So, here it is! By the time you are reading this, unless you were living inside a digital cave, you know Ilford Harman, the British film manufacturer that we’ve known for years for their B&W timeless emulsions, has changed the game by releasing a C41 emulsion, a global release that took everyone by surprise.

If you had told me 10 years ago I’d see Ilford Harman color film, I would have told you to stop dreaming and to go get some ColorPlus at 2,95€.

 

IMPLICATIONS IN THE FILM INDUSTRY

 

From our point of view, as a small player in the film photography world, this is without a doubt a positive event. A new color film manufacturer diversifies the sources from which film can be produced, sending a message that film is more alive than ever (since digital photography was released, of course).

 

 

But not all that shines is gold. There are some important flaws in this film that should be acknowledged and addressed. There are already countless articles, videos, and posts about this film, but we feel, as a lab, we owe film photographers a deeper dive into this particular emulsion and not just take it “as is.” We are not going to sugarcoat this one; we want to show you the good, the bad, and the ugly. Let’s begin!

 

OUR TESTS AT CARMENCITA

 

Seeing samples of this film has been an emotional rollercoaster. To be brutally honest, we were horrified by the very first tests; we thought there must have been an issue somewhere, and it’d been poorly developed, scanned, or both, because the results were pretty bad.

When we were able to develop the first roll ourselves, we confirmed it was wild. The base of the film looked purple when it’s usually orange or amber. After wrestling with it on the scanner, we realized you could tame it, especially depending on how and in what light situation you had shot it.

 

 

We tested this film at the lab in different lighting situations, we also tested it ‘in real life’ (a.k.a., while on vacation), and in studio lighting. All tests were scanned in Frontier and Noritsu, and the results were quite unexpected. We hope these tests help you decide for yourself!

 

We first did the exposure test to see what was really under the hood of this emulsion when tested under different light situations. Below, you’ll see the bracketing that goes from -1 (ISO 400) to 0 (ISO 200), +1 (ISO 100) and +2 (ISO 50).

 

Flair / Backlit
[FRONTIER]

 

All of these samples come directly from the scanner, which is what most people would receive from most labs. Typically at Carmencita, we use 2-step color correction: the first is done in the scanner, and the second is done by our editors, who adjust the photos to match your preferences. These scans are raw.

 

Indoors
[FRONTIER]

 

This is a film that adds a lot of contrast to your images. The loss of detail is significant on the -1 sample.

 

Direct sunlight
[FRONTIER]

We see these strong, vibrant, in-your-face colours on the Frontier, the scans you would typically receive in most labs (even the ones with Noritsus!). We are trying to replicate what most people will probably receive when developing and scanning this film at a lab, or at least the examples we’ve seen online from other sources.

Again, it’s not a usable result, but we believe it should be communicated more clearly somehow. Film costs today are far from cheap, so every frame counts, especially for people that is diving into a film for the first time.

In our honest opinion, Harman should have addressed this more explicitly, at least when communicating with labs/stores, without sugar-coating it as a “different look.”

 

Open Shade
[FRONTIER]

 

Flash
[FRONTIER]

 

FRONTIER vs NORITSU

 

Besides observing the major differences in the bracketing, the most shocking part was when we compared the difference between scanning it on the Frontier and on the Noritsu. We explained in a previous article the difference between the Frontier & Noritsu and its ups & downs. Similar rules apply here but on a whole different scale.

Somehow, the Noritsu give us a bit more control when it comes to dealing with the emulsion and its wild colour curves, we could notice that already in the scanning, but after seeing the side by side on the screen is just mind blowing. And believe us; it’s no easy task to scan on the Noritsu either; you could see smoke coming out from our chief scanner’s head when dealing with each frame, correcting the colour and using all the tricks in the book to try to get something “normal”.

The following are scans from the Noritsu straight from the scanner:

 

Flair / Backlit
[NORITSU]

Direct Sunlight
[NORITSU]

Indoors
[NORITSU]

Open Shade
[NORITSU]

Flash
[NORITSU]

 

Remember, this is the exact same film; we didn’t change or edit anything. The Noritsu offers us a wider range of corrections, such as contrast, highlights, shadows, etc. So, if we wanted to adjust these images, compared to the Frontier scans, it would be much easier (or at least possible) to alter these.

 

‘REAL LIFE’ TEST

The previous examples were all done in a controlled situation; we know how to light-meter and how to shoot film, but we felt this wasn’t 100% realistic. I took it on my holiday trip to test the Phoenix Harman ‘in real life’. And, to say the least, I was shocked when I saw the results.

 

On the Frontier, the highlights are basically gone, the grain is superhard. It has a very peculiar look, which is okay if you’re into that. But, to be honest, it’s not what I wanted for my holidays rolls. Make sure to watch our Youtube video and see what we could manage to save in post-production (spoiler: not that much).

As you can see, we noticed a significant change when we rescanned the negatives on the Noritsu. We can work with this film with these scans, experimenting with the adjustments a little more. Still, it will be challenging, but at least I can get closer to what I imagined images could look like when I was shooting it.

 

 

STUDIO LIGHT

Our friend Jose Carvajal shot the Phoenix in studio light for a makeup editorial, and the results were crazy. You can clearly see the differences between the Frontier and Noritsu scans.

Needless to say, he is an experienced photographer, and he knows his drill; this took us by surprise, but it was so shocking when we saw it that we had to share it with all the labs (and to be honest, it was kind of the definitive proof that we needed to make this review post).

 

It’s the same emulsion, scanned first on the Frontier and then on the Noritsu. The shadows in the Frontier get rendered in a way that’s totally wild.

 

 

There’s a lot more texture and focus on the Frontier indeed (in part, it’s due to the fact that working around these images is hard). It’s such a different look between both scanners, and you may like one more than the other; that’s fine! But we believe this might be misleading if you don’t know what you’re getting into.

SCANNING NOTE: It is true that we could do some fine-tuning in the Frontier to adjust and mimic the Noritsu in terms of sharpness/grain; but again, we feel that is not what most labs will be doing (and not what it’s described in Harman’s scanning tips sheet), so we wanted to stick to the usual settings. If you are a lab and are curious to experiment with it yourself, please let us know! We will be happy to help you!

 

THE GOOD

 

As you can see, it’s a new color film.

We have no idea what the first colour films looked like, but we have to acknowledge that we are looking at Harman’s Chapter 1 when it comes to coating colour. When we compare it with other manufacturers like Fuji or Kodak, they are at chapter 10 on their colour emulsions since they’ve been coating colour for a long, long time. And to be honest, the emulsions we use nowadays were the pinnacle of colour emulsion technology. Not even Agfa or Konica in their hey days, were able to reach this level of color rendering with all their R&D.

