# A Film Look



## Dylan777 (Feb 26, 2013)

Hi guys,
I'm looking for recipes to make everyday photos look like Film Look cinematic. 

These are not mines, but I love the film look of these photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eneade/8482535934/#in/photostream/

Below are my works, but I'm no where near to film cinematic look    

Any tips guys? 

THANK YOU, Dylan


----------



## Eneade (Mar 12, 2013)

The series of pictures you have linked was made by night and with some heavy fog so it is difficult to compare with yours...

It was processed with Lightroom 4 (and photoshop for the slim black borders). There is some split toning and the WB is sometimes set far from reality.

Hope this helps ;-)


----------



## ChilledXpress (Mar 12, 2013)

There are so many film type looks... my two favorite are an aged photo and cross-processed/film grain... I have developed my own through LR4 presets and then use ColorEfexPro4 from Nik Software. The Nik package works well and you can also develop your own look/reciepe.




Kyudo demonstration (Japanese Archery)... by David KM, on Flickr




Summertime and the livin's easy... by David KM, on Flickr


----------



## 7enderbender (Mar 12, 2013)

Ah, film look. Honestly, that's become another one of my pet peeves really. What is a "film look"? With film only "gone" for a few years now it seems that a lot of folks who have never used it now assume that film gave/gives us some grainy, low resolution discolored "lo-fi" look. Equivalent assumptions being made in the audio world drive me equally crazy.

That being said: yes, film does look and feel different, especially when you're looking at real prints and not some scanned negatives put out on the same ink jet printers that we have to put up with as digital shooters. But there is not _one _look. Different film types and processes will render different results - most of which will be tack sharp, not discolored or grainy.

I actually just shot a few rolls b/w Ilford for portraits that I'm planning to develop and blow up myself at a local lab place next week or so. I shot these together with my digital SLR with the same light and settings so I'm really looking forward to a nice A/B comparison that I haven't done yet to that extent. I'll be curious to compare some digital b/w prints from the same session next to them.

My next bigger expense is likely to be a medium format camera and some darkroom gear for my basement. As much as I like my DSLR and wouldn't want to miss it again, for some things I feel those blown up large and medium format portraits still look better. And it's not the hipster-grainy-lo-fi look I'm after but quite the opposite actually.


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 12, 2013)

How about this?

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/filmpack/what_is_dxo_filmpack

Cheers!


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 12, 2013)

View some Ektachrome or Velvia slides. That is my vision of a film look.


----------



## Dantana (Mar 12, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> Ah, film look. Honestly, that's become another one of my pet peeves really. What is a "film look"? With film only "gone" for a few years now it seems that a lot of folks who have never used it now assume that film gave/gives us some grainy, low resolution discolored "lo-fi" look. Equivalent assumptions being made in the audio world drive me equally crazy.
> 
> That being said: yes, film does look and feel different, especially when you're looking at real prints and not some scanned negatives put out on the same ink jet printers that we have to put up with as digital shooters. But there is not _one _look. Different film types and processes will render different results - most of which will be tack sharp, not discolored or grainy.
> 
> ...



+1

You really need to define what kind of look you are going for. There are more looks than can be listed, to be honest. Different emulsions, formats, not to mention how they were eventually printed. And for me, that doesn't even include things that I would consider "special fx" to a film shooter, like the aforementioned cross processed look, or something like bleach bypass. They are totally valid techniques but not what I would say is inherent in a "film look."

7enderbender, I'd be very interested in how your prints turn out. There's a part of me that really misses the darkroom experience.


----------



## mws (Mar 12, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> My next bigger expense is likely to be a medium format camera and some darkroom gear for my basement. As much as I like my DSLR and wouldn't want to miss it again, for some things I feel those blown up large and medium format portraits still look better. And it's not the hipster-grainy-lo-fi look I'm after but quite the opposite actually.



Craigslist is a great place for dark room equipment, most people are practically giving it away. I got a entire setup with a color enlarger for 50 bucks.


