Besides the obvious like applying a film-preset (which looks terrible and not like film 100% of the time), messing with black levels and applying grain, what's missing for it to get the softness, colors and "feel" of film?
prettier lady
Look into LUT files for colour grading in Photoshop.Basically preset files thats have been made to emulate a specific look - but you can alter the settings for every aspect of it. There are lots available online, many for free.
They wanna be us so so bad.
>what's missing for it to get the softness, colors and "feel" of film?The part where you pay some wagie with a fuji-issued professional film scanner $12 to sloppily color grade 36 negatives.If you scanned your film yourself and started from scratch it would look just like your digital work which is also you more or less starting from scratch. Just ask that lolympus guy in /fgt/ who actually does photograph nothing but rocks and leaves for his work. Looks like digital all the same. And yet a digital film scanner operated on a $12 for 36 basis does not!In short, this is a pure skill issue. You think "the film look" is the look of clandestine scanner settings and curve adjustments that you are too visually illiterate to figure out.Color is color and light is light. The technical differences between digital and film are minor and only noticeable at absurd enalrgement levels. There are no technological barriers between you and what you want. Just skill.
>>4335893that's a tranny
>>4335893Like fr film presets are 1000% scam (even when you pirate them). Are there any resources to learn to how to jerk the curves properly to get the things that make film look good, like somewhat off but actually appealing colors and make it look not shit?
>>4335922the "film look" is literally just properly grading your colours. nothing else. look to properly grade, I recommend looking at the values (meaning the range of value from white to black. dont make them overly tinted toward one colour (unless that's what you want). see the op pic, the right pic has greys and blacks that are obtusely orange-red. the left preserves so much more of the tonality of the scene, whereas the right reduces it to an uninteresting blob of warm tones. t. midwit
>>4335893just buy the damn roll of portra already lmao
>>4335929aka the auto white balance look
Op you are basically asking how to make your crayons give you the look of a paintbrush, it’s just not possible, they are 2 totally different things. If you want the film look you use film. It’s also hilarious how digifools are always trying to get the film look but refuse to admit film looks better than digital. Actions speak louder than words and anybody who tries to get the film look on their digital has 100% admitted film looks better.
>>4335962And other things that happened in your head shortly before you became fully cognizant of the amount of money you've wasted
>>4335962and you still scan your film
>>4335899better alternative to this is lightroom color profiles such as the Archetype film emulations. So much better than using a preset. I typically dial back contrast, apply a color profile and then dial in the tone curve by hand
>>4335929this is not true at all and you are just confident because you're a novice. Tone curve and contrast is equally important to the colors.
>>4335893>those hands>convenient adams apple covering scarfyep, it's a man.
>>4335965You’re right, film look better displayed digitally that digital does.
ummm dehancer
>>4336071
>>4336073Imagine publishing this
>>4336080yeah, i know. the film damage thing is mostly laughable, the halation feels broken, bloom is sometimes usable... but - if you just use just the profiles and grain you can get looks that no amount of lightroom and presets will give you.
>>4336071>>4336073>scratchesare you fucking kidding me? and I waste hours to clean this shit on my negative scans
>>4336091Scratches are based but hair and dust should be removed.
>>4336071>>4336073>>4336086There are all garbage. Dehancer does work but these are not good examples. Actually kinda crazy how nobody knows how to properly color grade.https://youtu.be/GHhi0ov0kBU
>>4336094man of course i dont know how to properly grade, i visit /p/ daily...
>>4336094and honestly i dont like anything he shows in the video, im gonna continue doing the garbage that i like, sorry
>>4336098Yeah that's because I am retarded and linked the wrong videohttps://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/DispPrepDemoFollowup.htmlAllegedly he uses a bunch of shit we can't do to photos, but most of what he says is applicable to grading stills. Just some good info on color.
>>4335893Negative clarity/structure slider and reduce the default sharpness. Film seems to have much lower local contrast.
>guys??? why do film photos made with stocks that have been improved over the course of 80 years by the best color engineers on the planet perform better than my snoy default color profile???gee I dunno
>>4336104sony has the worst color science out of all the manufactures, but yeah
>>4336094>Actually kinda crazy how nobody knows how to properly color grade.Maybe because it's a soul crushing experience? I like to do photography, not calibration.
>>4336519You can just shoot B&W if you don't like color desu, but if you're actually shooting in color you might as well try give grading a shot you know?
>>4336530I use presets, and it fits my needs, no need to delve further.
>>4336519So how do I learn to properly color grade?
>>4336761you don't, because the anon talking about color grading seems to think still photos is like video and has a similar workflow. he is very confused. He saw a guy talking about RGB values in a node based color correction software and thinks anyone not doing that isn't properly "color grading" (editing).
>>4336761he doesn't realize that still photos have a graded look as soon as the camera color profile is added to the RAW and that "color grading" is only necessary when you're editing LOG video shot in a different color space.
For colour: You need to not clip the highlights and the digital solution of blending is not suitable for every style of photography and is tedious even with burst.also >>4335909 has a bit of a point but is going too far into overwank territory that balancing is important and just about everyone doing scans themselves are failing on it: but so are the cheap machines dumping them out without multiple passes. Even getting acceptable scans out of a pakon is an exercise in misery.
I just tested Dehancer, it works pretty well. Thanks to the anon who mentioned it.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDC-GX9Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.3 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)120 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:07:14 21:05:28Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias-1 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length60.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4335893>Besides the obviousHave you factored the technology of transferring the analog image to digital? I'm not sure how you can compare what you see on-screen to what you see on paper unless you convert one or the other to enable true side-by-side.
