Albacete, Castile-La Mancha, Spain
Hi, I would love to know how can I get this look on my photos. I have tried and I get near...but I don't get the exact result that I want.
I know that are shot with a big diaphragm aperture.
The author of this photos is Fanny Latour Lambert.
http://www.ojodigital.com/foro/attachme … r1_500.png
http://www.ojodigital.com/foro/attachme … que-10.jpg
http://www.ojodigital.com/foro/attachme … oque-5.jpg
http://www.ojodigital.com/foro/attachme … g_2883.jpg
Mar 19 13 02:30 am Link
Haarlemmermeer, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
You might want to take a look at NIK filters: http://www.niksoftware.com/site/
Mar 19 13 04:38 am Link
Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden
I think best way is to post an image on which you have tried, but not succeded to get the look. That way we will know the source and you will see the results when someone here shows their stuff on the image.
I saw that the last image was shot with a Canon 5d III at F1.4 ( 50mm lens ).
.. or go for some specially designed software like Studio-SL19 suggested. Alien Skin has Exposure that has a lot of film presets.
Mar 19 13 11:34 am Link
Mill Valley, California, US
Mar 19 13 01:13 pm Link
Ok funny story. I just tried out those VSCO filters on this image of a tiny buddhist temple I took, did a nice film affect ontop of the retouching I already did and was pretty satisfied. Now I have a photographer friend I like to joke with about how the vogue website only accepts images that look like they were ran through a hipsters computer and since I'd tried to upload the original image once or twice before but was denied, I thought I'd see if it made a difference after the film effect was applied.
It was accepted in under five mintues lol.
Now I'm not sure if that means that those filters are simply the bees knees or that all that hipster stuff about photovogue is true but either way seems pretty worth checking out to me.
Mar 20 13 02:12 am Link
Hastings, England, United Kingdom
I have been shooting film for some 50 years (and still do) and I have never been aware of the effects shown here as representing any film I have ever used. To my eyes the effects shown are basically just washed out colour from a film that was processed incorrectly.
Mar 20 13 02:26 am Link
Boston, Massachusetts, US
By this so called film look...pretty sure you're just referring to the cross processing split/toning
Basically can all be achieved in Curves
Curves adjustment go into R/G/B and tweak to your preference
then I'd create another Curves Set blend mode to overlay/softlight - tweak opacity
then I'd create a hue/sat layer with like -25 desaturation - tweak opacity
Mar 20 13 07:54 am Link
Madrid, Madrid, Spain
You can get that look by shooting film (doesn't have to be 35mm though). I know, sounds silly and stupid for an answer, and it probably is. But this is also a chance to get yourself a cheap film camera and start enjoying.
Here's the trick: Don't shoot diapositive. Develop negatives and scan them. Do the whole process in photoshop: Inverting and tightening the histogram channel by channel. While you do that, magic happens. During the histogram tightening process, you are presented a wide range of posibilities. Of course, if you finish the process, the image will look like any other correctly developed image, but if you choose not to finish the process, you might get a unique look that people on forums will start scratching their heads about.
Mar 20 13 08:07 am Link
I honestly love the film look, I just can't afford it for the most part, and developing film to find out it didn't turn out the way you thought breaks my heart Plus I feel like some people feel that they have more control when they do it in post. Film is totally better but for us cheapskates, being able to do it to digital as well is great.
Mar 20 13 01:24 pm Link
New York, New York, US
Laura Bello wrote:
I have to disagree with this statement.
Mar 20 13 01:39 pm Link
Portland, Oregon, US
John Malloch Caldwell wrote:
Mar 20 13 01:53 pm Link
Portland, Oregon, US
JOEL McDONALD wrote:
Film is grain. Digital is not.
Mar 20 13 01:56 pm Link
Temple City, California, US
Use a nutral filter and a wide angel lens
Mar 20 13 02:02 pm Link
Oh no I just meant that if you want a very realistic looking film effect, simply shooting film is normally better because it doesn't look faked, especially in the areas like blur, light leaks, color ect. I honestly love digital for the control but I feel like film, especially 4x5, instant and holga-esque can do some crazy random and beautiful things that are difficult to replicate in photoshop.
Mar 20 13 03:14 pm Link
Tampa, Florida, US
There are 2 things that those samples have in common...
Yes,you are correct,all shot at large apertures...1.4,1.8 most likely.
That is what helps create the blurry backgrounds.(I think some of the blur was done in post though...)
The second common element is a dose of cyan/green/blue color shifting.
Contrast has also been tweaked.
Both meant to mimic film that has beeen "cross-processed".
Some indie software have CP presets...but you can create a similar effect
by using basic channel mixing,selective color sliders and levels in PS.
Mar 20 13 04:30 pm Link
Coxsackie, New York, US
I was always under the impression that whether it be film or digital, the higher ISO setting, the grainier a photo will look.
Mar 20 13 04:39 pm Link
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Mamen Fajardo wrote:
I've been trying to get this look for a while as well.
Mar 20 13 04:44 pm Link
Albacete, Castile-La Mancha, Spain
Thank you all.
I found a personal way to do it. It´s not exactly,but it's my way haha
Mar 27 13 10:25 am Link