How do I achieve this look? I mean those pastel like soft colors. I remember somebody mentioning that he usually shoots Porta on a MF and overexposes it by 1 stop or so, but what exactly can be/is done in terms of PP to achieve those results?
https://www.instagram.com/_nguan_/ for more examples
Another example
Okay found this in an interview
>I use Kodak Portra 400NC. After the film is processed I scan the negatives to my computer, but I don't have any special postproduction techniques.
So the question remains how to at least somewhat emulate those in LR or PS?
The real question is is this man a pedophile?
>>2828764
>So the question remains how to at least somewhat emulate those in LR or PS?
apply portra 400nc vsco filter
>>2828761
Just observe the picture...
Low contrast, high vibrancy, low saturation
Why is it you kids need a step by step guide to any sort of PP, just learn to use your fucking eyes.
>>2828772
this
honestly no one is going to give you every value for four dozen plus sliders and how to move 4 curves.
the best route is you find a similar picture and crack away at it; or get the free vsco preset and eyeball the adjustments
the best way to create your own style is to steal other's, I suggest downloading Google's Nik Collection (free!), use Color Efex to simulate Portra 400 NC, lower contrast, desaturate and just play with it, maybe change film simulations if you dont like it
I thought he uses Fuji Pro 400 2 stops overexposed with a MF camera. Although Portra 400 should work as well. I'm going to try it on my tlr when we start getting summer weather up here.
>>2828776
how exactly do I simulate Porta 400NC with color efex? It doesn't seem to have those presets
>>2828820
its under film efex:modern inside a drop down menu
>>2828835
thanks anon. Here's a first attempt with Nik presets and playing around in LR
Also
WU
U
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-E1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 42 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:01 14:31:44 Exposure Time 1/150 sec F-Number f/1.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/1.0 Brightness 2.8 EV Exposure Bias 1.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 28.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Soft Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2828844
Doesn't look quite right
also
I live 2 mins away from you
best I can do sorry
>>2828853
hmm any pointers on what I should improve on? (other than actually shooting MF and Porta)
I'm actually in 1060, but I love that area for shooting architecture
Shoot portra. Over-expose.
Or you know, use lightroom? Shit's easy.
>>2828761
nguan is my man. you cucks are light years behind. dont even try.
>>2829007
>Or you know, use lightroom? Shit's easy.
Apparently I suck at LR then. Everyone on 4chan tells me my post work sucks.
But, you know, I don't listen to people on 4chan. You guys are all faggots with no actual helpful critique or advice.
>>2828765
He's Asian, so probably.
Try Google.
https://filtergrade.com/natural-pastel-photo-effect-in-photoshop/
>>2828765
in Singapore, young men taking photos of kids or young girls aren't considered a paedophilic activity. nobody ever thought of that because as long as you dont touch them or go close and interac. Singaporean children are smart enough to detect a paedophile.
usually upskirt pervs will get reported.
>>2829074
Oh jeez. Don't get so butthurt. Here, I just played with a few shots in LR to match the look of the photos you posted.
Temperature + (warmer)
Exposure +
Blacks +
Saturation -
Vibrance +
That should give you a good starting point. Taking the saturation down and raising vibrance seems to have made the most difference as far as getting the pastel colors.
Good luck. Faggot.
>>2829074
>the attitude of a great artist.
>>2829090
You're mistaking me for OP, but I'm not OP. Just a guy tired of seeing /p/haggots saying everything is garbage to everyone and thinking that's valid "critique" and "helpful."
>>2829099
To be fair, pretty much everything on this site is garbage. And just because all you are able to produce is garbage, doesn't mean you're not able to identify garbage.
I'm sure if you started a post processing thread specifically asking for help and advice, you'd get it.
>>2829103
It's not that everyone calls everyone else's work garbage...tell them WHY it's garbage.
Just saying "garbage" is not helpful or valid.
>>2829106
Many times, a photo doesn't deserve the critique you're asking for. Critique from a great artist can take work from 80% to 100%
Critique from your buddy can take work from 80% to 90%
Work that's just a pile of dog shit doesn't deserve a bunch of people telling you how to improve. If you're not doing the things everyone needs to do to produce something good (Stop and think, self edit, have a motive, compose, clean up the frame and image, etc) then why would anyone else bother trying to help you?
As mentioned increase the vibrance and decrease the saturation.
