Jules knows his camera so well, he still composes masterfully even without a viewfinder, very impressive. Also enjoyed your review, I bought a few rolls :)
I remember 1990s colour films, they were all about fine grain, colour fidelity and accuracy. Fuli Rela typified this approach as did the Triad films from Agfa and Konica SR films. I remember 1992 well, I got married and photographed our Honeymoon on Kodachrome 64 preofessional and Konica SR200. I have all the photographs which are neutral in thier colour and colour balance. Color 92 would have not sold well and would have been heavily criticised in 1992.
@@digitalrex5 well gold 200 is still available and even in 92 it looked a lot better than this. Not saying the film can't be used for artistic photos but calling it "92" is a little dumb
All jokes about whether or not the 1990s rank as vintage yet (confused Gen Xer here 😂) I’d say the default 1990s film ‘look’ is basically that of Kodak Gold 100. That is after all what the average non-pro/enthusiast was loading in the P&Ss. Warm but not overbearing. I do wonder if that very warm golden look we associate with the 1970s and early 1980s was in the film itself, or in the prints that already had a few decades of age and browning on them?
Thank you for your comment. I agree regarding Kodak Gold 100. Interesting thought how the deterioration of the prints might affect our perspective. I know exactly what you mean when thinking of old photo books my relatives maintained back then. Thanks for bringing this up. There might be some truth to that. And yes, even Gen X apparently finds it hard to believe that twenty years ago was 2004 and thirty years ago 1994 and is thus at least considered neo-vintage. 🤭
Exactly. I remember the '90s, I remember what people were looking for and what typical films looked like. And I also can't help but wonder if there's a widespread misapprehension based on viewing faded and poor quality prints from the era. The '90s was the age of Kodak Gold and Fuji Superia in consumer film but also of Provia, and Velvia in professional use - that steadily took over from Kodachrome 64. None of those films really seems to line up with the modern perception of what the '90s film look' is.
First of all the quality of photography was amazing. I do have a 35 RD, but sadly no SWC. One of my regrets, that when the prices were reasonable and I had the funds, I pulled my nose up at it. The quality of the images produced by the SWC was something else. As for the film, I actually found the images neutral to cool even. No sign of any sun kissing anything, I am afraid to observe.
I was using film in the 80s and 90s and I have to say the results were never like this…. Don’t get me wrong I don’t dislike it but really - the Emperor has no clothes
Please bear in mind that the 1990s may be perceived as vintage depending on the generation. Lomography is obviously not addressing baby boomers here. ;)
Underwhelming results from a film born in a marketing department. Beware speciality films created in this boutique age of photography. They are not worth their overinflated prices.
I think more marketing to sell a failed attempt at making a colour stock and not make a loss. If it means they eventually make something good and people buy it why not.
Jules and I debated in the beginning whether to have a 4K workflow or not and decided against it. The amount of data would be overwhelming. But feel free to reach out via email or Instagram and I am happy to provide you with some of the original scans.
@@AnalogInsights Thanks for that but you don’t need to record in 4K. Just make a 4K timeline and import the images in their original quality. The video files you record will still be slim but viewers can zoom into the pictures and look at detail. All the video editing programs do a decent job of upscaling without introducing artifacts now. And the UA-cam app makes it really easy to zoom in now. I get the dater management side and completely agree. But capture resolution and display resolution don’t really need to be linked anymore. And 1080p UA-cam just destroys everything.
Vintage and 1990s is a nonsense concept. The visual aesthetics of the 1990s are still largely in place. Vintage is something at least 50 years removed from now.
Thanks for your comment. As somebody who grew up in the 1990s I see a strong difference in the visual aesthetic to today. So to me (and probably others in the same and younger generations) selling the film like that makes a lot of sense.
1990s vintage look😂 1990s isn’t vintage, sorry but the look isn’t that different from today when it comes to film. This generation is just so desperate for vintage 😅. I’m no boomer either, I’m generation x.
Thank you for your comment. Well, 1994, for instance, was thirty years ago and is technically at least considered neo-vintage or vintage (depending on the definition you follow). Another commentator made a great point about Kodak Gold and the warm golden look we associate with deteriorated prints from the past. I think it has nothing to do with being obsessed with vintage, more with appreciation with timeless things and visual aesthetic.
Even if I might not be a particular fan of the stock you are reviewing, you do the best film stock reviews around. Never stop. Cheers.
Jules knows his camera so well, he still composes masterfully even without a viewfinder, very impressive. Also enjoyed your review, I bought a few rolls :)
I remember 1990s colour films, they were all about fine grain, colour fidelity and accuracy. Fuli Rela typified this approach as did the Triad films from Agfa and Konica SR films. I remember 1992 well, I got married and photographed our Honeymoon on Kodachrome 64 preofessional and Konica SR200. I have all the photographs which are neutral in thier colour and colour balance. Color 92 would have not sold well and would have been heavily criticised in 1992.