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 12, 2013)

Buy a film camera?

I bought an old 1957 Leica M3 + Summicron 50mm F/2.

Beware though - you'll get the Leica bug and have to sell a kidney 

ET


----------



## ITshooter (Mar 12, 2013)

I could be wrong here, but I get the feeling the original poster isn't thinking of this is ontological terms, i.e. the aesthetic and medium of "film" as a distinct from the aesthetic and medium of digital. Rather, I think the poster means "film" as in "cinema." If you look at the flickr profile he linked to, most of the categories refer to "cinematic this" and "cinematographers of that." 

In other words, I think he means the pictures are evocative of modern Hollywood cinema, and that he wants to know how to replicate this look. 

If I'm right, here are some observations:

The flickr photographer does him/herself some favors by starting with compositions that suggest narratives. If there's action in the shot, for example, he/she often frames it from a semi-wide angle, accentuating leading lines and depth and motion through space. Other shots create a sense of mystery or foreboding by isolating a transitory figure within the environment, again with the help of leading lines and balanced compositions.

That much is done in the camera but a lot of the effect was created in post. The images have been treated to emphasize shades with certain relationships on the color wheel. For example, many of the images push the shadows toward the blues while nudging the mid tones toward the reds. This isolates skin color, making subjects pop, and, by boosting opposed colors, creates greater contrast in the image. Others suggest warmth with green and yellow/red casts. Whatever the combination, it should be noted that this effect can be taken to extremes very easily. 

Speaking of contrast, the flickr images look like the blacks have been crushed a bit. Generally, the darker areas are pulled down just enough to retain detail. Highlights are pushed, meanwhile, pretty carefully to increase contrast while still maintaining detail and subtle gradations. There are a number of ways this could be accomplished. If you shoot in a neutral profile, you might get a similar effect by simply applying a typical S-curve. In a standard profile, one might apply a less aggressive curve and then selectively bring back highlight data, etc. Depends a bit on how much you want to mess with colors or make local adjustments, among other things.

A lot of the images are shot in fog or snow, which applies a diffusion effect to the lights. That's something that could be created practically in a studio-style shoot but that's harder to control if you're a street shooter. Red Giant makes a Magic Bullet plug-in for Aperture, Photoshop, etc. that allows for the contrast, color and saturation work I described above, and that also allows you to apply various diffusion effects. It also has tools to make sure you don't overcook the image, such as scopes to make sure skin tones stay where they're supposed to. It contains a number of presets, most of which look overdone unless you shoot in a pretty flat picture profile. But once you learn what kind of acquisition data it needs, the program is pretty much designed to quickly and easily produce the specific look you're pursuing.


----------



## eyeland (Mar 13, 2013)

Nice write up ITshooter


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 13, 2013)

ChilledXpress said:


> There are so many film type looks... my two favorite are an aged photo and cross-processed/film grain... I have developed my own through LR4 presets and then use ColorEfexPro4 from Nik Software. The Nik package works well and you can also develop your own look/reciepe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks ChilledXpress for the tips. I'll look intoColorEfexPro4.

I like your 1st pix alot. This is what I'm chasing for.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 13, 2013)

well_dunno said:


> How about this?
> 
> http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/filmpack/what_is_dxo_filmpack
> 
> Cheers!



Thanks well_dunno for the info.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 13, 2013)

ITshooter said:


> I could be wrong here, but I get the feeling the original poster isn't thinking of this is ontological terms, i.e. the aesthetic and medium of "film" as a distinct from the aesthetic and medium of digital. Rather, I think the poster means "film" as in "cinema." If you look at the flickr profile he linked to, most of the categories refer to "cinematic this" and "cinematographers of that."
> 
> In other words, I think he means the pictures are evocative of modern Hollywood cinema, and that he wants to know how to replicate this look.
> 
> ...



Yes, I should have said "cinematic". Thank you for the tips


----------

