How do I achieve this look? The "painterly, old school, vintage" look for portraits?

[olivia_stats]

<p>http://accidentalsexiness.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/milavanity1.jpg<br>

I really love this look - and I'm NOT talking about the pose, make-up, composition - I'm referring to the overall tone of the photo. The grainy, painterly, anti photo-realistic quality. I would love to replicate it in portraits. I know a lot is lighting, but how do you achieve the rest? Any insight (big or small) is really, really appreciated. Thank you!</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Some kind of orange filter? Her dress does not seem quite white. And I guess that some kind of softening is applied.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I can only guess that this picture is an attempt to reproduce an old (and now faded) magazine cover. The key factors seem to be a strong red bias to imitate old color film plus desaturation to imitate the fading. Old studio shots like this were often lit in quite a contrasty way (just check out the neck shadow), with a softening of contrast provided by (pre-war) uncoated lenses. Out of interest, have a look at the work of the pre-WWII British photographer Madame Evonde (shot with uncoated lenses and using the Vivex color system (3 black and white color separation negatives and dye transfer printing)). A further factor affecting perspective is the use of a relatively long lens. If you have a camera which can use an old lens (such as a view camera, or Leica, or indeed any camera which can accept a focusing bellows to which you can fit a lens of 135mm or so), this would be worth a try.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>The lens I mean is one like this:<br>

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LENS-ZEISS-JENA-TESSAR-4-5-135mm-/120814008661?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item1c21137955<br>

This particular example has a non-working shutter, which would not matter on a 35mm/digital camera since you would leave the lens shutter open and take pictures with the camera shutter.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Olivia, a lot can be done to imitate some of the components of that look using Photoshop, but it will likely take a lot of tweaking to get it right. If your level of knowledge / experience in PS is limited, it will likely be much easier (and much more consistent) for you to emulate the look using lighting, camera hardware, films, and film processing appropriate to that vintage. </p>

<p>If you want to pursue a more post-processing approach, why don't you post an (appropriate) image of yours that you would like to modify to have "that look".</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[marlon]

<p>The lighting's not too complicated - it looks like it could be done with two lights... one reflector behind to camera left for the rim, and then probably a pan reflector or two for the main. </p>

<p>As for the tone, they're trying to capture old vintage film tones... I would do it in Photoshop, and it's probably mostly curves. There isn't a lot of contrast here, look at the lack construction paper, and the top of her stalking - so I would raise the black point by a bit. In the red channel I would boost reds right in the middle, and then a bit of yellow too to give it an orange cast. I would also make a new empty layer and select a big soft brush at a low opacity and put one orange dot in the middle (blend mode to linear dodge), which would give that aged spot - look how it fades the guys she's holding from left to right.<br>

There is also some dodging on her face, chest and arms. </p>

<p>That's how I see it being put together if you want to go the digital route. Good luck!</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I'm referring to the overall tone of the photo. The grainy, painterly, anti photo-realistic quality."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Olivia, if we deconstruct the photo and examine each of its elements;</p>

<ul>

<li>The shag carpet blends into the back wall with pretty bad technique but perfectly suited for the overall feel. They are also typical 60s colours.</li>

<li>The woman's face is distinctively smooth and wearing high contrast makeup without much detail of her hair. She also appears to be lit separately from the background. This might contribute to the flat appearance as if a cardboard cut out was pasted in.</li>

<li>Then of course the remaining elements are to support the 60s vintage appearance. </li>

</ul>

<p>I concur with Tom; it would be educational if we can start an exercise to replicate the look with an appropriate image of yours. </p>

 

[zack_zoll]

<p>As mentioned, older lenses do help. If you shoot Nikon, look into a Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 C (that's the older one) and a Hassy-to-Nikon adaptor.</p>

<p>David hit the nail on the head though. Lower contrast, less saturation, colour shift. This may have been shot with Ektar as well; larger-format film is making a small resurgance in the professional market. Which is convenient, since Kodak just killed 4x5 Ektar. This image doesn't appear to have been shot with film, but picking up a medium or large-format film camera, and shifting your negatives towards red, would give you what you're looking for with a minumum amount of post-processing.</p>

