How?

sincere · Feb 9, 2006

How do i make a pic look like this? I like that creamy,soft approach..

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b57/drunkenmasta/panaramo4.jpg

PlasticSpanner · Feb 9, 2006

Pastel filter? (maybe 086)

http://www.cokin.co.uk/pages/pastels2.htm

KevinR · Feb 9, 2006

If that was on purpose, I would also guess filtration. But it looks overexposed to me.

sincere · Feb 9, 2006

PlasticSpanner said:
Pastel filter? (maybe 086)

http://www.cokin.co.uk/pages/pastels2.htm

Hmm..doesnt seem like a pastel..the pic is pretty clear but soft..

markc · Feb 9, 2006

It has that low-saturation and slightly yellow look like it was taken in the 70's. When you say soft, do you mean the colors then? Not the focus?

sincere · Feb 9, 2006

markc said:
It has that low-saturation and slightly yellow look like it was taken in the 70's. When you say soft, do you mean the colors then? Not the focus?

yes,yes, that retro approach i meant to say..how was this done?

markc · Feb 9, 2006

Other than old film or playing in Photoshop, I'm not sure.

photoboy15 · Feb 9, 2006

Id say photoshop at least these days.You might find some neutral color old film. It could even be color film crossed in slide chem.

markc · Feb 9, 2006

I think cross-process tends to be much more drastic than that.

If you want to try a modern low-sat film, take a look at Kodak 160NC.

photoboy15 · Feb 9, 2006

markc said:
I think cross-process tends to be much more drastic than that.

If you want to try a modern low-sat film, take a look at Kodak 160NC.

I dont think its crossed but it has the pinky orange color that you get from c-41 in e-6 chem and the dark shadows. Like I said its probably p-shop but icrossed may be a solution.

markc · Feb 9, 2006

Here's the look I'm used to from cross processing: http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/99/23/index3a_page4.html?tw=design

Rob · Feb 9, 2006

Looks like polaroid colours to me...

photoboy15 · Feb 9, 2006

Sorry Im wrong there is no way on the face of the earth that those could be crossed process. How stupid could I be? I guess I'll just have go with what ever you say. Man, Im stupid.

sobolik · Feb 9, 2006

It looks to be a classic nothing technically noteworthy shot.
I would say it was taken with a cheap point and shoot. Except that the framing of the subject is not typical of point and shoot users. So I will ponder that it was taken with a 35mm.
I see little evidence of filter use except maybe a polarizer as I look at the sky. Then again I have seen sky turn out like that with out a polarizer.
I conclude that this look was obtained in the printing phase not the taking phase. Not to sound negative or critical, but I think a high volume Walmart could pull it off and likely be the typical result. Which I consider an inferior result. But to each his own.
I aslo admit it just as easily could be a digital never printed image.

sincere · Feb 9, 2006

All of this has gotten even more confusing..i also looked at that link with all those pics from different films posted and it really ****ed me off because i dont see any of these films out here in the photo shop..oh, they guy who took the pic, i actually know him but he seems to act like he invented photography and wont give any infos on how it was shot, processed,etc..