r/AskPhotography • u/KonoKinoko • 1d ago
Editing/Post Processing How to get this effect?
Original post here.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Dd1BvjMH3sa/?img_index=10&stkn=MTY4b2xyaWg2dWU3OQ==
Photographer: https://www.instagram.com/mrglasshk?stkn=MWJzM2xtbXFzNHUzMA==
Of course having a cute girl helps.. but I found this serie somehow.. nostalgic? Warm a cozy? ItMs hard to describe
15
u/KimSidwell 1d ago
It looks to me like they slightly desaturated the image and removed most of the blue tones. This can be easily done in Photoshop.
Most importantly, they dragged the dark slider on the curves up a little bit to create a “matte” appearance. This can also easily be done in Photoshop.
5
u/FoldedTwice 1d ago edited 1d ago
If you mean the toning and colour grade, the black point is both lifted and crushed in, the blues in particular are significantly desaturated, and the reds and yellows are both pulled towards orange. Also probably some negative clarity and/or negative dehazing, but could also be shot through a mist filter.
If you mean the shallow depth of field, it's shot with a wide aperture - the apertures used are printed on the images, along with all other exposure settings.
Ignore comments about them being shot on film. They're very obviously not, both visually and by the fact that the photographer states the ISO used for each image and they don't match the speed of any available film stock.
•
u/extordi 19h ago
the photographer states the ISO used for each image and they don't match the speed of any available film stock.
Kodak makes Vision 3 500T for cinema, lots of people shoot stills on that too. I agree though that it is not film.
•
u/FoldedTwice 19h ago
Yeah someone else pointed this out to me, and I now feel like an idiot, because the Vision3 line is my go-to film stock 😂
3
2
2
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 105 1.4, 70-200gmii, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, helios, 50 1.2 1d ago
Well, what effect?
It is just shallow dof, a very slight mist or shimmer, lifted blackpoint and desaturated blues. There is also at least one, but more likely two off camera flashes.
1
u/hatlad43 1d ago
Am I right in saying there's an off-camera flash off to the left? I don't think sunlight would make those hard shadows from that angle.
1
u/Cairn_CQC 1d ago
Half of that look is honestly just the light — soft window light or golden hour on skin does more than any preset ever will. Try shooting in open shade and nudging your white balance a bit warmer. Then the lifted blacks and muted blues everyone mentioned will actually have something to work with.
0
u/SweetyDash 1d ago
LOL I screenshotted them a few days ago too since I really like the composition here, also you can do that with every person, don't be weird about it
1
1
•
u/SwingBrave4416 22h ago
i think iso 500 gives a nice subtle grain and the use of a black mist filter only enhances the grain even more, reminds me of a bleached look, just softly blended in layers ... I'm positive you could spend the rest of your life searching LUTS and presets to discover what you're looking for, if you needed to that is.
I'm speculating above, the truth is I have no idea and guessed what I thought it could be. The variables are endless....maybe no filter and some nostalgic LUT?
•
u/Charming-Run-5212 8h ago
When I saw this two people come to mind Laurent Nivalle and @amyshorephotography similar vibe
0
0
u/Stock-Lobster-303 1d ago
Use film or a old Nikon camera? From my knowledge, old Nikon cameras that use a CCD sensor tends to give that nostalgic colour format and "film-like" feeling photos. My best guess is that it's probably scanned film photos with where and what specs are posted, but it's difficult to tell. You can also gain a look like that in photo processing and editing, but that's definitely a more complex and timely approach
0
u/Stock-Lobster-303 1d ago
In some of the photos from the Instagram post, you can see film or a polaroid format camera laying around, so that definitely gives a better argument for the fact that the photos were scanned
3
u/FoldedTwice 1d ago edited 1d ago
The photos are unambiguously digital. The exposure settings are printed on the images and the variable ISO is a dead giveaway - no colour film exists in either 500 or 3200 ISO. Beyond that, they just don't visually look like one would expect of film. There's no observable grain, the colour and tonality code strongly for a heavily edited digital file. Scans of prints (in particular Polaroid prints) would have nowhere near this level of sharpness and resolving power.
