login info join!
Forums > Digital Art and Retouching > How to get this 35mm film look? Search   Reply
Photographer
Mamen Fajardo
Posts: 2
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.
Thank you!

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  Quote 
Photographer
Studio-SL19
Posts: 54
Haarlemmermeer, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


You might want to take a look at NIK filters: http://www.niksoftware.com/site/


cheers,
Ron
Mar 19 13 04:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
pellepiano
Posts: 2,272
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  Quote 
Photographer
Eric Hodges Photography
Posts: 32
Mill Valley, California, US


Mar 19 13 01:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Laura EB
Posts: 65
Rochester, New York, US


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.

http://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd518/ariadnese8/difference_zps738cdbf1.jpg
Mar 20 13 02:12 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
John Malloch Caldwell
Posts: 2,563
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  Quote 
Retoucher
bobbydolan
Posts: 167
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  Quote 
Retoucher
FLEXmanta
Posts: 1,001
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. smile
Mar 20 13 08:07 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Laura EB
Posts: 65
Rochester, New York, US


FLEXmanta wrote:
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.

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 sad 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  Quote 
Photographer
I M N Photography
Posts: 2,330
New York, New York, US


Laura Bello wrote:
...

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.

I have to disagree with this statement.
Please elaborate on how "film is totally better" as related to the control that is offered by [digital] post. Without getting into a Film vs. Digital argument, I feel that people confuse nostalgia with progress.

Yes. Film is still the medium of choice when it comes to shooting large format with exquisitely rich colors and higher resolution, but that is totally unrelated to having the type of control during post-processing that the OP wants in order to create that style of image.

Mar 20 13 01:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JOEL McDONALD
Posts: 608
Portland, Oregon, US


John Malloch Caldwell wrote:
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.

Same.

Mar 20 13 01:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JOEL McDONALD
Posts: 608
Portland, Oregon, US


JOEL McDONALD wrote:
Same.

Film is grain. Digital is not.

Use a lupe on a 35mm transparency or a direct print and you'll see the grain. The slower the film (ASA) the finer the grain, but there's still grain.

This was shot with 35mm Ektachrome.

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121024/13/50884f364e456.jpg

Mar 20 13 01:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bravo Magic Images
Posts: 765
Temple City, California, US


Use a nutral filter and a wide angel lens
Mar 20 13 02:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Laura EB
Posts: 65
Rochester, New York, US


MnPhoto wrote:
I have to disagree with this statement.
Please elaborate on how "film is totally better" as related to the control that is offered by [digital] post. Without getting into a Film vs. Digital argument, I feel that people confuse nostalgia with progress.

Yes. Film is still the medium of choice when it comes to shooting large format with exquisitely rich colors and higher resolution, but that is totally unrelated to having the type of control during post-processing that the OP wants in order to create that style of image.

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  Quote 
Photographer
billy badfinger
Posts: 828
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  Quote 
Photographer
DigitalWorldNY
Posts: 36
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  Quote 
Model
Madison P Cook
Posts: 136
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada


Mamen Fajardo wrote:
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.
Thank you!

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

I've been trying to get this look for a while as well.

Who shot these btw? smile  They're wonderful!

Mar 20 13 04:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mamen Fajardo
Posts: 2
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  Quote 
  Search   Reply