>>2768045
shoot like sub f/5.6, miss focus a tad so everything's a bit softer, apply vsco. if you do not have vsco, the general tech for something like this is

crushed and lifted blacks, lowered whites, lowered clarity slider to idk -5, split tone in magenta or purple to shadows, cyan to highlights, toy with the rgb sliders in camera calibration for false-colour that film has

>>2768046
thanks for the info anon, i appriciate it.
i have one more question, i just saw this pic and came right in here and i do not have any knowledge of photography.

you're saying that i should shoot this like sub f/5.6 and apply vsco and that's pretty much it?

is there any way to do shots like this digitally? (like in a cheaper way, smartphones more like)

what do you mean by "miss focus a tad"?

>>2768053
yeah vsco is for editing digital photos

last i saw smartphones don't have controllable apertures, you'll need a camera with an interchangeable lens

i mean get it in focus, and then turn the lens a bit so it's focused closer or farther than the subject. could just apply a blur to the whole thing in post though, that might be the better option.

>>2768055
thank you very much anon, i hope to take pictures like these sometime

>>2768056
it's shit though.

>>2768045
Get a very poorly exposed frame of velvia scanned by a potato.

>>2768045
I like her better naked.

>>2768222
oh boy, I expected a slim wild cat based on the picture.. those jugs

why does everyone use vsco

>>2768971
Because actually learning to edit your digital photos is difficult, and takes time and planning, and who has time for any of that?

Also, it can be a very good starting point in the direction of an edit that you want to go.

>>2768975
cool, i hadn't gotten into post yet, i'll start with vsco then

oh yulia..

she's pretty.

>>2768045
get an old lomogrpahy type camera and find someone on the street

now I wanna look at big saggy titties

thanks OP

File: 20.jpg (86 KB, 500x500) Image search: [Google]

86 KB, 500x500

This photo was taken using a Holga. I wonder what kind of film was used? Any ideas?

the photo was taken by Matt Callow

>>2768971
right now people think its cool fo your photos to look grungy and "vintagey"

>>2769837
>Right now, people think it looks good to actually process your photos at all, rather than shooting raw to brag about your dynamic range and then doing nothing but changing your white balance, and while most people don't feel like learning color theory, visual communication, or emotional conveyance, everyone can click down a list of filters to find one they like.
FTFY

You let the meter handle the exposure without thinking, and let it meter neither for the sky or the subject. So you end up with blownout skies and underexposed everything else.