News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Shirley Cards by klodolph on Monday November 15, 2021 @12:13AM (#29223965)
Color films used to come in two varieties, more or less. Films designed to represent caucasian skin tones in a desirable way, and films designed to make colors that pop. Fuji had 160C and 160S, while Kodak had Portra 160NC and 160VC. I think they tweaked something in the sensitivity curves of the “suitable for skin tones” product lines which reduced contrast in the relevant parts of the curve. My sense is that this would keep it looking peach-colored without going into the more brilliant reds or magentas. The sensitivity curves for “makes colors that pop” were tweaked to increase the contrast in certain places. This was great for nature photos, product photos, or photos of food, but but if you put caucasian skin in the picture, it might come out looking somewhat reddish or magenta, and skin blemishes stand out more. Worst case you get crab people.

This is just my perspective on the film itself, based on my experiences shooting and printing color film (in a wet lab). I was printing slowly, trying to get the best out of each print. I spent a lot of time looking at prints and sussing out variations in color, stuff that you could fix at the touch of a button in Photoshop, if it were digital.

Re:Shirley Cards by dagw on Monday November 15, 2021 @04:13AM (#29225347)
Kodak had Portra 160NC and 160VC

Worth noting that Porta was a fairly recent and 'modern' film development, and showed up on the market long after the events depicted in the story. Film used to be split into if it was balanced for daylight or tungsten lights

Re:Shirley Cards by i_am_proteus on Monday November 15, 2021 @03:31AM (#29225092)
Still do, although there aren't that many color films left. Portra 160 these days is like the old 160NC and Ektar is like a more-saturated VC (or a higher contrast, negative Ektachrome). Both run about $6 per 4x5 sheet, so I don't work with them much.