So, expecting the first film from Harman to be Kodak Gold is very far from a wise thing to do.

 

It’s a very different look, and to be honest, it brings back memories from when I was shooting Kodak E100G cross-processed with an Holga back in 2010. Being able to replicate the look without burning through a brand new E100 film is a great option for those summer days or shooting at Primavera Sound 💃🏻.

 

On the bright side, I think we shouldn’t take this film for granted. Harman has been a very reliable name in the industry, and they expressed their commitment to keep refining the emulsion further and improving it on every batch. It’s easier said than done, but at least the good intentions have been enough for the film community to back it up!

THE BAD

GRAIN AND COLOR

The grain & colours are very far from ideal. We still need to see more examples from people shooting it around, but it’s the weakest point of this colour film. Again, it reminds me so much of cross-processed expired E6 film when I see the results. Can it be used creatively? Absolutely! But I believe once the hype train has passed, it will be a difficult choice for people to repeat when purchasing film for their next holiday. BUT (there is always a but) there’s a silver lining of hope, which we will explain later.

 

NOT FOR BEGINNERS

Also, this might be an unbiased fear, but I can’t help but imagine someone jumping into film photography and buying this film for the first time and not being satisfied or understanding what happened to their pictures. Only if someone had advised them that this film is challenging and needs to be scanned on a Noritsu to have a decent result…

 

SUPPLY

We are still unsure about the continuous availability of this film. It’s early to tell, but we hope it is a solid stock that can often be found on the shelves all around the globe. I believe this would help settle the film as a valid option for those days when you will want to experiment with it (for example, double exposures at a music festival)

 

 

THE UGLY

 

MISLEADING INFO

Ok, this is where my film heart broke.

If you release a film that does not look incredible, we will all understand, especially as a first-off from a new project. Luckily, nowadays, there are a ton of things that can be done at the lab to work around some flaws that an emulsion might have. The problem is that when releasing this film, Harman, with all the good intentions, I assume, released a document called ‘Scanning Parameters’ telling labs how to work with this emulsion. And when doing something like this, either you are on the spot or you will mess things up even further. No other film company that I’m aware of has ever done this before, so if you are going to do it, you better do it right.

I understand the good intentions here, but any kind of action that could lead the customer to use a Frontier scanner to scan this will lead to dramatic results.

 

 

As we mentioned before, this is a very complicated film to deal with. This shouldn’t be encouraged to be scanned on a Fujifilm Frontier scanner by any means. The reasons are many and fairly technical, which we covered on our Youtube video, but the results of this film under a Fuji scanner will be quite unusable and do not render what the film is capable of.

I understand no one wants to release a film and tell people not to scan it in labs that do have specific equipment, but the reality is you won’t be able to have a pleasant experience if you do; shouldn’t the manufacturer be able to tell you or at least advise you?

 

 

 

200 ISO FOR REAL?

We have very mixed feelings about this. At the moment of writing this, I’m honestly unaware of how the sensibility/speed of a film is measured, but this does not feel like 200 ISO at all when we look at the shadow detail of this emulsion. But in our experience, this film feels closer to 100-ish ISO than 200. Why market it at 200 if we all know that underexposed film does not look any better?

Well, if you are in front of a film fridge, buying some film, and 2 films are placed in front of you, at the same price, with the same exposures, but one is 100 and the other is 200, which will you go for? 90% of photographers will get the 200 because they usually feel that 100 ISO is quite limiting in terms of light.

 

NOTE: Throughout the making of this article, we’ve learned that colour curves on this emulsion are not really parallel; this is causing the different colour layers to react differently through the different range of tones. We suspect you might advise 200 ISO because the colour is more uniform when exposed at that ISO, but it is also true that it feels more underexposed, “aka, less colour,” so the drifting tones might be less noticeable. We will leave this one as an open question.

 

 

IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION

 

I’ve admired and respected Harman products for years. Their B&W products are just part of my journey with film photography, and I plan to keep doing that. I haven’t had the pleasure of visiting the factory myself, but I’m sure there are a large number of truly dedicated people who keep film alive and kicking.

I’m not even sure I can comprehend the complexity of manufacturing a brand-new colour emulsion from scratch either, so they have my most sincere appreciation for embarking on this venture and being able to release a usable product this year. I’m sure there has been a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in the making, and, for me, this is why the film community has supported it since it launched and will keep on supporting it.

 

 

From a lab point of view, we wish there would have been a bit more research on the possibilities, talking with different labs, and especially the very experienced labs. To be able to provide more accurate information from Harman to labs around the world would help them provide better results to photographers.

To be completely honest, I think this is a problem with the industry as a whole when it comes to the development & scanning of film. Promoting the importance of proper development & scanning of a film is as important as its base emulsion or the camera it’s shot on.

 

THE FUTURE OF THE PHOENIX

 

One of the questions for me here is, after the first blow, is there more enthusiasm in the community? As with every new release, many purchases were made because of the initial release, but would people who have shot it a couple times keep buying it or recommending it in the future?

Unless there is a significant upgrade, people might be quite reluctant to re-buy it. It would also be interesting to label it differently, like Phoenix 2.0 to differentiate it for people willing to purchase it. I think the hype from the community will follow if there are newer versions or upgrades, which will keep sales steady once everyone has tried the first version already.

Harman mentioned they will be reinvesting the profits made from this batch into the next one. This sounds really good, but it can also lead to nowhere… (Sorry, we have to be realistic here!) We truly hope it happens and finally, the film community will have the answer to it’s prayers after so many years :_)

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

At the end of the day, we do this out of love for this analog medium that brings in us something more than what meets the eye.

Film photography is a very bonding medium within the community, if you find someone shooting film around the globe is hard not to pay attention to the camera they are using or the film loaded. Somehow you know that if you both would be able to spend quite a long time discussing about your passion, the gear and what you discovered in film photography.

That’s why, anything that helps support this amazing community is a positive for us. But when we feel there are products that take for granted this passionate community and their love for film (and let’s not forget, we put our irreplaceable memories into it), we should be very careful with the information we put out, and that’s why we feel we should publish our opinion on this.

 

If you made it all the way here, we hope our point of view made some sense. We really hope this project from Harman is a success, and in a few years we can laugh about what the first runs of the emulsion looked like! But it’s true that there have been several projects already that eventually failed when it comes to film, and we can’t help but hold our enthusiasm a bit on this one 🥲

P.D.: I forgot to mention, we’ve seen some results from Kyle Mcdougal scanned with a DSLR which I believe are the best examples we’ve seen so far. I think paradoxically, compared to other films, by scanning Phoenix with a DSLR, you might be able to obtain better results than most labs can offer!

