Back to the gym! I'm actually not a fan of Color 92, mostly because the tones and temp are easy to achieve in post on any less expensive color stock. I really treat Lightroom the same as one would have used the darkroom in the past, making color adjustments, dodging and burning as desired, on all my film scans. I would say Color 92 might be useful for anyone who avoids or disapproves of the post process altogether.
Bizarre. In 1992 many of us were using Fujichrome Velvia, the most clear and punchy 35mm film just about ever. Nice video though - but I would use any colour film before that Colour 92. Is it meant to remind us of terrible processing at Snappy Snaps? Nice video though - thanks :)
I quite liked the muted look. I think there is a role for this film ( pun unintended) in documentary photography.
That’s true my friend this film would be quite suitable for those kind of shots!
Back to the gym! I'm actually not a fan of Color 92, mostly because the tones and temp are easy to achieve in post on any less expensive color stock. I really treat Lightroom the same as one would have used the darkroom in the past, making color adjustments, dodging and burning as desired, on all my film scans. I would say Color 92 might be useful for anyone who avoids or disapproves of the post process altogether.
Hello Brennen….nice that’s a cool approach to obtain similar results in a cost effective way 👌🏽
Bizarre. In 1992 many of us were using Fujichrome Velvia, the most clear and punchy 35mm film just about ever. Nice video though - but I would use any colour film before that Colour 92. Is it meant to remind us of terrible processing at Snappy Snaps?
Nice video though - thanks :)
Hahahaha your comment made me laugh my friend….I’m happy you liked the video anyways…that’s a good sign hahahaha
@@ArmandoStreets an excellent video. Subscribed! :)
@@swannmannbaggywaggyawesome…nice to have you here my friend 😎🙏🏽
That film seems unresponsive to colour.
Yes…not too saturated my friend