[BigMackCam]

I use them offline

Oh, man. I downloaded the trial version of the Nik Collection and have just been messing around with Analog Efex and Silver Efex... This is an adventure playground for me - *exactly* the kind of thing I'm looking for. Certainly not for every situation, in my opinion, but *so* creative - especially when I start reducing the level of certain effects to blend them more with the original image. Very, very nice!

Thanks again for the tip!

[MikeD]

I've always been on the "amused" side of "lomography". Lomo photos have a "vintage" look to them because back in the day, lots of folks had cheap cameras that took lousy pictures. They didn't HAVE those cameras because they craved blurry, weirdly-colored photos strewn with light leaks. They had those cameras because that's what they could afford. Nobody wanted a Kodak instamatic. You got it for Christmas, took a couple rolls with it, and realized you'd need a better camera to take decent pictures. If you could afford one, great, if not, you had to lower your standards or stop shooting.

I don't know of any presets but if I wanted that sort of look I'd use the blur tool in PS and adjust the hue and saturation to whatever pleased me. Not sure how you'd do light leaks, if you even wanted them. I've been scanning film for more than a decade, and I'm not sure you can get the true film look with any digital means. I can seldom get my film scans to have the same perfection that digital often has - they often have that film look that is nearly impossible to get rid of. So now, I seldom try, and accept the film look as something unique to film.

Good luck!

What he said - I cannot understand why anyone with the kind of great gear we have today to purposely try to take really bad pictures. But each to their own and l like the person I quoted am both perplexed and amused.

[Wired]

If you use film simulation filters properly....

[BigMackCam]

What he said - I cannot understand why anyone with the kind of great gear we have today to purposely try to take really bad pictures. But each to their own and l like the person I quoted am both perplexed and amused.

I'm never perplexed or amused at the source of someone's enjoyment (so long as it's clean and decent) just because it might clash with my own tastes, Mike - I'm just glad they enjoy it. There's a place for lo-fi photography - not for you, perhaps, but clearly for a large number of casual photographers, hobbyists and *some* professionals - and, as it happens (with an *occasional image* here or there - not the *majority* of images I shoot), me too. I had a *great* time using my old Lomo LC-A camera, and didn't care a hoot who else saw the images - I enjoyed them.

Seems to me that a "really bad picture" is one that nobody, the photographer included, gets any enjoyment from - but that's just me.

Thanks for the feedback

---------- Post added 12-02-2015 at 12:06 AM ----------

If you use film simulation filters properly....

*Whoa*... very, very impressive!

EDIT: I really like the border effect, too - nice.

---------- Post added 12-02-2015 at 12:42 AM ----------

I've always been on the "amused" side of "lomography". Lomo photos have a "vintage" look to them because back in the day, lots of folks had cheap cameras that took lousy pictures. They didn't HAVE those cameras because they craved blurry, weirdly-colored photos strewn with light leaks. They had those cameras because that's what they could afford. Nobody wanted a Kodak instamatic. You got it for Christmas, took a couple rolls with it, and realized you'd need a better camera to take decent pictures. If you could afford one, great, if not, you had to lower your standards or stop shooting.

I guess an analogy would be vintage cars... Some of the lower-end cars back in the day had numerous flaws / inefficiencies, but if that's what you could afford, that's what you drove. Now, *some* people crave those same cars and hail them as "classics" for their character and driving experience, warts and all. Nostalgia is clearly part of it, for many. Maybe they take us back to a different time, or evoke certain memories... Lots of people don't understand why someone should want to drive a car that leaks oil, gives lousy gas mileage, has dreadful braking and corners like a refrigerator... but lots of people love all that (actually, I fall into that category, LOL ).

I don't know of any presets but if I wanted that sort of look I'd use the blur tool in PS and adjust the hue and saturation to whatever pleased me. Not sure how you'd do light leaks, if you even wanted them. I've been scanning film for more than a decade, and I'm not sure you can get the true film look with any digital means. I can seldom get my film scans to have the same perfection that digital often has - they often have that film look that is nearly impossible to get rid of. So now, I seldom try, and accept the film look as something unique to film.

Good luck!

Thanks for the info. I can get some way with hue and saturation... but sometimes it would be nice to get a more accurate (if that makes any sense!) representation of old film and lo-fi. The Google NIK software seems to be what I'm looking for...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-01-2015 at 05:46 PM.

[Wired]

*Whoa*... very, very impressive!

EDIT: I really like the border effect, too - nice.

---------- Post added 12-02-2015 at 12:42 AM ----------

Thanks. its very minor edit to that one. a pair of curves and levels adjustment layers. then a ColorFXpro4 film sim layer (kodak 160) set to 50% opacity, then a CoorFXpro4 procontrast and frames on a stamp layer to get that final look. created a PS action, takes 30 seconds to complete.

[BigMackCam]

Thanks. its very minor edit to that one. a pair of curves and levels adjustment layers. then a ColorFXpro4 film sim layer (kodak 160) set to 50% opacity, then a CoorFXpro4 procontrast and frames on a stamp layer to get that final look. created a PS action, takes 30 seconds to complete.

Nice. Well, I played around with the various NIK tools and I'm knocked out by how good they are. Like you said, they're destructive - but as a final set of downstream edits right before export, I can live with that. I've only scratched the surface of what they can do, but there are some powerful tools. I suspect a major consideration for a new user like me is not to be tempted into over-processing... Anyway, I bought the software

[Wired]

Nice. Well, I played around with the various NIK tools and I'm knocked out by how good they are. Like you said, they're destructive - but as a final set of downstream edits right before export, I can live with that. I've only scratched the surface of what they can do, but there are some powerful tools. I suspect a major consideration for a new user like me is not to be tempted into over-processing... Anyway, I bought the software

yes, it took a while for me not to overcook. unless I feel like overcooking the image....

case in point:



But I like the way it turned out.

What I find I like doing is doing color toning on one and then using the different layer overlay modes or opacticties to have it affect the main image. I find that it over cooks color toning really really fast. The contrast tools are very nice, and I usually do those with a glow filter or detail extractor on another layer, once again set opactity to taste. Sometimes I'll do a curves adjustment inbetween FX applications to keep the detail, shadows, highlights in check. My final pass is usually a frame or bi-color depending on what I'm doing with the image. Just create presets as you go (even in native adjustment layers) so you can keep it consistent. Once I have the presets made, the second image I just create a photoshop action. I then turn around and just hit play on all images after that and it speeds up the process consideribly... as long as you don't need to do local adjustments or masking inbetween.


For people, one thing I love doing is doing a frequency separation, but then I apply a skin softening FX from NIK on the "color" layer. it takes care of most of the blemishes depending on the acne level. But its INCREDIBLY easy to overdo.