 

 

 

 

It’s finally time to open pandora’s box. TIFF vs. JPG, how do they really work? Is one better than the other just because?

TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) and JPG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) are two great image formats that are widely used to store digital images. It can be tricky to tell the difference between them, but don’t worry! Some key differences can help you determine which format is the best option for your needs.

 

 

EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s important to mention that we will talk about TIFF files applied to photography and more specifically film scans, so we will skip topics such as layers or transparencies. Sorry about that!

 

COMMON MYTHS ABOUT TIFF FILES

 

QUALITY

 

One myth is that TIFF files are always higher quality than JPG files. While this is generally true, it is not always the case. It really depends on the quality of the original image, how it was scanned, and how it was compressed.

It is a bit like saying that a family-size pizza tastes better than a single-size pizza just because of its size 🙃🍕

 

 

FILE SIZE

 

Another myth is that TIFF files are always much larger than JPG files. While TIFF files tend to be larger, they can be compressed to make them smaller, and also JPGs can be compressed at a very high quality (12 for Photoshop users) resulting in a file that can rival the size of a TIFF sometimes.

We do not encourage you to judge quality by size in any case —A bit of a zen life lesson here too—.

 

 

Analogy time

 

Think about it files as bottles. An uncompressed 16-bit TIFF file would be like using a 5-liter bottle for storing everything in your fridge as a default.

 

250ml of oil → 5L bottle

500ml of yogurt → 5L bottle

1L of juice → 5L bottle

0,75 of vermut → 5L bottle

 

Probably by now, you realize that you would need to buy a new house and a new fridge the next time you go to the supermarket.

Using lossless compression would allow you to have a kind of flexible bottle that you can adjust to the size of the content. Of course, you can still expand them to the max, but if you like to keep a liter of juice you can just simply make the bottle size 1L and save 4L of space along the way!

JPG, on the other hand, would be like having all your fridge divided into 330ml bottles to perfectly optimized for your fridge size. You would be able to use 100% of the space of the fridge.

 

250ml of oil → 1x 330ml bottle

500ml of yogurt → 1x 330ml bottle

1L of juice → 3x 330ml bottle

0,75 of vermut → 2x 330ml bottle

 

You would be losing a bit of the original quantity, but the taste will be the same! Also making you able to make the most out of your fridge space + making it super easy to transport.

Again, this is an oversimplification of how the storage of images really works, but our goal is to debunk myths and for you to leave this article making smarter decisions when storing your files.

 

COLOR

 

Another way to compare the two formats is in terms of color. The only key difference here would appear if we compare 16-bit TIFF vs 8-bit JPG files which will naturally have a narrower color range than TIFF files. But that’s a bit like apples and pears. More on bits down below!

With the standard settings, TIFF and JPG files can both hold to the same standard in terms of color accuracy and range.

 

 

 

LOSSLESS VS LOSSY

 

Compression is like this diabolical word that any photographer who prides themselves on shooting high-quality photos never wants to hear mentioned in conversation. And while that was true for many reasons in the past, especially in the early days of JPG, we have come a long way since then, and we are about to tell you why.

Also, it is very important to understand compression ensures your file will preserve 100% of its quality once uncompressed! It’s called Lossless compression, and it was one of the greatest inventions of our time! It’s like the LED light was to the light bulb!

You probably already know ZIP, LZW, or RAR files; these are Lossless compression too! Do you love .zip or .rar files? Then you love lossless compression!

If something made “the world a better place” that is compression. Let’s dig into it!

 

The following images have been 800% zoomed in to help you see the detail.

 

LOSSY COMPRESSION

 

Lossy compression is undoubtedly the most efficient of all; we can bring a file of 114 MB into a file of 12,7 MB without being able to tell the difference in plain sight. Don’t believe us? Check for yourself!

 

 

These algorithms are designed to discard some of the data our eyes do not notice or find irrelevant from the original image to reduce the file size. Paradoxically, very fine details such as noise or super fine texture take most of our precious hard-drive storage space and are the parts of the image about which our eyes care less.

For all the audiophiles out there: .jpg is to images what .mp3 is to sound.

 

*We used the JPG file with the lowest quality compression (0) for testing and educational purposes.  Note that JPG quality starts to decline from quality 6 onwards. 

 

 

As you can see above in this exaggerated example, the JPG file is made of blocks (fun fact, the blocks are 8×8 pixels) that are coded individually with a mathematical algorithm. Depending on the quality amount we use, ranging from 0 to 12 in Photoshop, for example, you can create a more or less precise representation of the original image.

Lower quality = less details. We simplify the information blocks the less quality we use, and at some point, we can start seeing them completely.

That being said! You would be surprised by the amount of compression we can apply, reducing the file size brutally (remember the image at quality 0 occupies 808Kb) and when seeing the image from zoom out the difference is hard to tell.

To illustrate even more, we took the JPG 0 and subtract it from the original file, that way we can see all the detail of the image we “lost” during the compression process.

As always… the devil is in the details!

 

JPG quality 10 vs JPG quality 0 through the Difference blend mode*.

 

*When subtracting two pixels with the same value, the result is black. So what remains is the actual difference between JPG quality 10 and JPG quality 0.

 

 

LOSSLESS COMPRESSION

 

Lossless compression algorithms are used in many applications aside from imaging, such as medical, scientific data management, graphic design or even sending documents. For example, in medical imaging, lossless compression is used to ensure that the original data is preserved for accurate diagnosis and to provide reliable and error-free transmission.

Lossless compression helps to save disk space while maintaining the accuracy of the data, preserving the accuracy and completeness of the original data. Furthermore, it allows for maximum image quality when saving files in formats such as TIFF and PNG.

Lossless compression algorithms are great for TIFF files because they let you keep all the image quality while taking up less disk space. Basically, they make sure the original data is preserved, and the graphic design stays the same. Even better, they shrink the TIFF file size without affecting the quality of the image. This means you can store big, high-quality images in a smaller file size, making the storage and transmission of image data more efficient.

As you can see, there is absolutely no loss in either the uncompressed or compressed 16 TIFF files. Not even in the 1600% zoomed image below!

 

 

If we take an XXL scan from our lovely Noritsu in a TIFF uncompressed 16-bit format, it would take around 185 MB for 1 frame (making it ~8.00 GB per roll of 35mm depending on the images 🫠).

Now, if we choose to save it with the built-in option of ZIP compression in Photoshop, the result is a 168,3 MB file on our disk with the exact same quality when we will open it and uncompress it to its original size in Ps!

That is a 10% reduction in the file size, keeping in mind the quality of our final file is exactly the same bit by bit! It doesn’t seem much but it’s 800Mb with the exact same quality files!

If we moved into 8-bit file territory, the optimization would be almost a 40% reduction. That’s because in 16-bit files there is an extreme amount of redundancy. Remember 16-bit is not double of 8-bit… but x250 times more information! (an 8 bit has 256 values, and a 16-bit has 65.536 values)

(Sorry for the non-geeks, but this topic is hard to explain without numbers 😅)

 

8-BIT VS 16-BIT

 

TIFF files can also be stored in either 8-bit or 16-bit format. 8-bit files are limited to a maximum of 256 shades of color, and while this may be adequate for most regular images, 16-bit files boast a maximum of 65,536 distinct shades of color and are much more suitable for photos that require a greater level of detail and accuracy.

This is because 16-bit files allow for a much wider range of tonal variation, providing far more subtle gradations of color and nuance. For this reason, 16-bit files are the ideal choice for photos that need to capture the natural beauty of a scene or object, as they can more accurately reproduce the range of colors and shades that are naturally present (I’m looking at you infinite blue skies with endless shades of blue and white).

The compression of the scanners is very good, in part because of the sensors. The difference in skies is often more critical in digital cameras but we can see the example here.

 

 

If we re-export the original 16-bit to 8-bit and apply levels and curves to tension the color gradation of the sky, we can see how the tonalities “break” differently. And in the limits, we can see how 16-bit saves more subtle tonalities.

 

 

It’s important to note that JPG files will always be 8-bit.

 

TIFFS ARE NOT RAWS

 

Another common misconception is that TIFF files are as flexible as RAW files when it comes to editing film scans. While there is some truth to this—16bit TIFF files will have more room for rendering color transitions—they are not as versatile as RAW files. RAW files contain all of the original data from the camera’s sensor, which gives them far more flexibility when it comes to editing.

TIFF files, on the other hand, are limited in the amount of editing that can be done, as some of the original data has already been discarded by the process of scanning and the negative itself.

For this reason, we can’t stress enough the importance of making a good capture during the scanning process to get the image as close as you imagine them to be in the final process!

 

CONCLUSION

 

If you made it so far, it means that you really care about this. We hope your brain is not melting from such technical jibberish. But to be honest, we feel that if you are taking your photography seriously, this is information that you probably like to have.

Knowing the differences between these two formats can help you make the right choice for each particular situation.

 

 

Those who do pixel-level retouching/adjusting to their images need to capture every single leaf in a landscape or render butter-smooth color transitions. In those cases, 16-bit it is. And for everything else… Mastercard JPG is fine.

Without a doubt, JPG is the king of the hill on the internet. Actually, without JPG the internet as we know it today wouldn’t be possible due to its versatility and efficiency. It is ideal for sharing images online and ensuring that they look great while still being easy to download.

Additionally, JPG images can be compressed and optimized to further reduce the file size, allowing them to be quickly uploaded and shared without sacrificing quality. JPGs are also supported by most image editing software, making it easier to adjust the image. All in all, JPG is a great choice for sharing images online or for any other purpose where file size or compatibility is important.

Here is a comparison of how the JPEG compression affects an image zoomed at 800%, so you can see how the image losses information progressively but still at JPG-8 or even JPG-6 still retains a great amount of detail.

 

 

 

SO, WHICH ONE SHOULD I USE?

 

As most things in life, there is no one format intrinsically better than the other. We always encourage photographers to go for JPG if they are not sure.

For rescans or work that needs to be enlarged out of the web, TIFF is our format of choice.

If you still have questions buzzing in your head, contact us at ask@carmencitafilmlab.com, and we will be more than happy to answer as always!

Making film photography more accessible and easier to understand is the reason why it exists, and that’s why in between all the buzz of the daily we create time to put these articles together and help you understand this thing called photography that we all felt in love with.

 

 

DIG DEEPER

 

If you want to explore the depths of the world of JPGs even more thoroughly, you need to check out the detailed video created by Branch Education on Youtube. This video delves into the intricate details of the algorithm, covering a variety of topics such as file compression, color profiles, and image types.

So, if you’re looking for a comprehensive guide to understanding the nuances of the files we use in our daily lives, then this video is an absolute must-watch!

 

 

 

 

 

As 35mm color film became scarcer than toilet paper during the pandemic days, we have seen an increasing amount of eager film photographers looking at different options to keep shooting color on 35mm and not die trying. This eventually shifted the focus to “the other” type of film made by Kodak. The color film for motion pictures and cinema: Kodak ECN-2 film.

Don’t get us wrong, ECN-2 spooled film from the 400ft 35mm cans has been around forever, but it has always been somewhat homemade, poorly labeled, or coming from dubious sources.

For the first time in recent years, we have at our disposal a reliable supply of 35mm ECN-2 film cased and packaged correctly, with all guarantees that you are shooting fresh, properly spooled film thanks to SILBERSALZ35!

There are many myths and theories behind it, and with this article, we will try to tell you everything we know about ECN-2 film when it comes to film photography so you are well aware of what to do next time you are shopping for some fresh film before your next trip!

 

WHAT IS ECN-2?

 

ECN simply stands for Eastman Color Negative. It was a processing system that evolved into ECN-2 when research enabled faster and more environmentally friendly development processes (and thus faster photo lab turnaround time!). As a result, ECN-2 became the industry standard for all current motion picture color negative development till today.

 

 

The first myth we would like to debunk here is the chemistry used: “Isn’t ECN-2 just C41 chemistry but with a pre-wash?” You’ve probably heard this one if you’ve been shooting film long enough.

From the chemical point of view, the answer is clear: No.

But… We understand that from a practical standpoint, it can feel that way for many photographers because if you process ECN-2 film through C41 chemistry, you will obtain a usable negative (removing the rem-jet of course). In any case, it is not the same chemistry and does not perform the same on the emulsion.

Long story short, ECN-2 is the developing process aimed at solving many of the constraints of cinema and motion pictures. It shares many things with films we use for still photography, but it has characteristics that enable film to be shot at 24 frames per second (fps) and processed at the order of meters per minute (aka effing fast).

Also, due to the speed of the process, ECN-2 specifies a developing temperature of 41ºC instead of the standard 38º C41, which speeds up the developing process.

With that in mind, let’s begin!