Another key adjustment is create a low-contrast curves layer and set it to "Luminosity"
Also use luminosity-masked highlights/shadow curves to set the white/black points and add color to each channel's midtones as needed
I'd like to see someone properly replicate what OP wants because nobody has done it yet and everyone is just giving a couple of instructions like lowering contrast and increasing the vibrance.
>>2829474
>nobody has done it
more like nobody wants to do it but op
>>2829108
fuck youre an asshole
>>2829640
He's an asshole who is 100% correct though. There really is a quality threshold that needs to be met before critique is helpful.
>>2829474
How about the OP takes one of their shots, uses the advice given, and post results?
>>2829474
Here's something, I tried going for the pastel-y low contrast washed out thing
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D810 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 922 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5197 Image Height 4158 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:01 18:17:53 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 1.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2829835
he did
Non-photographer here so pardon the dumb question but...
Does anyone know the name of that pose that female celebrities use to appear thinner or create a slimmer silhouette?
>>2829832
And what he means by "quality"
is the implied effort someone puts into making the art work
If there is no obvious effort an artist invests into a work of art, how can it be appreciated beyond what the artist expects?
>>2829906
That's great for art school, but in practice, you're wrong. It's very obvious when someone hasn't put thought or effort into a photo.
>>2829902
stand 170 degrees, one leg straight, leg forward
>>2829908
Word!
>>2828764
Does Portra really look this good?
>>2830199
Depends on how you expose/scan it
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Plustek Camera Model OpticFilm 8200i Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.5 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:07:08 23:03:57
>>2830200
depends more on what you're taking pictures of and what light you have for it
>>2828764
You don't replicate this style of photo in LR
YOU SHOOT FILM
Well will digicucks learn? If you want your photos to look like film so bad then just shoot the real thing
>>2830488
>You don't replicate this style of photo in LR
Why not? What about that image is unacheavable with digital? be specific. Go in and circle the areas of the image that a digital camera wouldn't be able to produce, or that post processing wouldn't be able to replicate.
>>2830500
1) Film has a better dynamic range, it controls highlights better
2) Film naturally blends light and colour better
3) Film has aesthetically pleasing grain that cannot be replicated by digital means
4) You cannot replcate the colour range and casts achieved by film in digitial - Each pixel has a given colour channel, the colour combinations in digital and therefore somewhat limited. In film, because its a chemical process, the colour range is practically unlimited
>>2830500
>Go in and circle the areas of the image that a digital camera wouldn't be able to produce, or that post processing wouldn't be able to replicate.
>digicuck needing someone else to do everything for him
yet again. just wow.
>>2830488
OP here, I do shoot film but only 35mm. But that was more a question of whether the look is achievable in Post.
Gonna go on a trip tomorrow and have some Porta with me so I'll see what I can do
>>2830504
That was probably shot on Portra NC
Do they even make that anymore? I know I can't get any
>>2830501
This is all theoretically true, but in practice (particularly in that photo) meaningless. The range and colors in that image are not anywhere near the extremes.
Since you're unable to be specific, I'll assume that you're just spouting rhetoric you say on Luminous Landscape in 2008, rather than actually being able to speak intelligently about it.
>>2830502
Yeah, no, I didn't think so.
I pose this challenge often, but never get any takers, so here it is again:
Set up a film camera and a modern digital camera side by side. Take a shot on Portra, and then take a well exposed photo of the same scene in the same light, and post them. I'll turn the digital shot into an exact match of the portra shot in 20 minutes.
>>2830505
hmm doesn't seem so. I got some Porta 160 with me so let's see
>>2830509
You can wallow in denial all you want, but the fact is, what I said applies to every photo, not just the one in question.
So go ahead, be a baby, it wont get you closer to replicating film, digicuck
>>2830517
>Set up a film camera and a modern digital camera side by side. Take a shot on Portra, and then take a well exposed photo of the same scene in the same light, and post them. I'll turn the digital shot into an exact match of the portra shot in 20 minutes.
>>2830516
The different emulsions of Portra 160 aren't huge variations by any means. A change in light or scene and scanning parameters will have a LOT more influence over whether it looks like that than the film used.
>>2830518
>digicuck
>>2830523
Yeah, I don't like to waste my money or my time masturbating over the substrate my photos were captured on. I prefer to worry about the photos themselves.
Using film in 2016 is like trying to knock down a wall, and picking a small framing hammer over a sledge merely because you think the handle looks prettier.
