Your secrets & tips ... Creating ‘Dirty’ jpgs/dngs

[jsrockit]

Jsrockit:

Love it John,
Dark, moody, a story in motion
Thank You for the link and honored your posting a photo, a rare thing these days, Thank You & Yay!

Agreed, I too love contrast, sharpness ( to a degree) and a new word it I get it , ‘crunchy’

Thank you Helen. I should also add that I'm not emulating any film. I'm just trying to make digital B&W feel right to me and my eyes.

 

[Hans Berkhout]

Helen,

find work you really like/admire. Then explore how the maker(s) achieved it.

 

[benlees]

As is often the case, Petronius nails it perfectly.

 

[petronius]

benlees, I don´t feel often like this, so thank you!
I have to add two other factors that worked for me:
shoot reflections and shoot through dirty/wet/damp windows.
(Saul Leiter and Josef Sudek are kind of Yodas in this field.)
A slightly dity lens is helpful too:

 

[maddoc]

Get a Funleader 18mm/F8 lens, no aperture setting, no distance setting. Dark corners and not the highest resolution. Gives you are Lomo-on-steroids effect. (Depending on the camera settings. I use one with the Sony ILCE-7 and it works brilliant) Alternatively, get an old non-coated 3.5 cm lens like the Elmer 3.5 cm f/3.5 or similar from Nikon. Together with a full frame sensor they give beautiful old-school looking photos. I am way to lazy to use software for any adjustments. I bought Capture 1 and only use it to transfer photos to my MacBook.

 

[gavinlg]

I'm gonna be 'that' guy - please don't hold it against me!

I spent years emulating the atmosphere of film in my digital photos, and never moved past the stage where I felt like it was any more than a pretty good impersonation.

When I gave up and went back to shooting mainly film, I also came to further appreciate digitals own native look - dry and precise. Film for wetness/humidity/atmosphere, digital for precision and dryness.
For my 2c worth of contribution to the original question, I found the VSCO film presets the best for giving digital photos a filmic atmosphere. If used as a base, you can quickly and consistently get good results. Especially the HP5 preset and the Superia 1600 preset.

 

[pyeh]

I learnt the other day what a dirty martini is. Could we do the same with our digital photos?

 

[c.poulton]

The only thing I dislike about ‘digital’
is too perfect, too real and clean a file
Sometimes I keep it but mostly that’s what turns me off to shooting digital

This is exactly the way I feel about digital and why I still shoot fine 99.9% of the time.

I tried one click presets = Nik Collection originally and lately Luminar, but the end result never really satisfies me. Maybe we should treat digital as it is - clean and clinical?

Just my thoughts...

I do like the results that your getting out of the Leica Q though, I wouldn’t do any further work to them.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

Avoid sharpening like you would the plague - or in this year's case, COVID...

Eighty to ninety percent of our post-processing image angst will disappear in one fell swoop.

 

[santino]

Use old dslrs (and by old I mean really old). I had an EOS 1Ds that created beautiful, natural colors and the images did not look clinical. Nowadays I think about buying a Pentax 10D with the hope of getting a similar look with a smaller body and ccd sensor.

 

[Guth]

I'm curious to know if anyone here has, or is using the open source alternative, GIMP for editing digital images? If so what were your thoughts regarding this program for the sort of manipulation that Helen is describing?

 

[Ricoh]

Great thread - educational, I’ve learnt alot!

Following on from the M10R, perhaps Leica should develop the M10Di

Di for dirty.

 

[willie_901]

Whenever you underexpose the sensor, the image signal-to-noise ratio decreases. Lower SNR reduces the "too perfect, too real and clean a file" perception. This is the simplest solution to minimized or post-production raw-file rendering.

It turns out when the camera ISO parameter value is higher than the lowest practical value, sensor underexpose increases. The lowest practical ISO value just means the meter will estimate a shutter time and aperture that overcomes camera/subject motion and gives adequate DOF respectively. The underexposure would result in a dark JPEG (or raw). So, the camera ISO setting is used to estimate how much to increase image brightness (not exposure) in-camera after the shutter closes.