 

THE (IN)FAMOUS REM-JET

 

If you’ve heard about ECN-2, you’ve heard about the ‘rem-jet’. That black layer of carbon is behind the base of the film. This layer is every photo lab nightmare since it has to be removed manually unless you have a football-field-sized machine to process motion picture film.

When it comes to the name, funnily enough, they did not want to waste much time in naming back in the day; the word “rem-jet” comes from “remove by water jet”. As simple as that.

And, as much as we hate it, we have to admit the rem-jet has some good reasons to exist. 🙂

 

 

Scratches, Static and Halos

 

Think about it for a while; when shooting cinema, the film moves at 24 fps (frames per second) around 45 cm/second, which is fast.

When moving quickly through the recording cinema cameras, many elements cause friction, which can build up static electricity that can be released from the metal into the emulsion. 

Even if it sounds incredible, when electricity is released into the film, it draws the shape of thunder into the frame, which would eventually be seen on the screen every ‘x’ amount of frames. Also, from all that movement and friction, scratch marks might appear, and the ‘rem-jet’ protects the base layer against it being scratched.

 

 

Last but not least, the dark layer prevents the light from refracting and bouncing against the base layer and, in high contrast situations, produces a very characteristic “halo” effect on the highlights, which has become quite iconic from Cinestill film.

 

 

DAYLIGHT vs TUNGSTEN

 

Perhaps the most significant trait that we see in ECN-2 that is no longer available on C41 films is the fact that we can find Tungsten Balanced films (3200K) in ECN-2 which will allow you to shoot under artificial light and the ISO marked on the film and get a neutral white balance without major yellow color casts.

The reason for this comes from cinema, of course. This is incredibly convenient for motion pictures when they have to light scenes at night or indoors with a ton of artificial lights; they need the color balance to be right without sacrificing exposure time.

Back in the day, we made an article explaining how Cinestill 800T (which comes from Kodak Vision3 500T) reacts to artificial light, and the results were astounding.

Shooting a tungsten light-balanced film in daylight has the opposite effect; everything shifts to a “bluish color” (unless you compensate with filters, and so on).

 

*If you are ever in doubt, just remember the ‘D’ stands for Daylight and’ T’ for Tungsten.

BUYING ECN-2 FILM

 

Keep in mind ECN-2 film is not meant to be stored for a long time. As we published in a previous article, not all films are created equal, as some might believe. Especially professional films (like Kodak Portra 400 or Fuji 400H) are designed to be shot quickly after they leave the factory. Therefore they do not have as much shelf life as consumer films (like Kodak Gold 200 or Fuji Superia 400). This is especially significant in the case of motion picture films.

According to the emulsions’ official datasheet:

 

“Storage: Store unexposed film at 13°C (55°F) or lower. For storage of unexposed film longer than 6 months, store at –18°C (0°F). Process film promptly.”

 

This means that film must be refrigerated at all times, and if storing it for more than 6 months, it needs to be kept at freezing conditions since day 1 to be in optimal conditions for shooting.

Cinematographers are well aware of this; photographers, unfortunately, not so much… And this leads to some independent sellers re-spooling and selling film coming from unknown places or conditions, and it translates, of course, into poor results when developing and scanning.

It’s a pity that developing ECN-2 is incredibly tedious, and if all the work is done for a poorly stored emulsion, it will lead to poor outcomes, which is often a massive disappointment for everyone.

 

 

So, what to do? Well, as you may have heard, a brand new ECN-2 packed option in the market has been introduced by SILBERSALZ35. Fresh ECN-2 film, spooled and packed correctly and with all the guarantees.

SILBERSALZ35 packed all 4 variables that there out there today: two Daylight films (50D & 250D) and two Tungsten films (200T & 500T). In addition, they use brand new, unadulterated Kodak VISION3 film stocks, which are manufactured in metal cartridges (including DX codes!) and are compatible with every 35mm camera on the market. And we are one of the few flagship stores where you can get them today!

FUN FACT: If you buy a can of 400ft of 35mm film from Kodak, you will see it does not have an expiration date because it’s meant to be shot as soon as possible!

 

EXPIRED FILM vs FRESH FILM

 

As we mentioned earlier, ECN-2 is not intended to have a long shelf life, so expiration plays a massive role in the outcome that you can have from it.

If you’ve ever sent expired film to the lab, you will know that we always recommend overexposing a bit; as a rule of thumb, we like to say: for every 3 years of expiration, add +1 stop of exposure, and you should be good to go.

Of course, there is a limit. Emulsions lose their sensitivity and at some point, it will be tough to get something out of it. For ECN-2, it flies the same way (even shorter!) plus an added complexity; our “beloved” rem-jet layer is also affected by the age of the film, becoming harder and harder to remove with every year passed.

As a result, many cine labs do not process expired ECN-2 films because they risk the quality of their chemistry.

Expired rem-jet can be so bad sometimes that after our first rem-jet removal bath, the black layer remains intact, and the person developing needs to fight against it rubbing to take it off. If you ever wonder what a film lab developer nightmare looks like… expired-as-hell ECN-2 is the closest we’ve known.

That’s why we strongly recommend you think twice about where the ECN-2 film you are shooting is coming from because it will play a massive role in how your images will eventually look like!

 

 

OUR IMPRESSIONS

 

Believe it or not, we occasionally get to leave the lab, enjoy the sunshine, and put some film to the test. This time we wanted to test the SILBERSALZ35 250D intensively, and we’re excited to share our initial thoughts on these new film options!

The reason why we picked the 250D is that it is perhaps the emulsion we are less familiar with these days.

We are pretty familiar with the look of the 500T and 50D thanks to Cinestill Film, and we believe the Daylight option on the 200 ISO range can be very versatile too. 🙂

With all that said, here we go!

 

COLOR GRADING

 

First, we must know what cinema film emulsions are designed for. VISION3 films are processed in ECN-2 chemistry to have the highest possible exposure latitude. Over 16 stops of dynamic range on paper (sorry we couldn’t fact-check ourselves), allowing them to capture detail both in highlights & shadows even in the most extreme lighting contrast conditions.

 

 

The first thing that drew our attention was the flatness of the images in the scanner. This is because cinema film differs significantly from photography film, which commonly aims to have a vibrant look right from the emulsion to produce beautiful prints without too much grading.

 

 

All cinema movies need to be color graded. Color grading is the process of creating the final color of a film after it has been shot, cut, and edited. This is why cinema film is created.

