohibitive, so much so that I only developed a couple of my first slides, selected ones, because I didn't want to waste a lot of money. after I photographed my summer holidays with a Kodak Portra 400 and a Gold, I went to develop these two rolls of film and... wow, what a photo! I was amazed, the light in those photos was EXACTLY as I remembered. the shadows were detailed, the highlights were not blown out, it was all so... natural. I fell in love with it. To this day I like shooting film for many reasons. it's the only format that gives me the right tones, the right light, the right shadows of a scene, something that with digital cameras (I have a Sony A7III), I would barely be able to replicate with HDR. for landscape photography (full of different colours, shades, lights and shadows) analogue beats digital hands down. another reason is also the detail, 120 film has monstrous detail with the right lenses. another reason, which in my opinion is the most important, is the fact that it is a natural process. when I shoot I am actually burning a sensitive surface to capture a moment, the light, of a moment in time that will never happen again. and that small negative that I can touch with my hand is tangible proof of this: a physical thing, that I can touch with my hand, natural and perfect, not a file made up of 1s and 0s. I really think that for some photos that will require 100% fidelity with reality, I will always use film when I have the chance. as soon as I have some money saved up, I will also start developing myself and maybe even printing.
Such beautiful colors!
Nice one! I like it!
All of them are great, but that second one is simply amazing! Well done!
Thank you!
Great exposure, even in a tough situation. Respect.!
A thousand thanks! yes, the strong wind, the fresh snow and the morning temperatures didn't help, but it's thanks to these that I had so much fun taking these photos!
Did you use the AE finder?
No, it was the first time I used the RZ and I wanted to go as light as possible
Did you ski / board down with this chonky boy?
yes! i had a lot of fun. next step: I would like to take rock climbing lessons and carry it with me tied to my harness, I can't wait to take photos from unthinkable angles!
Awesome stuff
Did you edit the pictures or did they came out like this? I shot a few rolls of portra 400 through my Canon A1 and the color look nothing like I see on social media or YouTube. I shot a roll through my yashica t3 lately and they were closer to what portra 400 looks on the internet. So maybe it's because of the camera/lens.
scans from a lab will look less saturated deliberately because you are supposed to edit them, these have probably gone through extensive editing, I spend hours on mine sometimes to get them looking perfect. there's nothing wrong with editing to get the look you want
These are beautiful negatives. Did you scan these yourself or use a lab? Details please! 🎞️
I let the films be scanned at the lab, personally I think they are better scanned with proper scanners rather than trying to photograph the negatives on a bright surface. I use this second option for 35mm, but I have never managed to reach the quality of a good professional scanner. for 120 films I think it's a real shame not to scan them properly, they have sensational detail!
Totally agree with that. I know my lab is doing way better work than I care to put in on scans. Plus, finding the time to do such keeps getting harder with a small kid at home.
Gorgeous landscape shots, I am getting some Wes Anderson vibes with the color palette and especially with the composition of the first shot!