So people keep saying how digital can be made to look like film as long as everything is correctly exposed.
Well I am ready to learn. Can someone teach me? For example how to make your digital photographs look like Kodachrome or Porta?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 542 Image Height 300 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:12:18 15:23:27 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 397
You can't. You've been memed, friendo.
![Alzheimers[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4uYi1kN.jpg "Alzheimers[1].jpg")
>2016
>knows film
>yet doesnt/cant google know LR presets
>>2747720
Vsco cam
/thread
>>2747720
>look like Kodachrome
>Koda
>chrome
please anon just let this film rest in paparazzi already
>>2747725
I can but they don't look like film.
Just shoot film if you want your pics to look like film senpai.
i wish i owned a Mamiya 7II ;_;
>>2747720
>So people keep saying how digital can be made to look like film as long as everything is correctly exposed.
Thats literally incorrect. Also pic related.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:12:31 19:02:00 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 700 Image Height 1046
>>2747827
no, it's correct. op said "like" film and we have plenty of presets dedicated to making digital look "like" film.
vsco, replichrome, probably some other sets
anyway, no one's going to look at your digital photo, go out, recreate the scene, shoot it in film, and compare.
they'd run out of steam after the first 200 photos, i'm sure.
>>2747827
lost
>>2747832
>anyway, no one's going to look at your digital photo, go out, recreate the scene, shoot it in film, and compare.
>they'd run out of steam after the first 200 photos, i'm sure.
what did you mean by this?
>>2747720
>For example how to make your digital photographs look like Kodachrome
Well, if you want to be an artist about it, look at the kodachrome (or Portra) photos that you like, and look at how each color and tone in them is rendered. Then, approach your digital work in the same way, from lighting/setup/content to capture. (For Kodachrome, you'll want to under expose quite a bit, and for Portra, you'll want to expose normally while preserving highlights)
Then, you'll take it into processing in photoshop, and start working with your individual color channels. For Kodachrome emulation, it's helpful to work in LAB mode so that you can adjust colors without messing with the lightness of the image, and vice versa. For kodachrome look, you'd want to bring up the highlights in the image quite dramatically, while leaving the mids a bit under exposed, and let the darks fall to high contrast. Then you'd work on de-saturating most of your colors quite a bit, except for the ones you're looking to accentuate to match the look you're going for.
etc.
Or you could just https://x-equals.com/blog/in-memoriam-kodachrome-1935-2010/
Most people can't emulate film because most people don't know how to edit their photos beyond contrast and saturation. Learning the tools available to you is massively important if you're going to be trying to achieve a specific and difficult look, and most people don't have the patience or interest required to do that.
>>2747864
Film does almost all of the heavy lifting for you. You pick the look by picking the film, and then once you put it in your camera, you get one look out of it. It's sort of like a preset in that way. You get a nice look, but you sacrifice flexibility in order to get it. The benefit of switching to digital is that you can take the photo, and later on, get any look you want, assuming you exposed correctly. One "film" with all of the looks you can come up with. The problem is, you lose your simple easy "look" that you were getting before, and now you're required to actually know what you're doing, and take control over your image. Digital gets a bad rap for looking "digital" because most of the people shooting it hadn't taken the time to learn to process their images, and because there are a ton of "purists" out there who think that processing a photo heavily is somehow a bad thing (when it is, in fact, necessary to lose the "digital, fake, soullless" look that those same people complain about).
>>2747861
i mean that looking "like" film is good enough and being an exact perfect recreation of film is pointless, even though the latter is often the point of contention when it comes to vsco, digital, etc
>>2747866
im pretty sure your pictures look like shit.
>>2747864
>Or you could just https://x-equals.com/blog/in-memoriam-kodachrome-1935-2010/
have you tried it?
>>2747876
>have you tried it?
No, because I do it the first way, if and when I'm trying to replicate kodachrome (which I don't do, because I don't like the look of kodachrome, and find that trying to emulate the look of any specific film stock is a waste of my time personally) I'd rather take a photo and work forward to make it look good, rather than working backward trying to make a photo look like some other thing.
>>2747878
you could back up your claims with photos. show one of your well processed, digital photos.
Get the DXO film pack and pick your analog film style
>>2747880
Do you take issue with anything that's been said? What in those posts was an opinion that required backing up? What is your motivation for challenging it? Are you of the impression that there has never once been a digital photo that has looked good? Or does the idea that digital processing requires understanding and practice offend you in some way that you can't accept the obvious?
rather than aping film and painstakingly going after koda/ektachrome tones you should steal the aesthetics of film and what you like about it
digital is great cause you can do literally anything from little touch ups to obnoxious HDR puke. recreating something physical with digital means seems like a horrid waste of time.
