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

[helen.HH]

Mapgraphs'
only 9 posts on RFf, honoured You took part in this thread

M240 / color skopar in your hands did Grand!
Matched the aesthetic of this Thread on many levels
Thank You !

 

[helen.HH]

Keep photos coming

 

[shimokita]

wait for a cloudy / foggy day with a late afternoon sun...

Canon 5DII & EF 100mm F/2.8 macro

Tokyo in September weather looking almost directly west... still a bit clinical but...

Casey

.

 

[helen.HH]

These are two recent with a friends borrowed Leica Q
flawed but moving in the direction I want to go




Smoke and Mirrors...YAY to EXPLORE, Thank You ! by Helen Hill, on Flickr






a Train's view ... YAY to EXPLORE, Thank You ! by Helen Hill, on Flickr

 

[helen.HH]

'shimokita'

No Casey, not too clinical to my eyes
the saturation is somewhat subdued or is it the fog, Like IT !

 

[helen.HH]

This is Two of my Favorite digital Images I took
but i think it really got down to a 'dirty' Train Window and the train moving... go figure
Leica M9M, no PP




A train’s view... by Helen Hill, on Flickr


Fuji V100F / acros simulation




waiting... by Helen Hill, on Flickr





Fuji X100F

 

[Archlich]

Also should get some muddy color in there.

I find Fuji's latest Classic Negative color to be really muddy. The main giveaway is it's applied too uniformly, with overwhelmingly strong contrast.

Should be of good use with some tweaks in the right direction. Like mixing in some magenta.

 

[Dogman]

Seems to me a lot of people think of B&W film as being overly high contrast and they try to copy it digitally and it doesn't translate. I use to shoot a lot of Tri-X and HP5+ but they never looked high contrast unless I pushed them a lot and printed on hard paper. With some subjects that's cool. But I usually like to shoot in nice light, softer and directional as opposed to hard klieg lighting causing blasted highlights and inky shadows. Tri-X and HP5+ both had nice tonality with a wide range of grey tones between white and black.

For my stuff, I use Lightroom and just process normally. I add sharpness and detail with some masking but then I add noise reduction to soften the effects of all. At the end, I sometimes add a little grain and always a bit of vignette. I'm not really trying to get a "filmic" effect because I think digital looks pretty good without trying to be something it's not meant to be.

 

[Doug]

One thing that comes to mind, Helen, is to check out what member Peterm1 has been doing, just for an idea or two perhaps. He posts quite a few samples of his work and in some cases he writes detailed explanations of his methods and goals. Here's his list of posts:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/search.php?searchid=19511968

 

[shimokita]

'shimokita'
No Casey, not too clinical to my eyes
the saturation is somewhat subdued or is it the fog, Like IT !

low clouds and slight mist with a recent typhoon passing east of Tokyo... image is right out of the camera, no post processing... thanks for the thumbs-up ! Casey

 

[markjwyatt]

Here a re a couple from the Fujifilm XT-2 where I added some grain in Post. ACROS sim uses grain in interesting ways, but I have not played with it much. Digital grain is fundamentally different than film grain. Film Grain IS THE IMAGE. Digital grain is NOISE added TO THE IMAGE.


preparing by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr


Paddling Away by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[35photo]

Here a re a couple from the Fujifilm XT-2 where I added some grain in Post. ACROS sim uses grain in interesting ways, but I have not played with it much. Digital grain is fundamentally different than film grain. Film Grain IS THE IMAGE. Digital grain is noise added to the image.


preparing by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr


Paddling Away by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

To a degree.... with Digital you can control noise/grain in camera via ISO and exposure... No need to add anything in post if you know how to take advantage of a camera's "weak spots".... You'll get plenty of grain/noise...

 

[mapgraphs]

Helen, Thank you.



How to see the narrative, present it, and go beyond (avoid) the clinical. It's not high contrast per se but the blacks need to be black, diffuse light helps, avoid hard light...



*** by mapgraphs, on Flickr

Z7, 50mm S


** by mapgraphs, on Flickr
M-240, 7A 28mm ASPH


Both OOC jpg converted to monochrome in Olympus Viewer 2

 

[peterm1]

One thing that comes to mind, Helen, is to check out what member Peterm1 has been doing, just for an idea or two perhaps. He posts quite a few samples of his work and in some cases he writes detailed explanations of his methods and goals. Here's his list of posts:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/search.php?searchid=19511968

Thank you for this Doug, I was just about to post here so that helps encourage me do so. I almost always shoot in color and in RAW as this gives me most options for later processing. And sometimes I will keep the color, and sometimes I will convert to Black and White. It depends - I let the "look" of the image guide me. I sometimes find for example that the color just cannot be made to look good but I like the subject and composition. This encourages me to try black and white with that image. This especially can happen with mixed lighting sources which can end up creating unpleasant color casts in the image that are very hard to correct.

My approach to post processing is to spend a little time up front making the image look as technically good as I can. I do this using Lightroom which is as good as any editor I have used and better than most. That way I have a good clean image to work from. Then I start "messing it up" . My number one personal rule is to almost always try for an image that has character and mood. It's just what I like. I also take my lead from photographers like Saul Leiter (love his work) who often shot images reflected in glass windows or mirrors, shot through windows with lots of distortion etc but in many of his most characteristic shots retained really nice color. Given he was using over aged Kodachrome mostly that can be difficult to replicate in digital media. But its fun trying.