If you think about it, the scenes in a movie constantly change, including light conditions, scenarios, actors, setups, etc. It would be impossible for a film to perform exceptionally well in all of them nor for a scanner operator to adjust the color of every scene while scanning. Furthermore taking into count that a lot of the footage never makes the final cut. Therefore, the natural thing to do is to create a film that can capture as much information in every single light situation so we can eventually bring it to the color we desire.

This flat image needs to be adjusted in order to achieve the desired look that the DP (Director of Photography) and the Director conceive for the film.

 

Here are a few more before-and-after examples of our own “color grading” of the scans to match the look of this specific client.

 

 

 

 

KODAK VISION 3 – 250D

 

The 250D is their faster daylight-balanced film. With a high dynamic range, we believe this one is their jack-of-all-trades option. We tested it in a variety of lighting conditions, and it looked pretty solid in all of them.

In this case, we dare to recommend that for still pictures, you also overexpose by +1 stop to get the most out of it.

Cinematographers were traditionally limited to their camera shutter speed which is usually fixed at 1/48th of a second due to the 180º shutter and the 24fps. If all these things sound like jibberish to you, we strongly recommend you to google it; it’s pretty fun to learn about it!

 

 

We noticed an accurate reproduction of true colors when shooting the 250D in daylight. Although we shot during the golden hour –how could we not?– the final product isn’t as warm as what you could achieve with other films such as Kodak Portra 400. This daylight-balanced film reminds us of CineStill in terms of a more neutral and even colder outcome, with shadows still naturally tending to a magenta tone.

 

 

Portrait-wise, this film is far from dethroning the king. However, it does the trick with a pleasing, natural-looking outcome.

 

 

It also worked surprisingly well indoors, delivering some contrasted and crisp images! We find the grain to be fairly good, though it does not stand out as the finest.

 

OUR CONCLUSIONS

 

The look and flexibility of the ECN-2 are what we like best about them. If there is one thing that stands out for us, it is its versatility, which allows you to take great photos in both bright sunlight and low light. Under most lighting conditions, we see consistent color, and it’s interesting to see the neural outcomes, which give us a wide range of options for editing the photos if needed! Also, these rolls should be more affordable than traditional emulsions 🙂

And most importantly, this means more film options on the market!

 

 

*All images above are color graded

 

Keep in mind that these rolls are designed to be processed in with original ECN-2 chemistry only. It can be hard to find someone who can do it, but you guessed it! You can develop with us for the same price as BW and E-6; check all our developing options and happy shooting!

Since the recent news of the discontinuation of some films beloved by our clients (we’re looking at you Fuji400H), we’ve been getting more questions about storing your film in the fridge or storing film freezer. Should I put my film in the fridge? Can I freeze my film? How long will my film last in the fridge? Are just some of the questions we received in the last weeks, so we thought we would dedicate a post to sharing everything you’ll need to know about refrigerating and freezing your film. Let’s get started!

 

We recommend striving to shoot fresh film when and where you can. By “fresh film,” we mean film that has been recently acquired and has not expired. The reason is that fresh film is at its peak for capturing and delivering the truest colour and the best possible results. Kodak Alaris Product Manager Tim Ryugo did a fascinating post about it recently:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Tim Ryugo (@timryugo_kodakprofessional)

 

When you’re not able to shoot fresh film, some things should be done to retain a film’s potential so that you’re not sacrificing too much quality, and that is to properly store your film in cold storage. Unprocessed film is a perishable product that can be damaged by high temperature and high humidity (but that being said, we recommend you check out our Understanding Film Flaws post to see how even damaged film can still make its own magic).

 

Consequently, putting your film into cold storage will increase the lifespan of your film and provide you with the best possible results, even if your rolls are a few years old.

*It may be worth noting: Color films are more seriously affected than black-and-white films because adverse conditions usually affect the emulsion layers to various degrees. So when your box of colour film arrives from Carmencita Film Lab, put it into cold storage if not using it immediately.

 

REFRIGERATOR

 

If you plan on using your film in less than 6 months, you should put your film in the fridge, right next to your milk and leftover gazpacho. In general, manufacturers recommend storing your emulsion at 8°C /46°F or lower.

 

The lower temperature will slow down film degradation, and the dry atmosphere in the fridge will protect film from humidity. That being said, refrigeration will not be able to reduce the effect of gamma radiation. Naturally occurring gamma radiation will increase the minimum density and can also increase the grain. Consequently, the higher the speed of your film that you have stored in your fridge, the more it will be affected than any lower speed films you have stashed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How long does film last in the fridge? Well, as we said, the cold will slow down film’s natural degradation. If we take 20ºC as the standard temperature and we store it around 5 ~ 8ºC / 40 ~ 46ºF, we are basically stretching the film’s expiration date by almost x2 times.

As a rule of thumb, if the film you just purchased expires 2 years from now,  if you put it in the fridge, it will maintain its fresh condition for at least 5 years.

That being said, films (exposed or unexposed) that have been properly refrigerated will retain the speed and contrast of the exposure conditions, but the overall minimum density and grain will continue to increase as time passes due to the natural ageing process.

* If you have a box in your fridge that you can dedicate to your film storage, the better!

 

FREEZER

 

If you plan on not using those films for the next 6 months, we recommend putting your film in a tightly sealed container or a ziplock bag and then putting it in the freezer (-18°C / 0°F or lower). The tightly sealed container should protect your film if you lose power and things turn into a lake in your freezer.

Putting your film in the freezer puts your film into a sort of hibernation. You can keep your film in the freezer for as long as you need; we’ve known clients who have left theirs in the freezer for 15 years, and it’s still good to use!

 

HUMIDITY

 

For both instances of cold storage for your film, you want to avoid humidity. Humidity will speed up film degradation; it’s basically film’s kryptonite. It can create dark spots on your 120 film, make your 35mm stick together in the canister, and make your film look expired even if it was fresh.

To protect against humidity, we recommend including a silica gel desiccant bag into the film storage container that will go in the freezer. We also recommend that you store your film unopened and in its original canister or its plastic wrap.

 

TAKING YOUR FILM OUT OF COLD STORAGE

 

At some point, you will probably want to bring your precious rolls back to life, right? When taking your film out of the refrigerator, we recommend allowing it around 2 hours or more to adjust to room temperature before shooting it.