Useless comment
@@HumanClouds but it's the truth
@@HumanClouds shut up chat gpt
This would be true on the pro level but most of these retro films are going after consumer “gold 200” like stocks.
@@digitalrex5 well gold 200 is still available and even in 92 it looked a lot better than this. Not saying the film can't be used for artistic photos but calling it "92" is a little dumb
Thanks
Beautiful pictures! Congratulations!
All jokes about whether or not the 1990s rank as vintage yet (confused Gen Xer here 😂) I’d say the default 1990s film ‘look’ is basically that of Kodak Gold 100. That is after all what the average non-pro/enthusiast was loading in the P&Ss. Warm but not overbearing. I do wonder if that very warm golden look we associate with the 1970s and early 1980s was in the film itself, or in the prints that already had a few decades of age and browning on them?
Thank you for your comment. I agree regarding Kodak Gold 100. Interesting thought how the deterioration of the prints might affect our perspective. I know exactly what you mean when thinking of old photo books my relatives maintained back then. Thanks for bringing this up. There might be some truth to that.
And yes, even Gen X apparently finds it hard to believe that twenty years ago was 2004 and thirty years ago 1994 and is thus at least considered neo-vintage. 🤭
Exactly. I remember the '90s, I remember what people were looking for and what typical films looked like. And I also can't help but wonder if there's a widespread misapprehension based on viewing faded and poor quality prints from the era. The '90s was the age of Kodak Gold and Fuji Superia in consumer film but also of Provia, and Velvia in professional use - that steadily took over from Kodachrome 64. None of those films really seems to line up with the modern perception of what the '90s film look' is.
what bea😍utiful analog cam📷eras and edit🎞️ing 👍
Ach die alte Heimat. Schön war’s.❤
Oh here we go..... another addition to my want list. Thanks, wasn't on my radar, beautiful video though.
First of all the quality of photography was amazing. I do have a 35 RD, but sadly no SWC. One of my regrets, that when the prices were reasonable and I had the funds, I pulled my nose up at it. The quality of the images produced by the SWC was something else. As for the film, I actually found the images neutral to cool even. No sign of any sun kissing anything, I am afraid to observe.
I was using film in the 80s and 90s and I have to say the results were never like this…. Don’t get me wrong I don’t dislike it but really - the Emperor has no clothes
Heard "vintage 1990s look" and almost spit out my cappuccino!
Please bear in mind that the 1990s may be perceived as vintage depending on the generation. Lomography is obviously not addressing baby boomers here. ;)
Shooting Hasselblad without viewfinder is on another level of sorcery👀...seen last time on the Moon(so the story goes...)!!!
Haha. Good one.
Underwhelming results from a film born in a marketing department. Beware speciality films created in this boutique age of photography. They are not worth their overinflated prices.
I think more marketing to sell a failed attempt at making a colour stock and not make a loss. If it means they eventually make something good and people buy it why not.
I'm sure I must sound ignorant, but surely all the digital manipulation of the resulting images negates the use of film at all.
Please upload in 4K so we can zoom in to look at the grain characteristics.
Jules and I debated in the beginning whether to have a 4K workflow or not and decided against it. The amount of data would be overwhelming. But feel free to reach out via email or Instagram and I am happy to provide you with some of the original scans.
@@AnalogInsights Thanks for that but you don’t need to record in 4K. Just make a 4K timeline and import the images in their original quality. The video files you record will still be slim but viewers can zoom into the pictures and look at detail. All the video editing programs do a decent job of upscaling without introducing artifacts now. And the UA-cam app makes it really easy to zoom in now. I get the dater management side and completely agree. But capture resolution and display resolution don’t really need to be linked anymore. And 1080p UA-cam just destroys everything.
Thanks for your input. So it seems like this is more of a general remark instead of concrete interest in these particular scans.
@@AnalogInsights It is. Because you’ve reviewed some interesting and great lenses and film stocks.
Vintage and 1990s is a nonsense concept. The visual aesthetics of the 1990s are still largely in place. Vintage is something at least 50 years removed from now.
Thanks for your comment. As somebody who grew up in the 1990s I see a strong difference in the visual aesthetic to today. So to me (and probably others in the same and younger generations) selling the film like that makes a lot of sense.
1990s vintage look😂 1990s isn’t vintage, sorry but the look isn’t that different from today when it comes to film. This generation is just so desperate for vintage 😅. I’m no boomer either, I’m generation x.
Thank you for your comment. Well, 1994, for instance, was thirty years ago and is technically at least considered neo-vintage or vintage (depending on the definition you follow). Another commentator made a great point about Kodak Gold and the warm golden look we associate with deteriorated prints from the past. I think it has nothing to do with being obsessed with vintage, more with appreciation with timeless things and visual aesthetic.