I drive by something like that daily. Some days it does look like that, but it mostly looks like a regular manure field.
Capturing it on camera is a matter of timing.
Yes, I’m aware of that. I would think that you still wouldn’t get those colors to look like that with saturated film if you didn’t also have the correct weather conditions for things to look naturally bright and colorful in real life as well. It’s a combination of saturated film and correct lighting and weather conditions that produced the result
ETA: Although yes reading back on the comment chain you’re right, it wouldn’t like so saturated as it does in the photo in real life. Though I have had the conditions be just right to where it gets close to that.
Fujifilm’s Velvia color film that saturated green and blue colors.
Photography has never been an objective art.
Today’s “enhancement” is yesterday’s “choice of film”
People out there who want photos with no “manipulation” (when talking about general colour and levels) are generally people unknowledgeable of photography who don’t know what they’re asking for.
O’Rear used a Mamiya RZ67 medium-format camera on a tripod and Fujifilm’s Velvia color film that saturated green and blue colors.[7][10]: 2:29 [11] He credited the combination and said that if he had shot with 35 mm film, it would not have had an identical result.
Claim is it hasn’t been edited but it did use film that saturates certain colors by default
What’s even more remarkable is that someone actually did that, in January 1998.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_(photograph)
Even as a child I always assumed that it was artwork.
Damn I need to get out and enjoy the world.
The colors are highly saturated. It wouldn’t look like that in real life.
According to the source, he didn’t saturate it.
I drive by something like that daily. Some days it does look like that, but it mostly looks like a regular manure field. Capturing it on camera is a matter of timing.
Actually, the photographer used a film that saturates the greens
Porque no los dos?
Because it isn’t both.
The he actual photographer said that this image was straight from camera, but they used a film that saturates certain colours.
Yes, I’m aware of that. I would think that you still wouldn’t get those colors to look like that with saturated film if you didn’t also have the correct weather conditions for things to look naturally bright and colorful in real life as well. It’s a combination of saturated film and correct lighting and weather conditions that produced the result
ETA: Although yes reading back on the comment chain you’re right, it wouldn’t like so saturated as it does in the photo in real life. Though I have had the conditions be just right to where it gets close to that.
It’s the Windows 10 picture that’s really to find that it’s not rendered
https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/i-was-shocked-to-find-out-the-windows-10-desktop-background-wasnt-computer-generated-but-a-picture-of-light-being-shot-through-an-actual-window/
I don’t believe that, it’s way to saturated
Photography has never been an objective art.
Today’s “enhancement” is yesterday’s “choice of film”
People out there who want photos with no “manipulation” (when talking about general colour and levels) are generally people unknowledgeable of photography who don’t know what they’re asking for.
Velvia is a banging film tho
Claim is it hasn’t been edited but it did use film that saturates certain colors by default
Further down the article it talks about why it’s that colour.
It’s a pretty cool story!