How do I get this kind of film look with digital? Obviously you

File: PAR50424.jpg (225KB, 1056x704px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1056x704px

>>2931334

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Photographer	© HARRY GRUYAERT/MAGNUM PHOTOS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	7576
Image Height	5051
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:05:29 15:19:32
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	7576
Image Height	5051

File: PAR115107.jpg (207KB, 1056x704px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1056x704px

>>2931335

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	7475
Image Height	4983
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	527 dpi
Vertical Resolution	527 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2011:02:01 10:32:00
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	4600
Image Height	3067

File: example2.jpg (196KB, 1056x704px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1056x704px

>>2931336
There is this painterly quality that I just don't know how to achieve.

File: PAR162521.jpg (1MB, 1053x704px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1053x704px

>>2931337

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	7542
Image Height	5039
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	600 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:09:21 17:12:21
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	802

>>2931337

upload a picture of yours you want to look like that.

File: example3.jpg (191KB, 1057x704px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1057x704px

>>2931339

I, too, am very interested to find out is there's a way to fake this look.

>>2931341 Looks fantastic. Almost unrealistic.

>>2931339
this is the shit

>>2931339

K O D A C H R O ME

>>2931334
Vsco film presets in lightroom

>>2931492
It's a slow board, bro, you don't need to bump after an hour and a quarter.

>>2931436
This

or just open the NEF in photoshop and fuck around with the sliders like a complete retard, and boom. film

>>2931525

nice meme.

>>2931532
Everything is a 'meme' now days, dontcha know?

>>2931535

Everything has always been a meme, dummy. That's the whole point.

You don't have ideas, you just express memes.

>>2931539
t. Someone who read half a wikipedia article on Dawkins once

shoot at a high iSO for grain

lower the contrast

fuck about with colours

done

>>2931585
Shut up.....

>>2931577

t. nice meme.

>>2931585
>shoot at a high iSO for grain
This is physically painful for me to read. Is that normal? I think the stupidity has transcended our known dimensions.

>>2931334
>>2931339

>be Harry Gruyaert
>shoot Leica
>go Morocco
>still blowing people's minds 40 years later

You're setting your bar pretty high OP

File: img21442926599_606bbf_4c86bd50bfd1487abd84c761a5f9316e_jpg_srb_p_900_600_75_22_0_50_1_20_0_00_jpg_srb.jpg (10KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 400x267px

Lets end this jackassery for once and all.

>How do I get this kind of film look with digital?
Short answer: protip u cant.

Long answer: Lots if not all photos from the 60's, 70s are print scans. That saturated richness comes from the print process, be it dye transfer or cibachrome. You cant emulate it in your pirated turd polisher.

Your best bet is: keep shooting film until its finally gone forever, and by that time, you will find digital cameras have advanced enough to not look fake and gay.

>>2931637
Yeah sure , just like its impossible to have a camera that actually lets you see your final exposure as you change your settings.

You can emulate any sort of film you want with digital, its quite easy actually. Quick and dirty way of doing is randomly decrease the RGB saturation on the calibration tab on LR and increase normal saturation a bit. Increase contrasts raise shadows and highlights and decrease blacks.

For this sort of look >>2931334
You will need to use luminosity masks. There is quite a lot of math involving this but suffice to say that using luminosity masks to alter the gamma of the highlights and shadows separately is a good start.

File: 1473639319485.jpg (7KB, 245x215px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 245x215px

>>2931660
>man from /p/ claims to be able literally emulate film with digital for the Nth time, but fails again to provide any evidence

you just cant help it, can you?

File: A fuckin mirrorless m8.jpg (72KB, 596x320px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 596x320px

>>2931660
>Yeah sure , just like its impossible to have a camera that actually lets you see your final exposure as you change your settings.

Buddy, do I have news for you!

>>2931742
my current grail

>>2931743
X-T2 is about to come out dummy

>>2931771
no money

it's already out

>>2931772
would you buy my X-T1?

perfect condition

>>2931778
how mucho

>>2931779
1,100

>>2931780
good luck, my man

I've been seeing them go for as low as 500 in rare cases and it's only going to down as more. You can get a mint body for 700 on ebay right now

I don't see the appeal of spending almost 2.5 times that for the xt-2 over the xt-1. I could get an xt-1, 27mm pancake, and 56mm 1.2 for the price of just an xt-2

>>2931781
hmm in that case I will start to consider 650 as it really is essentially mint cond.

>>2931782
If I was you I'd put it on ebay asap if you want that upgrade money

I saw one for 450 on craigslist a week ago

good luck man. If I get the cash maybe I'll be the one to purchase it

File: tofilmornot.jpg (659KB, 1342x1000px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 1342x1000px

>>2931664
Not that guy but film is dead

>>2931786
fuck lad

File: harry-gruyaert-olympic-torch.jpg (29KB, 296x200px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 296x200px

>>2931632

>be Harry Gruyaert
>shoot Leica
>shoot a screenshot of the Olympics on a CRT TV
>still blowing people's mind 40 years later

>>2931788
actual film would look 100% better faggot

>>2932202
>checks film thread

youmustbejoking.dng

Probably these things:

- a combination of a high f-stop to get everything sharp instead of a blurry background, which gives a depth you don't want. The flatness makes it seem a bit unreal

- soften shadows, I don't know how, I usually use VSCO filters or Alien Exposure but lowering contrast or clarity might work a bit?

- dunno

Every example posted in this thread was taken during absolutely stunning light. Thr first few look to be taken before the sun rose / after it set and the latter few were taken in during that glorious ~1 hour before sunset.

Shooting in the right light is most of the battle to getting this type of look. No VSCO filter or curves manipulation is going to give you that 'look' if you're shooting at the wrong time of day.

>>2935383
>I don't know how, I usually use VSCO filters or Alien Exposure but lowering contrast or clarity might work a bit?
>- dunno
These are the people giving advice on /p/

>>2935383
>- dunno

wow digifags are full of knowledge lmao.

>>2931334
The two things that stand out the most are the high contrast and high saturation/vibrance. Kinda looks like clarity was pushed up a bit too.

>>2935887
>Kinda looks like clarity was pushed up a bit too.
>clarity

ahahahahahah