 

When taking your film out of the freezer, we are going to need to proceed with a little more caution:

• Ideally: Take your film out of the freezer and let it sit in your fridge for the next 24 hours. That will guarantee the slowest and safest defreeze. After 24 hours in the fridge, take it out of the fridge and leave it out to adjust to room temperature for a couple of hours, and then you are good to go!
• Less ideally: If you kind of need your film ASAP, we recommend taking it out about 6 hours or more to adjust to room temperature. This will defrost your film quickly, but the process will not be as gentle for the emulsion. Keep in mind: never heat your film to unfreeze it faster; your film is a marvellous piece of technology, not a bunch of frozen vegetables 😛

 

In both instances, we recommend that you leave your film in its canister until it has had the chance to adjust to room temperature. Doing so will prevent it from ending up covered in condensation. You can confirm your film is at room temperature by taking the film out of its canister and confirming that it’s not cold to the touch.

 

 

 

SHOOT IT, DEVELOP IT

 

Lastly, we recommend shooting the whole roll, exposing it correctly as this fantastic post explains to you How Exposure Affects Film, and sending it off to your favourite lab, for example, Carmencita Film Lab, for development as soon as you can.

 

Left a film roll or a loaded camera in your car on a hot summer day? Chances are you will have some baked film after that. There are countless situations like this where life and accidents happen. But don’t let that stop you from shooting or developing those film rolls.

 

Essentially: don’t keep film in your camera for longer than necessary; your film will go bad if not developed. Leaving partially exposed film in your camera for a few weeks or months until the next time you shoot leaves room for your film to degrade due to atmospheric changes. Not only that, you’ll have to wait longer to see your results! And who has time for that? 😉

Have a question about cold storing your film? Drop us a line at ask@carmencitafilmlab.com! Even if we haven’t developed or scanned your roll in our lab, we’ll help you out and answer your question.

We are here to help 🙂

 

 

Wordsmith for Carmencita and coffee connoisseur.
I like experimenting with film, reading about film, learning about film, talking about film, and writing about film.
My idea of fun is spending an afternoon making double exposures.

I believe in kindness; throw that stuff around like confetti.

– Michelle Mock, Photographer and Copywriter

Our aim of being helpful and bring film photography education to everyone is deeply engraved in our DNA, we want to answer the question that we have heard countless times especially at the shop. “Which are the main differences between Kodak 400TX and Kodak 400T-Max?” Same 400 ISO sensitivity, almost identical packaging and similar name… And this is only on the external aspect that they are similar. This two film stocks has been produced with different purposes, in different periods and were designed around significantly different technologies.

 

 

Kodak 400TX

 

Kodak 400TX or Tri-X is without a doubt the most emblematic B&W film that Kodak has and we can say with some certainty, that is the most popular black and white film currently available. The fact that Kodak 400TX was brought back from the dead (we believe in the very same fashion used with Jon Snow) also helped to increase its fame. They were actually photographers that claimed its come back!

 

 

 

Tri-X was released in 35mm and 120 formats in 1954 and became one of the most popular films used by photojournalists and amateurs. One of the main reason is simply, because how extremely versatile it is, being able to be used in a multitude of light situations. It’s a medium-contrast film, meaning that under soft light it will give you a bit extra punch and under a high contrast situation you will be able to rescue some detail from both highlights and shadows. That being said, if overexposed it’s gonna start getting more contrasty!

 

 

The TX is not “outstandingly” sharp, but neither it needs to be. Actually too much sharpness nowadays is associated with digital photography and we found that’s often a draw back on newer/sharper films like T-Max, basically it looks “too perfect”.

 

Now we are talking about its grain. Oh what a grain! Its cubic grain structure make it to most photographers the apple of their eyes. The feel of Kodak 400TX film grain could never be reproduced by any digital media. In 35mm format, its grain is very present, but also very pleasant. In 120 roll medium format, it’s significantly reduced but still keeping a unique flavour.

 

 

 

To summarize, 400TX is mean to cherish the analog character, that nostalgia that comes every time we see images from the golden years of Magnum photographers. The grain will feel very natural to your eye, it won’t be perfect, some blacks might be a bit too strong sometimes but who needs detail everywhere? Go out, make mistakes, shoot first and think afterwards, use your intuition and don’t ask too much questions, that’s for us what this film embodies : )

 

 

 

Kodak T-Max 400

 

Kodak T-Max 400 was originally launched in 1987 and was reformulated in 2007 to deliver even finer grain and higher sharpness. This film was created with the T-Grain emulsion technology that is based on the maximum use of the emulsion in the distribution of silver in the film in Tabular form. As we explained on the HP5 vs Delta 400 article, film stock that uses this technology (such as Delta, Acros, T-Max) have flat crystals instead of traditional films (like HP5, Tri-X, Rollei RPX) which emulsion is composed by round crystals. The flatness of the crystals and so on their better distribution permits more light absorption per quantity of silver within the emulsion. So the greater T-grain surface provides films that render sharper images and finer grain when compared to a conventional-grain film of the same sensitivity. And it’s because of that Kodak T-Max 400 is proclaimed as the sharpest and finest-grained 400 speed black and white film, offering photographers a level of clarity normally available from less speed film stocks. That’s the main reason for using this film by photographers that love this sharpy and clean look instead of the “grainy” classic look form 400TX or HP5+.

 

 

Another point to stand out is it’s that, also because the T-Grain technology, T-Max  retains more details at the shadows and the highlights instead of 400TX that tends to get more from the midtones. That characteristic profers T-Max a great response when pushed during the development process so that the contrast will be manageable in high contrast situations and it will retain more information from the shadows. If you aren’t familiarized about the term push you can read about this process here.

Well, here is where newer technology come right in, we see that T-Max handles suprisingly well the overexposure, even at +4 stops! Not that is anything you will want to be doing BUT it tells you how much highlight detail it can retain. The underexposure it’s no miracle but actually Kodak advise the same developing time both 400ISO and 800ISO developing (which would be pushing +1 stop).

 

 

The transitions are usually much softer both due the grain and the dynamic range and when it comes to the latest, it clearly outstands it’s older brother TX. So in here, we can clearly understand why Kodak wanted to get rid of it, because on paper, TX is (don’t kill us) an “inferior” emulsion.

 

 

As we mentioned earlier, there is really no battle here, even Kodak advertises for it. “Sharpest film at 400 ISO”. Back in the day, sharpness was a big deal, specially for 35mm film and T-Max was the answer to a demand. If you think how film sales were counted by millions, if you could have a superior product that your rival on the shelves that could easily make a difference. So yes, T-Max outstands TX without a doubt.

 

From our perspective T-Max is for those who really aim at creating high quality pictures, for those who do not fancy grain too much and for those who are all about the smooth grey transitions. Or in the other hand for those who want/like/need fast speed B&W film and still want to use Kodak.