>>2747882
i say your words mean shit with no proof.
>>2747908
Again, I'm not really sure of what you're looking for proof of. That people need to edit their digital photos? Or that many people don't learn the extent of the tools that available to them? Which part seems suspicious to you?
>>2747720
>Well I am ready to learn. Can someone teach me?
Read Dan Margulis book on Photoshop color correction. It's not a guide on how you make a D5100 raw look like Kodachrome 25; it does not includes any presets; but it will teach on how to deal with color well enough that it will look like anything you want.
>For example how to make your digital photographs look like Kodachrome or Porta?
If you want a easier way, use presets, but I've never seen a preset that make it looks like the real deal.
One thing that is usually neglected on mimicking portra is that it can take much more light than any digital sensor, and it will look pale soft and nice. This can be mimicked to a certain extent by lighting the shadows and mid, but in critical scenarios (contrejour etc) it won't look good.
Similar point could be made about velvia: that its deep colors sit too far deep that a monitor can't reproduce, so you don't get to see what you're doing; also, on the output, you won't find a media (be paper or something else) nor a printer that can reproduce the tones correctly.
>>2747827
holy crap, what a freak. why everything has to be a fucking statement? I only use VSCO for my workflow cause I fucking like it, and that's it. Oh well, I also use it elegantly, of course, (like in, I don't use it like a fadott) that might be it.
>>2747904
>and what you like about it
I find it hard to point my finger on it. The way it handles light. Just kinda looks painterly.
It's especially obvious to me when it comes to night photography with lights. You might say that digital is superior because of better high ISO but I tried doing some night photography and I just can't get the lights right.
Like if I take a picture of a colored light. With film the color is saturated and the core is in the color of the light. With digital the border is in a light and desaturated color of the light while the core is white. If I try to expose for the light then everything else becomes pitch black and only the core of the light is visible and the border is not. The brighter I make the exposure the more desaturated the light becomes. What do? Take multiple exposures and combine into HDR?
>>2747864
>most people don't know how to edit their photos beyond contrast and saturation
I edit the lights and play with the color sliders but I don't know how to edit properly. How can I learn it? I think the people that edit movies do a good job at it. Some movies look pretty close to film. Do the people that work in the industry publish tutorials? Can the same skills even be used on digital cameras? Professional motion picture cameras have better sensors with more dynamic range or not?
>>2747981
>How can I learn it?
Unfortunately, there's no quick and easy thing to learn. You have to train your eye to know what scenes work well with what styles, and shoot with intent to edit. Then, you have to understand all the tools available to you for changing colors and exposure (Different color modes, channels, curves, hue/saturation adjustments, masking, etc) and apply a different approach to each photo to get where you want to go.
For learning your tools, you can check out Lynda.com, which has some of the most comprehensive tutorial collections in existence.
For learning where to apply what, you're going to have a harder time, but the best way is to just sit and actually look at what you're seeing in the images you're liking. See what the light is doing to the image. See what colors exist in the image, and see how the processing is supporting that scene. Notice what the shadows are doing, notice what level the midtones are at (for instance, in Kodachrome, a lot of the time, midtones are dim, and look under-exposed) and how the highlights are being handled. Then, you can shoot your photos in similar light, and using the tools at your disposal, adjust your tones and colors to your taste.
>>2747990
cont
Also, there are other aspects of film that help it to look like it has "soul". For instance, film is usually a lot less sharp and detailed than a digital shot. There is also usually a lot less tonal variance. If you look at older portraits shot on nice film, you'll notice very uniform skin tones, and a bit of a glow to the skin. On digital, you're getting tons of accurate-to-life color, so all the true skin color variance comes through (when you don't want it to) so you have to go in and unify skin tones in digital where you wouldn't have to on film, etc. There are lots of ways to do that. You can select a pleasant skin tone, and overlay the color over the skin and blend it in, or you can select the "bad" skin tones and use hue/saturation to push them into the "good" zone, etc.
>>2747827
Lel
>>2747730
So un-digital I googled it
Got me good. Fuck
>>2747964
Original photo doesn't say VSCO bud
DxO FIlmpack > Alien Skin's Exposure film simulation > VSCO
