Having some trouble in finding the right way of doing this type of processing, there is the last step that I dont get. There is a lot of contrast but also that greyish black and color which I dont know how to do ...
Can i do it only in Photoshop or it is possible via Lightroom?
Marcus, totally agreed with you, I have a lot of self made presets, i`m toward the crisp colors and sharp photos, but learning different processing techniques, help me a lot
Try messing around with tone curves. Channel RGB, move the bottom point up. Then go to Channel Blue. Drag the bottom point to the right. It'll create that low contrast and warm look in the shadows.
Or try split toning. Set Shadow's hue to a yellow.
Looks like digital processed to look like poorly exposed and muddy film scanned by a non-pro lab. Easy to replicate. VSCO makes it easy or you can pull in your black and white points as Joel mentioned then tweak individual color channels to taste.
Yup, does look like underexposed film pulled up and printed on good quality paper. I ran a lab for two years, saw many like it and am at a loss to understand why anyone in their right mind would want that look, but then I don't get Lomo cameras either so no doubt my character is at fault
Marcus Watts wrote:
The processing sucks and will make you look like the conga line of photographers doing exactly the same thing.
But if looking like everyone else is not an issue i believe you can do it in lightroom. I think many use the vsco presets.
I like that image a lot.
Now repeat after me - you're all individuals.
it seems lately that everyone is so concerned with the processing of images that many are forgetting the "substance" of their images. back in photojournalism college most of us shot the same film and rated it at box speed. our images all " looked" the same with minor variances due to exposure, dev time...but overall it was the same. what we needed to do and learned to do was to anticipate moments and differentiate our work from others by what we captured. the substance in the image.
gabemc wrote:
it seems lately that everyone is so concerned with the processing of images that many are forgetting the "substance" of their images. back in photojournalism college most of us shot the same film and rated it at box speed. our images all " looked" the same with minor variances due to exposure, dev time...but overall it was the same. what we needed to do and learned to do was to anticipate moments and differentiate our work from others by what we captured. the substance in the image.
I agree, I think technique is what also separates some photographers from others. Some can make several totally different images in one lighting situation simply by changing up exposure and manipulating the light.
The flip side to that is many just point and shoot and think they are anticipating moments when in fact they are simply recording moments repeated on every wedding in the exact same way they and many others do. Basically being little more than uncle bobs except with the experience of routine.
It is often these guys who rely on over used processing techniques in the hope of adding something extra. Covering up for work that is essentially repeated on 90% of sites and blogs everywhere. In such cases the processing compounds the problem.
I do think this particular style will go out of fashion and when it does unlike selective color that was used on an image or two couples will cringe to see their entire albums processed that way.
Being a copy cat can actually be of some help when learning. I've always said the best way to learn lighting is to copy your favorite tear sheets from magazines. Copying post techniques is a great way to learn. Once you learn how it's done, you can put your own vision into it....after all rules are meant for bending and breaking.
That said, as a film shooter myself, the above image looks flat and lifeless to me. All images that originate on digital look flat and lifeless to me. Especially those with a VSCO or any other attempt at making a digital image look like film. But since 99% of images end up small and compressed on a blog I guess it doesn't really matter
sethphoto wrote:
Thank you guys, i'm not trying to be a copy cat, just want to learn more