The disadvantage of using a higher than necessary camera ISO setting is flexibility. Lower signal-to-noise ratios means less information. Information that could be used to enhance perception is not present.

A camera with exposure automation and the ability to auto-bracket camera ISO settings would produce a set of images with different degrees of information,ation less. In post-production you could keep the image with the optimum amount of imperfect, unreal, dirty character and delete the others. Eventually you would learn how much to increase ISO manually for different situations and auto-bracketing would become unnecessary.

I choose to maximize raw-file exposure (use the lowest practical ISO) and simulate film rendering during post-production. As others mentioned I use NIK Silver-Efex Pro. Silver-Efex Pro can be used as a plug-in with most (if not all) versions of Lightroom

 

[zane0777]

Use old dslrs (and by old I mean really old). I had an EOS 1Ds that created beautiful, natural colors and the images did not look clinical. Nowadays I think about buying a Pentax 10D with the hope of getting a similar look with a smaller body and ccd sensor.

Agreed. As a hobbyist, I still shoot the old CCD Pentaxes because the out-of-camera jpg files (set to 'neutral', not 'bright') look so right to my eye. The DS, in particular, and the same Sony 6 MP sensor is in the Nikon D40 and Epson R-D1.

 

[Musashi1205]

For absolutely no post production moments I’ve set up some picture profiles (which are initially ment to be used for video purposes). I really like the idea from Fuji with their film looks. Sony doesn’t give us these options. I found very few infos on the internet, but I figured out two black and white looks and two color looks I like for in camera jpgs. Additionally I bought two old fog filters, they reduce sharpness and contrast quite a bit.

 

[BillBingham2]

FUJIFILM X MOUNT FILTER LENS XM-FL 24mm 8.0 SOFT & CROSS FILTERS

Perhaps an old abused collapsible 50/2 with all its cleaning marks and abuse. Call KEH and see what they have in bargain land.....

I think Olympus had one for the MFT world at one time.

B2 (;->

 

[petronius]

BW ooc from the GRD3 (Small sensor)

 

[Tim Gray]

I’ve just been using Adobe Camera Raw. Probably the same tools in Lightroom and very similar ones in Capture One. Things I do to roughly imitate my B&W film look (which granted was never that extreme or moody);
- don’t go overboard with ‘color filter’ controls. I almost always use a generic Tri-X panchromatic look for conversions
- a bit of the grain filter - I kind of dial it into the level I see in my negative scans. I think ACR’s grain is decent, and it really helps in out of focus areas to make it bit less clean. I find the ACR grain filter dulls some of the extra resolution in a high MP file too if applied correctly. Film is not *that* sharp, you can give up some res
- recover the highlights as best as you can, push up the exposure, but be careful going overboard with shadow recovery. It can start looking HDRish real quick.
- be prepared to adjust the curve/contrast to match your vision. I have a preset saved for each camera I use which applies some adjustment automatically, and I can very quickly adjust individual images to the look I want on top of that.
- no noise reduction, light sharpening
- I do like a bit of Texture and Clarity in ACR. Texture more so. It helps add that fine but not super fine contrast boost that I get with B&W film on ‘large’ details

I don’t think you need to use super old lenses, but using a lens with a bit of character can help too.

 

[JohnWolf]

I'm gonna be 'that' guy - please don't hold it against me!

Someone had to do it. No harm done. 🙂

But as I see it, we're not talking about emulating film. I suspect Helen was careful to avoid that language. It's more about adding character and expressiveness to what many perceive as relatively sterile files. It's an important distinction.

After all, there are many very clean types of film and film/developer combinations. Some of them would have to be "dirtied up," just like digital files, to satisfy some photographers.

I think the term "film-like" is not particularly useful because when we say it, each person likely has a different perception of what it means, probably based on his or her own film preference.

John

 

[BillBingham2]

Perhaps we should dig up a couple of old cameras, a D300 or an M8.2 perhaps? Some old glass, ltm stuff of course. D300 is you have any old Nikkor AI glass......

B2 (;->