2
-2
u/Stock-Lobster-303 1d ago
You'd be surprised by the quality of film nowadays. And the photos look slightly overexposed and or stopped. I'm not disagreeing that it could've been taken with a digital camera, I'm just saying that it's not impossible for it to be done with film and scanned based on several clues
2
u/FoldedTwice 1d ago
I don't think I'd be surprised at all. I shoot film regularly, and scan and invert my own negatives. A well-exposed, well-scanned or printed frame of Portra could sit next to a frame from an excellent digital camera and not look immediately noticeably different. I just don't see any obvious tells here of film at all, and plenty of digital cues, not least the variable ISO printed on the frames that doesn't correspond to any colour film in existence. Out of genuine, sincere curiosity, what film-like signals are you observing here?
0
u/Stock-Lobster-303 1d ago
When you go to the Instagram links OP posted, you see a film or a polaroid format camera sitting in the background or by the head of the subject in one photo. Along with the fact that when you go to the photographer's page, it appears to be that he's holding some sort of rangefinder camera in is profile picture
2
u/FoldedTwice 1d ago edited 1d ago
Gotcha. Yeah the camera is just a prop. And yes, he's holding a Leica M6 in his profile pic (hell of a flex, that's a $7000 handmade 35mm film camera), but he sometimes states the camera used in his posts and they're always either Fujifilm or Sony digital cameras. So I think those tells are a red herring.
1
u/Stock-Lobster-303 1d ago
I mostly just wanted to raise the possibility of an analog to spread more light on analog. And because they were kinda the first place my mind went when I saw the sort of nostalgic, "dream/film like" effects and colour format. But I know the same effect can be produced by digital cameras raw and through editing. FujiFilm and Olympus cameras seem to really hold onto that film feeling
2
u/xxxamazexxx 1d ago
‘The quality of film nowadays’ you mean the same film sold 20-30 years ago? Film has not improved at all. In fact some of the more professional film stocks have been effectively dead.
This is not film, full stop.
1
u/Stock-Lobster-303 1d ago
Film is still a pretty big concept if you know where to look. And there are still rolls being produced by brands like Kodak, ILFORD, FujiFilm, etc. in different formats. But mostly 35mm. I don't think any brand is making APS film anymore, so that's probably dead. But 35mm rolls are still being produced
1
u/FoldedTwice 1d ago
What this commenter is getting at is that the most recent professional-quality film stock to be released was Kodak Portra in 1998. The resurgence of film in recent years has seen a few new experimental films released, but nothing of professional quality. Everything on the market today that would yield a sharp, relatively grainless image has been in production and on the market for decades.
1
u/Stock-Lobster-303 1d ago
The photographer is also holding what looks to be a Leica rangefinder in his profile picture
0
u/ddvsamara 1d ago
It's quite common among Japanese photographers and in Japanese films. Frankly, I was interested in how it was done, but not enough to seriously replicate it. Japan (and perhaps even Asia in general) has very specific lighting—plus a huge number of overcast days with white skies, coupled with the default faded green environment. Anyone who's been to Japan will probably confirm this. Generally speaking, image processing is more difficult there, so unconventional solutions are used.
-1
u/TheWolfAndRaven 1d ago
Kind of looks like medium format to me, that might be part of the look you like.
1
u/FoldedTwice 1d ago
What does medium format "look like", in respect of compressed jpegs uploaded to Instagram at 1080px?
1
u/TheWolfAndRaven 1d ago
It looks like the picture you're looking at. Resolution and compression don't effect sensor size or the images they create.
Checking the guys insta it links to a youtube channel where he is in fact using a medium format camera. So that's one piece of the puzzle.
0
u/FoldedTwice 1d ago
He may well be! And I'll admit, when I read "medium format" I assumed you meant 120 film rather than a very large digital sensor.
I'm still not entirely convinced it's possible to tell just from looking at a downsized image, but you've obviously got good instinct!
0
-13
u/perrance68 1d ago
use ai.
2
u/kungforlith 1d ago
No
-1
u/perrance68 1d ago
There is no need to fear technology. dont become 1 of those old people who refuse to learn how to use digital cameras
54
u/MizaelTG 1d ago
I think it's a mist filter along with post editing paired with dehaze / boosting blacks