 

 

In many ways T-Max is “better” (we feel we’re overusing “quotes” in this article) than the good old TX but with the rise of digital, for many, T-Max is too perfect and that’s not the reason why they shoot film. But also, funny enough, some use the lack of grain in T-Max to push it on 35mm up to 1600 as a default, thanks to greater grain control and shadow detail you will get a contrasty mood with this “soft” film if you crunch it’s ISO. We are still not sure if it’s meant for it but it’s not random that PMax3200 has the same name (except for the P, which many say stands for “Push”). Could we be talking that PMax3200 is the same film as 400 T-Max but with a different development time? Is this real life? We’re not putting our hand on the fire with it, but for sure they share much of the same technology.

 

 

We brought all our knowledge to this table and now it’s your time to decide what do you do with it! (Please don’t unfollow us) At the end, as always, the choice is yours. We can’t stress this enough, even you see images online, read blogs or articles the best is to try for yourself, even develop by yourself! If you haven’t tried this two black and white films we mentioned here we deeply encourage you to do so and you will see which one suits better your style.

 

Still having questions about Kodak 400TX or Kodak 400T-Max or another black and white film? Do you completely disagree what we just said? Please let us know!

 

Drop us a line at ask@carmencitafilmlab.com and will gladly answer!

Things we love here at our lab: cameras, films, and surprises.
Surprises for us come in all shapes and forms; sometimes we get candy inside the boxes delivered to our lab and sometimes we get to feast our eyes on the best double exposures of all time. It’s really a toss up for us which one we like better, but double exposures pretty much win first place. That’s why we have decided to dedicate a post on the science of double exposures and (bonus!) how to make them. Maybe, if you haven’t tried to create your own double exposure, you’ll be inspired to try it yourself so that you (and all of us, here at the lab) can enjoy that magical moment of being surprised with what you create.

Double exposures (and multiple exposures for that matter) is essentially capturing two or more images on one single frame. What you are essentially doing is “layering” one image onto another by not allowing your camera to advance the film to the next frame. By taking a picture without advancing to the next frame, you’re essentially exposing the same frame more than once. If you have ever severely over (and we mean over) exposed your film then you know that you will blow out the highlights of your film because of the oversaturation of light onto the film. This can happen when you double expose your film but with a little planning and strategy you can create some mind blowing magic.

 

 

THERE ARE TWO METHODS TO DOUBLE EXPOSE FILM:

1.) You can shoot an entire roll as normal (one shot for each frame), and after the roll has been shot and wound up, you can then use a film leader retriever tool to pull the film out again, and reshoot that same film, known as double exposing it. This method is useful if you just want to experiment and see what you can create with very little planning and if you love being surprised. This method may be a little more fun for an unstructured personal event in which you don’t have any deliverables (i.e. a day at the beach with your friends, at the circus with your family, etc.)

2.) Or you can double expose one frame at a time (for example, put one roll in your camera, take two images; and then advance to the next frame, take another two images; advance to the next frame, maybe just take one image on this frame; and so forth). This second method is useful if you don’t want to have a whole roll of double exposures but want to plan and take just a few shots when the inspiration hits you. This is probably the best method to use if you’re being contracted by a client or company, as you can be a little more thoughtful and planned should the inspiration strike you.

If you’re going to attempt the last method of making a double exposure and exposing one frame at a time, there are two essential components for doing so: you will need to know how to stop your camera from advancing the film, and you’ll need to plan on what images you’ll capture and layer onto one another. These two things are necessary because if your camera doesn’t have the capability to stop advancing to the next frame, you won’t be able to do or create double exposures (you can google the make and model of your camera to find the manual online to see if it’s possible for you to create a double exposure). And if you don’t have an idea or a goal in mind as to what you’d like to capture you may be disappointed with the result (or very very pleasantly surprised!)

 

THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND:

1.) Because you are exposing your film twice (or more times) you want to underexpose your shots. Earlier we mentioned that overexposing your film can lead to a loss of detail, so it would be best for you to underexpose by 1 or 2 stops for each shot that you take on the same frame. Having a light meter on hand to ensure you are underexposing by 1 or 2 stops will decrease your margin of error.

2.) When you take your first image, any highlighted parts (the white or light parts) from the first image will not capture or show anything after you take the second image. Your second image will only expose and be shown in the dark areas from your first image. For instance, if in your first shot, you take a picture of a black dot on a white page, the white has been completely exposed for on your film (it’s essentially been blown out). So when you take the second image, your second image will be seen only inside the circle of that black dot because the dark parts have not been overexposed like brightest parts of your first image have.

 

 

So once you’ve figured out how your camera makes double exposures it’s time to start creating them! There are a bunch of ways to plan, layer, and create double exposures. You can search the hashtag #filmdoubleexposure or #doubleexposurefilm on Instagram or check out Marcause’s project DUO:BSL which showcases some incredible double exposures for some insane ideas and inspiration! We’ll also give you two classic ways to make double exposures. Please keep in mind though, these are not hard fast or set-in-stone rules, use these only as a guide. When it comes to film, rules were made to be broken, so be inspired and break them!

 

THE “OUTLINE” DOUBLE EXPOSURE.

 

This one is a classic and can be made edgy or romantic.

For the first image take a profile or straight on shot of your subject against a white or light wall, or back lit, making sure to underexpose your shot. Then think about what you would like to fill in your subject with when you take your second image. Maybe you could take a picture of flowers (those are easy to find on a wedding day), or a concrete structure, or a stack of guitars, or maybe even another shot of the person themself. Then take your second image, making sure again to underexpose your shot. The outline double exposure is great for adding depth.

 

THE “LANDSCAPE” DOUBLE EXPOSURE.

 

This one can really set a scene and to us it always feels like it would make a good cover album photo. For the first image take a picture of your subject, could be a dog, or an object, or a human, or a couple of humans, anything, against a light background. Make sure to underexpose, ideally for this shot, by 2 stops. Then take a shot of the landscape, ideally your landscape would be a bit overcast to keep some detail in the sky, again we would recommend underexposing by 2 stops. This shot is a classic and always looks great.

 

TIPS TO MAKE YOUR DOUBLE EXPOSURES POP:

1.) When photographing humans, the darker the clothing they wear the better.

2.) Always keep in mind your first shot when composing and taking the second shot (especially remember if you took it horizontally or vertically!)

3.) You can always use things in your environment or nearby patterns as the filler for your second image.

4.) Underexpose more in bright situations or environments.

5.) Experiment, embrace mistakes, and most of all have fun!

 

Got a question about double exposures on your film? Drop us a line at ask@carmencitafilmlab.com! We’re always happy to help!