<p>I actually got back into film specifically because I didn't want to Photoshop all of my photos to get that vintage look. It seemed a lot easier to actually shoot them with the proper equipment than to make something into what it isn't.</p>

[leicaglow]

<blockquote>

<p>picking up a medium or large-format film camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was exactly what I was about to add. MF digital has a very different look, and I think in part because of the 16 bit color depth and larger pixel size. The warm case could also have been in part from the background color being used around the subject, besides what you see, but I wouldn't intend for this to be the method of getting this look. It is likely a shift in color temperature at the shoot (Broncolor's allow this), or in PS. If it was a major shoot (I don't know this magazine), the color may have been adjusted in camera and/or with lighting, to get it close. I would also imagine a good bit of PS was used to get smooth skin, brighter lips, and for that matter, even the shadows of the cut-outs.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>The way you achieve the look is to become a lighting wizard. As the photographer (Matthew Rolston) has said in interviews, the equipment is just a set of tools, contrary to what a lot of responses above appear to be telling you. He has been known for many years as a lighting wizard and he also shoots music videos. He is also a heavy user of computer editing tools.<br /> <br />So the question could be answered as follows:<br /> 1) Spend the next five years learning lighting, advanced Photoshop techniques, and posing (he talks about how he works with models in some interviews), or<br /> 2) Hire him to shoot for you.<br /> <br />There's no easy answer, and all the ones talking about cameras and lenses are going to send you down the wrong road. Unfortunately, it's the type of answer that's given here way too often instead of pointing out that it's not the equipment, it's the experience and use of that. Which is exactly what the photographer tells people in interviews.<br>

<br /> BTW, this originally ran in Vanity Fair as a fake magazine cover.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Spend the next five years learning lighting ...</em><br>

Eh? Make that five minutes! As an experienced studio shooter, I would agree with a previous poster in saying this looks like a fairly simple two-light set-up, but one which would give you screaming contrast which needs to be toned down in some way. The aim is to get a picture which looks AS IF it had been shot in 1945 with 2 focusing spotlights and an uncoated lens, and it would be utterly stupid not to mention this to a beginner, but of course you do not NEED to use antique equipment, although in view of the contrast range before manipulation color negative film might be a a better choice than digital capture. Telling the OP that other respondents are talking through their hats and then giving no really practical advice yourself is not very helpful, to say the least!</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I'd agree that it's quite a straightforward and obvious lighting set up, but think that there are more than two lights involved. At least three. Obviously a hard main light source from above and to the right, and some kind of gentle fill light from the left (which may just be a reflector). But there's also a "Hollywood" hair rim light from behind creating that halo in the hair. Plus at least one light illuminating the background.</p>

<p>I suspect that the background has been defocussed in Photoshop too, to emphasise her "cut out" feel, like a cut out pin up. She seems super sharp while the background quickly disappears into uniform blur that doesn't look just like normal in-lens shallow depth of field.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Make that five minutes!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even if it's just two lights, it takes most people a lot longer to learn how to set them up correctly for the look they want. It's not like someone can say "Use this many lights" and it's over. I have seen people come into the studio and spend twenty minutes just trying to figure out how to set up a c-stand.</p>

<p>And, as I said above, he does a lot of work with computer editing. Nobody is going to learn to do this photo from a couple simple instructions on the web.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Well there is at least three lights on the subject according to the major shadows, and possibly a fourth, plus one or two on the background. Incredibly well done.</p>

 

[mark_harrington1]

<p>I believe aside from the basic exposure, the picture has been manipulated in photoshop. It looks to me like a warming filter has been added to give the skin tone (PS->Image->Adustments->Photofilter) after this, apply a texture layer and play with the blending modes and apply some selective masking gradients.</p>

[m_b39]

<p>Beyond the [obvious] need to get the lighting, makeup, modeling, etc., correct, it isn't that difficult to achieve a vintage look in PS.<br>

In the Curves settings, play with the individual channels. You can also add a magenta solid layer, set to soft light and lower the opacity way down. </p>

<p>There are also endless actions you can download that will give you various vintage looks. Many tutorials:<br>

http://veerle-v2.duoh.com/blog/comments/photoshop_vintage_effect/</p>

<p>Like many creative things, it doesn't take a lifetime to get to 90%, but that last 10% (of quality) is only achieved by a few.</p>