Technicolor - I love learning about this sort of stuff
 

I've been moving more and more each day towards a 'niche' of old school photography and film in my work. (There's some serious private collectors out there!)

Well I had a guy that's seriously into Kustom Kulture and collects old vintage cars and stuff. He asked me for a price on shooting something in glorious Technicolor. So I started to research the process and it just blew me away! My conclusion is that I can't do it and if I could the cost would be huge.

But just the same here's how the IB Technicolor process is done :

shoot a regular photo, fade colors in photoshop and export it to jpg 5 ....

That's why digital is so awesome.

Cinestyle Download - Technicolor

Not even remotely close. It's like comparing the orange soda pop from McDonalds with a 30 Year Old Single Malt Scotch Whiskey.

Technicolor is also a company in Holywood that does color correction for films. The old process used to use only chemicals, but now of course it is all digital too.

I love old technology, but really, there is no comparison. Digital and modern techniques are just so much better than the old ways. Better results, more control, less costly, faster, etc.

Not better but different.

Digital's primary advantage is the cost and the... How should I put this diplomatically? "The lack of advanced training required for an operator to develop an acceptable mastery of the equipment."

With film there's a LOT of skill and artistic ability required. Now I've seen many old school photographers use with relative ease today's current digital equipment. However I've rarely seen the contrary

With notable exceptions for genre, much of today's modern photography can be compared to "Fast Food". IE: It's hot, fast, cheap and packed with flavor enhancers to keep the buyer happy. Unfortunately fanatics of this type of "meal" won't be able to appreciate a dinner served from a 3 star restaurant.

And so it is with comparing photography techniques and approaches. If someone can't see the difference between a digital simulation and the application of the original processes... Then there's NOTHING anyone can do to show it to them.

settle down op, you're the one exclaiming that you are just now learning about technicolor. in less than a few posts, you're all the sudden the snarky expert.

lolz.

Where the hell do you get that idea that I'm upset?

Also I'm in no way claiming to be an expert on the IB Technicolor process. But being a photographer with a fair amount of experience I do know a couple of things about film. Now granted I'm no Ken Marcus... Not even close to being in his league. But just the same since I've been able to earn a living as a photographer in both the film and digital age I think I'm qualified enough to point a few things out.
.
For me if someone took 2 identical photos but used digital for one and a good quality film for the other. All things considered equal there would be 2 photos with different properties to each other. Which would be considered superior would depend on personal preferences.

Now if someone took that digital photo and applied the relevant "photoshop" techniques. No matter how good someone does the job I'm most likely going to spot the fake photo each time. Digital made to look like film is always going to look like a rip off to anyone that knows the difference.

Again most of this depends on what someone is doing and trying to accomplish. For example in today's current porn environment I wouldn't shoot gonzo with anything other than my Canon EOS 70D. (heck I don't even bother properly light the room) But on the other hand if I'm going for a lo-fi noir look then I'm going to do it in film. (Plus single frame of 35mm film when even poorly scanned still will work out to about 25MP)

So trust me that I'm not ranting at all against digital photography... But I would hardly say that it's superior to film.... It has its uses and vice versa.

I'm good friends with the guy who has been the head colorist at Technicolor for years. They do digital mixing on a million dollar setup these days, it's much more efficient than film, they can replicate the film down to the nth of a degree in output, and they can do dailies from offsite without ever having to get a can of film sent to them.

The operative word is "million dollar setup" - I cannot remember the board manufacturer but that's the cost. There is nothing in the consumer space that will come close.

Through much of the late 80s and 90s I worked at several print shops in Toronto as a camera operator and film stripper. We worked with 4-color process (black/cyan/magenta/yellow)...so I got to know the hands-on/old school approach to 4-color film separation and final neg prep. I always found it fascinating - the trick was being accurate with the film registration (lining up the film on top of one another before making the final negs).

Have fun with it. It's cool to see the final output after all the work goes into it. Digital is easy and cheap by comparison these days...but its invaluable to know the old manual process behind the color separation and how everything works together.

I always considered my days in the print industry to be good experience later when I moved into digital photography, image manipulation and digital post-edit production years later.