>>2830525
>said the digicuck who buys a lens for £1000
I could take a picture of a turd in the road, and because it was shot on film, it would look good
Digital is good for weddings and sporting events where there is a large image demand
If you actually care about how your photos look, then film is a no brainer
digicuck
>>2830531
>I could take a picture of a turd in the road, and because it was shot on film, it would look good
My favorite part of this board is that film fags are so consistently retarded that this might actually NOT be a troll. That level of obviousness, and still, chances are very good that this is a heart-felt statement.
>>2830533
We could go on forever, so I'll conclude
I am yet to see a convincing digital replica of a film captured image, I have never in my entire life
Deal with it
>>2830535
>>Set up a film camera and a modern digital camera side by side. Take a shot on Portra, and then take a well exposed photo of the same scene in the same light, and post them. I'll turn the digital shot into an exact match of the portra shot in 20 minutes.
>>2830537
I would, but as I said before in an earlier post, I sold my a6000 because I realised film was better
>>2830540
I would do it myself, but I sold all my film kit in 2010 when I realized my D700 was better.
>>2830525
>Using film in 2016 is like trying to knock down a wall, and picking a small framing hammer over a sledge merely because you think the handle looks prettier.
chill man, different people like different things. I like the more hands on and diy craft approach of film, but I don't shit on people who have a different use for photography
>>2830553
That's great. A super valid reason for sticking to film! Genuinely!
The only time film users get jumped on is when they try to attack digital users with bullshit they don't understand.
Like those "motor heads" in high school who say that their dream car (a 1970 Camaro) could smoke any modern car on the streets with pure horsepower.
Like, no, dude, your dream car is cool, and there's nothing wrong with liking it, but all you're doing right now is expressing that you don't understand basic concepts of the genre.
Film looks better than unprocessed digital. Film looks better than poorly processed digital. Agreed. Therefore, film is easier (in that one regard, without taking anything else into account) but just because a few people don't know how to use a digital camera doesn't mean they're right when they say that it's impossible to reproduce the look of film with a digital file.
>>2830555
>not understanding film needs to be processed more than digital to get its "look"
>>2830558
Depends on your definition of "more".
It's a lot more work to do C41 processing, but there's no room for creativity. You just do the steps, and it comes out.
If you're talking about post processing in a scan, or in print, it's at worst, the same amount of work, and at best, it's like starting with a preset that handles color shifting and tonal contrast for you.
>>2830555
Except this question comes up frequently when nguans work is discussed and no one has been able to replicate this look from a digital file. I have tried many times and have not been able to. Many shit posters such as yourself have said they can do it and yet no one has.
So unless you're going to provide the file to prove it, just shut the fuck up already.
>>2830563
>Set up a film camera and a modern digital camera side by side. Take a shot on Portra, and then take a well exposed photo of the same scene in the same light, and post them. I'll turn the digital shot into an exact match of the portra shot in 20 minutes.
Were there any digital cameras set up next to his film camera while the shots were being taken?
Chances are very good that what you're missing is the light, and the scene, and not the processing.
>>2830564
I know this is the most important element, but at the point where there is consistent color/tones through much of his work it is not necessary to have a digital camera at the exact same spot to replicate the style. That is, if digital can replicate any film photo as you say. I've tried with many lighting scenarios, the only hint i get is that overexposing by a bit seems to be key but will only get you so far.
Again, if it's so feasible, someone should be able to do it. Yet, as far as I can see, no one has. I'm not saying I'm the one to do it since I'm no PP guru, but for all the shitposting on this topic if someone could do it they should just prove it already. Otherwise we have nyuan doing it on film and no evidence it can be readily done with digital.
>>2830574 here, my most recent attempt, for what it's worth
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X100S Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4535 Image Height 2989 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:02 20:53:45 Exposure Time 1/500 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 2000 Lens Aperture f/11.0 Brightness 9.3 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Average Light Source Shade Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4451 Image Height 2989 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2830574
Just because he does it consistently doesn't mean you can match it automatically. He's chosen his scenes carefully. He's chosen the light, the shadow, the makeup of the colors in the frame, etc.
If you go to an amazing steak-house and get a great steak every single time, but can't replicate it at home, it doesn't mean that they have a better oven than you do, it means they're consistently getting much better cuts of meat from a better source than you, aging the meat in a much better way than you, etc.
David Bellemere produces very consistent results, but that doesn't mean that you can just replicate it with whatever scene you want.
Artists work in a certain style of light and a certain eye for specific types of scenes that produce consistent looks.
