Vintage Look/Style

Good lord, so now we are back to using Photoshop to emulate film?:angel:

IMO, if you cannot get the shot pretty much right the first time and need to spend a lot of PP work to get what you want, then, maybe your approach is wrong. You really need to match your tools with your expectations of the final images.

For example, if you want soft photos, flares, etc. on digital, why not just use a digital rangefinder or DSLR that accepts the Summarits, Summars, and various other lenses that will give you what you want without having to "fake" it?

Spend your time shooting and less on PP. But, if you are one of those who really, really enjoys keyboard work in lieu of shooting, then, knock yourself out.:p
 
BlackCamera~S.Smyth said:
Photographer or PS technician? Is there a difference anymore. Lines seemed blurred. Wonder what HCB would say. I agree that a rangefinder camera and a Voigtlander lens etc are the best way to avoid that common sterile look of digital images. Iconic , vintage appeal is making a come back. Hell someone pass me a polaroid.
Click to expand...
How is a digital rangefinder going to differ from a dSLR in terms of the finished product?

(HCB would probably say, "Here's the raw file, peasant - now hop to it! And stop moaning about the crappy exposure!")
 
It wouldn't even surprise me if the model was against a blank background and the water and sun were added later in Photoshop.
 
I still contend that you must have advanced knowledge of Photoshop (and color). Time is money, and if you want to achieve a certain look, you're either going to spend it on film processing or you'll spend it sitting in front of a monitor reworking an image.

You should also profile your monitor so that you have a correct starting point for color. Your photo has a magenta cast in the upper left corner that should be removed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom