I'm not entirely sure exactly what the technical term is for what I'm trying to replicate, but I'm basically trying to get the same look/feel which I presume is a function of how the camera handled the light/processing of the photo. Any thoughts?
Anybody know how to replicate the look from the 1980s photos in this book?
I'm not entirely sure exactly what the technical term is for what I'm trying to replicate, but I'm basically trying to get the same look/feel which I presume is a function of how the camera handled the light/processing of the photo. Any thoughts?
Newham Dockers, London Entry League Champions 2013
I'm not entirely sure exactly what the technical term is for what I'm trying to replicate, but I'm basically trying to get the same look/feel which I presume is a function of how the camera handled the light/processing of the photo. Any thoughts?
If I understand you correctly you want to digitally post-process existing stock in a way which, during the eighties, was the product of mixing physical film stock and developing in a dark room. The easiest way is to get hold of a copy of something like Nik Software Colour FX Pro plugin for Photoshop. Then you want to use the Film:Efex Modern feature and post-process using one of its film stock simulators (AGFA Optima, FUJI Superia, FUJICHROME, KODAK GOLD, KODAK EKTACHROME etc. etc.).
To be honest, there are a million ways to post-process. But steer clear of sites like Instagram and the like. Whilst such often have a million different filters ,the raw processing power assigned to a print will be a fraction of what you'll get using your own PC running Photoshop/Photoshop Elements and such. To the naked eye it might not seem so great a difference. But trust me - the standards are really low and you end up clipping a chunk of the shadows and the highlights.
Diavolo Rosso wrote:Anybody know how to replicate the look from the 1980s photos in this book?
I'm not entirely sure exactly what the technical term is for what I'm trying to replicate, but I'm basically trying to get the same look/feel which I presume is a function of how the camera handled the light/processing of the photo. Any thoughts?
If I understand you correctly you want to digitally post-process existing stock in a way which, during the eighties, was the product of mixing physical film stock and developing in a dark room. The easiest way is to get hold of a copy of something like Nik Software Colour FX Pro plugin for Photoshop. Then you want to use the Film:Efex Modern feature and post-process using one of its film stock simulators (AGFA Optima, FUJI Superia, FUJICHROME, KODAK GOLD, KODAK EKTACHROME etc. etc.).
To be honest, there are a million ways to post-process. But steer clear of sites like Instagram and the like. Whilst such often have a million different filters ,the raw processing power assigned to a print will be a fraction of what you'll get using your own PC running Photoshop/Photoshop Elements and such. To the naked eye it might not seem so great a difference. But trust me - the standards are really low and you end up clipping a chunk of the shadows and the highlights.
I have never used Photoediting software other than that from a disk that came with a camera. Are Photoshop / others much better than that sort of thing. I have never shot in RAW because the editing software that came with the camera does not seem to deal with it.
I therefore have a couple of questions:
1. Is it easy to use Photoshop et al if dealing with both RAW and JPEG files? 2. Is Adobe Photoshop the best and if so which version is suitable for an amateur? There seems to be all sorts of variants. How much should you be paying - again I have seen a wide range of pricing.
Joined: Dec 05 2001 Posts: 25122 Location: Aleph Green
Dally wrote:I have never used Photoediting software other than that from a disk that came with a camera. Are Photoshop / others much better than that sort of thing. I have never shot in RAW because the editing software that came with the camera does not seem to deal with it.
I therefore have a couple of questions:
1. Is it easy to use Photoshop et al if dealing with both RAW and JPEG files? 2. Is Adobe Photoshop the best and if so which version is suitable for an amateur? There seems to be all sorts of variants. How much should you be paying - again I have seen a wide range of pricing.
Any guidance would be gratefully received.
Photoshop is the industry standard in image editing (RAW, JPEG or any other bitmap format). Whilst there are some packages which come close (such as the Freeware "Gimp") - nothing equals or betters it.
Photoshop is NOT easy to use. It is expressly designed for professionals and it takes years to master fully. I've used it professionally for the best part of a decade and I'm still learning little things. Throw into the mix Adobe's annual upgrades and it's a full time job staying abreast of the technology.
A far better solution for the amateur is Adobe Photoshop Elements. In essence it's 80% of the Photoshop engine with a vastly simplified interface.
Joined: Dec 05 2001 Posts: 25122 Location: Aleph Green
Dally wrote:Thanks. Does that cut down version deal with RAW files adequately?
Yes. RAW files are processed equally well by Elements. As I said, it's essentially the same engine.
Quote:Like the photos - esp. the Langtree Park one.
Thank you.
I took that on opening day before I went into work. Post-processing was done in Photoshop. The bridge photos are a couple of years after.
I printed four of the stadium onto large canvases. One is somewhere at the club. The other three were auctioned off for charity. IIRC, one went to the Steve Prescott Foundation. I can't remember the exact details.
For anyone looking for a low cost zoom lens, I bought a Sigma 70-300mm with Macro facility for less than £100 (new). I thought for the price it was worth a try. As you would expect its not superb, especially if you try to crop an image. But took these just now, which I thought given the price were pretty reasonable (NB close-ups were only hand held at 300mm so inevitably a bit of shake). Overall, I would say that although the lens is by no means great if you are working on a budget it is pretty good.
For anyone looking for a low cost zoom lens, I bought a Sigma 70-300mm with Macro facility for less than £100 (new). I thought for the price it was worth a try. As you would expect its not superb, especially if you try to crop an image. But took these just now, which I thought given the price were pretty reasonable (NB close-ups were only hand held at 300mm so inevitably a bit of shake). Overall, I would say that although the lens is by no means great if you are working on a budget it is pretty good.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 114 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
]