As to more "extreme" post processing I have been experimenting a lot lately with Nik plugins. Nik Analog Efex in particular. I freely admit that sometimes I over do it in my attempts to get a more painterly or even abstract outcome. Sometimes I like an image that results, post it to Flickr then a week later look at it again and think, "What the hell was I thinking?" Such is life. Sometimes that prompts me to go back and reprocess the image and substitute the new one for the old. Sometimes I just suck it up. Also my approach evolves as I learn more and my tastes change. I think we are most likely all like that.

Nik Analog Efex has a plethora of effects to try. It can be used in the context of a color or black and white image but if I am going down the black and white route I mostly do not use Analog Efex to make the conversion to monochrome - I do that with Nik Silver Efex afterwards. One word to the wise..... Analog Efex's default settings are mostly horrible - far too over the top for almost anyone. That's ok because that problem is easily fixed by moving some sliders about or with some selective editing of the image.

I tend to use its effects to create blur, vignetting and texture overlay. And those things can be applied as subtly or over the top as you wish. I prefer color to be strong but a little undersaturated but contrast to be relatively high (mostly). The software is too complex to go into here but if you wish to check out my flickr pages (see the link in my signature below) or the articles that are also linked below in my signature it will give some idea of at least what I try for. If anyone wishes to choose a specific image from Flickr and ask me how I achieved that look I am happy to do my best to remember exactly what was done. to get there.

In the mean time here are a few images I have messed about with to produce perhaps a slightly more film like outcome - or if not film like, at least a less digital one (in the sense of being less crisp, sharp and technically "perfect".) And THAT is my mantra - go for mood, every time!

Hope it helps.

Saffron Monk by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Through a Glass Darkly 7 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Bookshop Owner by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Street - A Reflective Moment by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Cafe Colombia - Adelaide Central Market by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Casual Portrait in Monochrome by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

 

[Swift1]

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

I prefer to do very little or no PP
Just a hint of more or less saturation, contrast, adjust shadows, midtones

As I shot more and more color film over the past 7 years, I began to feel (as you posted above) that digital images felt to clean, or to my mind they lacked more character and feel a bit lifeless.
Awhile back I started experimenting with raw files in Adobe Camera Raw with the intent of making a preset that would give my digital images more film like "character". It won't be to everyone's taste, but I feel that I succeeded to a certain point, at least to the point that I will happily shoot either color film or digital (if I were still able to shoot )

Here's a photo I shot with my Pentax K10D as a DNG.

First is the Camera Default conversion,

Here's the conversion using my ACR preset.

 

[35photo]

To me digital is a mix or transparency and negative films put together.... That's how I treat it... and tweak certain colors and white balance to taste.... Trying to make digital into film is the mistake in my option... Just embrace it.... Learn how to work with it.... changing cameras isn't the solution... I've see Helen has tried a bunch of cameras.... not sure how long you have gone with each.... but I'm going to say 1-2 years isn't enough to really understand what you can do with your camera and make it work for you....

 

[peterm1]

As I shot more and more color film over the past 7 years, I began to feel (as you posted above) that digital images felt to clean, or to my mind they lacked more character and feel a bit lifeless.
Awhile back I started experimenting with raw files in Adobe Camera Raw with the intent of making a preset that would give my digital images more film like "character". It won't be to everyone's taste, but I feel that I succeeded to a certain point, at least to the point that I will happily shoot either color film or digital (if I were still able to shoot )

Here's a photo I shot with my Pentax K10D as a DNG.

First is the Camera Default conversion,

Here's the conversion using my ACR preset.

I think this is very good. Well done. Quite different to the look I have been going for but to me they do have something of a more film like look than most digital shots. I like them.

 

[peterm1]

One other thought occurs to me on this topic. The thought is that sometimes using older classic lenses helps too as I guess many people have experienced.

The following examples were shot with a Schneider Kreuznach 105mm f3.5 Tele Xenar lens - a relatively simple lens of a Tessar type, I understand. I think this lens has helped create a less digital look in this image (At least I think so. But whether it meets others requirements for a film like look I am not sure).

The images have what I sometimes used to hear referred to as a "plasticity" which I thinks means they are quite sharp but not too sharp and yet also have a kind or rounded softness to them. Sonnar lenses also often exhibit this character. I think it is one reason why this type of lens is so often sought after by digital shooters - the results can remind them of some images shot on film.

Cafe Study 26 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Cafe Study 27 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

 

[KismetSky]

If using Lightroom, DxO or Capture One, try turning off both Luminance and Chroma noise reduciton. Chroma NR cannot be totally switched off with older non-subscription versions of Lightroom. I typically have Luminance at 0, Chroma at 5.


My favorite toy digital to date is Digital Harinezumi:
http://www.superheadz.com/digitalharinezumi/
But the current site exists mostly as a portfolio of discontinued products, and current asking prices can be nutty. Sun & Cloud camera isn't quite as much fun to use IMO due to awkward shape, but it produces similar results and can still be had at relatively sane prices.

I have one of those Digital Harinezumis. Didn’t realize they were worth anything.

 

[shawn]

Here a re a couple from the Fujifilm XT-2 where I added some grain in Post. ACROS sim uses grain in interesting ways, but I have not played with it much. Digital grain is fundamentally different than film grain. Film Grain IS THE IMAGE. Digital grain is NOISE added TO THE IMAGE.

You should definitely try out ACROS more in camera. The ACROS mode is really a change to noise reduction in the camera. Instead of trying to remove the noise it puts grain in where it finds noise. So you can control the look of the grain with the ISO. Around 2000 or so is a good starting point. Since the noise also varies with the exposure in the camera so will the resulting grain substituted in. This is ISO 10,000 on a XP2.

Shawn