Post a photo taken with the exact same lighting style (very very soft non-directional lighting with lots of filled in shadows) and same color scheme in it (lots of pastel style colors, and omitting bright "normal" colors) and I'll walk you through turning your photo into the OP.
Notice that even in the OP, the orange bottles right above her head are standing out as being more bright than anything else in the image. This is telling you that it's not the film turning the scene pastel, it's the scene BEING pastel, which you won't be able to emulate well. If your images has bright colors that don't fit the look, they're going to stand out as wrong, much like they do in his own work.
>>2830577
This has hard directional light, and no pastel colors. You've done well matching the contrast ratio, which is a big step, but you're missing the colors because the scene is missing the colors. There's nothing you can do in post to correct for that.
>>2830578
This
Many people look at the work of long time "masters" and see that they use film, and attribute the looks of their work to that film, when in reality, they would produce the same consistent looks with digital as well. The looks of the photographers you like don't come from the camera in their hands, they come from what they point that camera at.
So many of us have bought a piece of equipment because we saw it in the hands of one of our idols and thought it would help us to get photos like theirs, but many fewer of us realize after the failure that it's not any of the gear, but the scene.
If you expose a shot of Portra correctly, and next to it, expose a shot on digital, of the same scene at the same time, they will look very VERY similar. Grain may be nice on paper, but in general, you're not seeing grain in the final image at viewing distances. (And grain can absolutely be added in post, and while no, if you do the math on the grain, film grain will be more analogue and random, and digital grain will be less so, but when you're looking at a photo, that doesn't matter at ALL) High dynamic range may be great on paper, but in the real world, scenes that look nice don't generally have a range of 16 stops, and if they do, it's in minor highlights and reflections that blow out all the way on both film and on digital.
A preset will never turn a dim photo taken in bad light of your couch in the basement into the look of a beautiful photo of a model in great light with good styling shot on Portra not because of the Portra, but because of the scene, and the light.
>>2830579
>>2830578
I do agree, and you can tell from his photos that the colors and lighting are chosen very specifically. And i definitely dont have the same scenes he does. There are a few photos where the effect is obvious and very appealing though, there is one of a black girl at a beach and the water and sky take on this unreal purplish pastel tone, it's really beautiful. In others his whites turn to this light grey/blue almost.
Fwiw I don't think it's just regular portra 400 too. I suspect there is at least some overexposing, maybe pulling.
Just have to keep trying I suppose.
>>2830584
Post those photos, and the photos you've taken in the same conditions and we'll work from there.
If you have two sandwiches in front of you, that are exactly the same, except one has a ketchup/Mayo sauce on it, and the other doesn't, we can work to match the sauce, and match the sandwich.
If you're looking at a sandwich with ketchup/mayo sauce on it, and trying to find a way to make your salad taste the same by adding the same sauce, it's not going to work, even if you get the sauce mix perfectly correct.
>>2830525
>knock down wall with sledgehammer
>it destroys too much and cannot be recovered at all
>knock wall down with small framing hammer
>make accurate well placed taps and never blow my highlights
wait, what were we talking about again?
>>2830716
>Use a hammer poorly and screw it up because you don't know how to control your equipment
>Take too much time doing something that won't let you fuck it up because you can't be trusted to do it right.
You buy a car that can only go 65mph so that you never get a speeding ticket?
>>2830733
Learn English. Thanks.
>because you don't know how to control your equipment
That has nothing to do about the incredibly limited DR that digital has compared to film.
>>2830758
14 stops and the ability to easily and quickly do an HDR bracket make that difference more or less meaningless in practice.
Also, some of the most popular films out there have about 10 stops of DR, and it doesn't prevent people from taking good photos with it.
For every time you can bring up dynamic range, someone with a digital camera can reply with "High ISO capabilities" and point out that the number of photos taken at ISO 1600 dramatically outstrip the number of photos taken where there is meaningful detail across more than 14 stops of dynamic range that can't be captured in a bracket.
>>2830758
limited DR... It's like you film faggots have to justify the crutch you are working with even if it involves making up absurd shit that hasn't been true since all sane people moved away from plastic P&S with .5 inch screens
I really like Portra 400. I made a preset that I use, but I'm not too sure about it.
>Curves
R - Increase slightly in mids
B - S-curve
G - Inverse S-curve
RGB - Bring up mids - very slight inverse S-curve
>Higher vibrance
>Lower saturation
>>2830488
lol get good at post processing
>>2829841
sup av
>>2831758
u wot m8?
