james_mixon

I wouldn't want to try to judge graininess from images on thhe web. But I think you're right about the lack of sharpness - I don't know how the filmmaker would do this; perhaps it's an artifact of how someone got some images onto the internet. But I did roughly imitate the (lack of) sharpness by using a small amount of Gaussian blur on a test image.

 

Earlier I suggested to flatten off the top of a "curve" but after playing a bit I think it's better to just lower the top of the curve. Per some of the film examples found in your search, you might want to limit the brightest areas to pixel <190 (or about 75%). After this, midtones seem too dark, so you could use "curves" to boost that midtone contrast back in. This lets the shadow areas get sort of murky, plus it flattens out the skin highlights, much like in the internet examples.

 

After drastically lowering the color saturation, and maybe pushing a bit of cold tones into the skin highlights, this might get you fairly close.

Thank you! Yeah, I have a copy of the movie, so I can definitely say there's some lack of sharpness in certain scenes, but others have a lot -- I think it depends on what lens he was using to be honest.

I'll give this stuff a shot when I get home!

Hi, I just took a look at the first few images, in particular the first - a monochrome movie poster. In the world of prints, it looks like the paper was "fogged," so that it doesn't have any clean whites. Or you could think of it as paper that has gotten stained - it's got a dingy white, at best.

 

I've barely ever used Lightroom, but I think it has a function called tone curves, or something to that effect. If you were to go to that set of curves then click in a handful of adjustment points near the top, you should probably be able to keep most of the curve the same but limit the highest part (white) to perhaps 90% or so - you just want to cut it off flat; whatever satisfies you.

 

The color images have something of the same characteristic, but in the lighter skin tones a lot of them have what we would call "cold" highlights. "Cold" is in the artist's sense, meaning a sort of bluish or cyan cast. When you use the curves to limit maximum whiteness, you probably have an option to do this separately for each of red, green, and blue. To get this "coldness," try lowering the top of the red curve a bit more, and perhaps raise the green a little.

 

The other big thing is that they used low color saturation, so try the same thing in Lightroom. I haven't actually done these, so it's just an educated guess at this point.

 

I've got to say that I don't care much for this type of look - to me it says "bad processing" or "poor storage conditions," or just lousy color materials. Prior to about the 1980s a lot of color papers had really poor image stability (color fading) and tended to pick up a yellowish "base stain;" they were not like this originally, but after some years of storage this is what they turned into. So I would guess this is the look the filmmakers were after. If you're looking for plug-ins, try looking for "old print effects," and the like. Best of luck.

Ah, that's a great start. I'm going to give this a shot.

Do you think it's grainy? Something about it seems...less "sharp" than digital images?

buffalo 66 - Google Search

Absolutely love how this was shot. I found out it was shot on

35mm 5239 (160 ASA daylight) normally processed Ektachrome

I'm having a hard time putting my finger on the look, and was wondering if anyone could help me out on how to get something similar in LR, or is there a preset out there that could get me half way or something?

My pocketable digi P&S of choice is the Sony RX100 m5 but it is pricey. I think the Mark 3 version is around $600-700.

Is the flash powerful or can you manually adjust the f-stop independently or is the flash just auto? I like overexposing slightly with my flash.

fuji x30

 

X-Transformed? Fujifilm X30 Review

I'll check it out!

I've been doing a lot of portraits lately with my 5D and an on camera flash, but it's far from portable and I'd love a point and shoot, digital, that can accomplish the same sort of thing, shoot raw, and be portable. There's so many film camera alternatives, but I'm looking for something digital.

The closest I could find is the x100s from Fujifilm, but the lens is a little too wide for my tastes, as I shoot a lot of people. I'd prefer something around 40mm (full frame on my 5D) that's not going to distort too hard when shooting a person relatively close. I'm having a hard time finding something, can anyone give me some suggestions, preferably around or less than 600$?

Brooks,

Yeah. Usually the big light would be more of a 10k, but that requires a big budget. The basic idea though that I like to work with on film is a big soft source, and like you said, sometimes the more diff the better.

I'd love not to buy gear off eBay, but I also don't have much money. If you know a better source for what I need that's cheap or cheap and used or whatever I'm open to suggestions, but I'm a starving artist to put it mildly.

Yeah, he now says he's using a Norman or Dynalite 2000 ws light in a 4x6 softbox and a white card reflector at their feet. Seams simple enough.

If I was going to use hot lights I was going to put them through silk or muslin or something. A great technique we do on film is a 2k or higher through a muslin just off frame from the actor. Really nice light.

I've found some Norman LH2000s on eBay for pretty cheap. Any reason not to pick one of them up if its working?

Brooks,

You think that type of lighting on the picture I posted was strobed? From the pics to me it looked like hot lights in a softbox.

Thanks for all the help guys!

I contacted Craig, the photographer in the link above, and he said the basic setup is a large soft box above the model, a reflector below, but wouldn't go into much more detail than that because he wants me to sign up for his website and pay 20 bucks for the online tutorial----which I might or might not do.

Would you suggest mixing continuous and strobe or just go full strobe? The idea of the shot is I want everyone to be standing under the same light so the only real difference is the model. I don't want say a more muscular man to look a lot different than a skinny guy, so I want sort of omnidirectional light that won't get shadowed too differently by different models.

I am going to be taking a series of full body nudes with many different subjects of different heights, weight,

skin tone. I want a very neutral setup that has a simple ratio 1:1 with no distinct shadows or highlights on the

person, but perhaps a simple falloff on the sides of the body. Something like this lighting wise: *NWS*

http://www.moreystudio.com/Public%20Site/Pub%20Images/GalleryImages/StudioNudes2/StudioNudes2_frames/index.html

The lighting is basically what I want, and from his behind the scenes photos it looks like he has a large softbox

overhead and a reflector below pointing at the subject. I couldn't see any lights on the backdrop. I would

probably also be using a white backdrop.

I have never lit in a studio environment, and all my lighting experience is from movies, which is different. I am

thinking a large constant source softbox above and a reflector below would work, but will this get me an

illuminated background? Will I need a spot or a flood on the background?

I will be shooting medium format, and I would like to use the smallest apature possible. I assume I will need at

least 1,000 watts if continuous. Thank you so much for help!

Thanks, guys.

I have a question about loading the film into these scanners.

I saw some scanners, like the Epson 3590, have auto film loaders which seem really handy so I don't have to scan individual frames. Does the 4490 do this as well, it appares to not, or do I have to setup each individual frame one at a time. If so, does this mean I have to cut each frame out of the roll, or does the scanner have extra room for the rest of the film to fit so to speak.

I've got about 225 bucks from graduation presents this year, and I'm looking

into a photo scanner. Would you suggest buying a negative scanner as I don't

have enough money to get prints done lately with all the film I shoot? or is

there a scanner that's a combination flatbed/neg scanner?

As you can tell I know nothing about this subject, so if anyone could give me a

101 that'd be great!