recreating this look with digital camera and vsco film preset? Please help!

[oliverparsons]

Hey there! This is my first thread on this website, so please correct if this is the right place to post this photo. Anyway, I saw a photograph recently of the musician J.cole, I checked out the photographers other worked and I fell in love with it! From what ive determined he takes most of his photos using a film camera, however I have no idea what type of film or setting he uses (for the photo shown below). I have a digital camera, so i'm wondering if it would be possible to recreate the film used with vsco presets in lightroom? Also pherhaps creating the same tone of the image with the settings in the digital camera? Hopefully theres someone out there who can help me, it would be deeply appreciated!

Please don't post images to which you do not hold rights. You may post links.

 

[oliverparsons]

I thought the film used might be HP5 but i'm still not sure.....

 

[Derrel]

HP5, or Tri-X, could be either. Shot close to base ASA rating, not pushed--has ample shadow. Contast is rather flat on the first image, and the second image has some highlight problems. Given the small size of both, this is pretty sucky technical image quality for a 35mm camera, even by 1980's film and developer standards.

Want to emulate this? Sure, try a film simulation from VSCO or Lightroom. To me, these two do not look like good film work...the grain looks digital-like to me on both.

There is NOTHING else in film like Tri-X shot well and developed well. It has great tonality. grainy? Yeah, but beautiful tonalities.

 

[oliverparsons]

HP5, or Tri-X, could be either. Shot close to base ASA rating, not pushed--has ample shadow. Contast is rather flat on the first image, and the seocmn image has some highlight problems. Given the small size of both, this is pretty sucky technical image quality for a 35mm camera, ecen by 1980's film and developers.

Want to emulate this? Sure, try a film simulation from VSCO or Lightroom. To me, these two do not look like good film work...the grain looks digital-like to me on both.

Wow! Thank you so much for your reply, it is greatly appreciated! You mentioned something called the ASA rating, and the film being pushed, excuse me for my poor understanding but I am not aware of what either of these terms mean, would it be possible for you to give me a better understanding?

 

[480sparky]

HP5, or Tri-X, could be either. Shot close to base ASA rating, not pushed--has ample shadow. Contast is rather flat on the first image, and the seocmn image has some highlight problems. Given the small size of both, this is pretty sucky technical image quality for a 35mm camera, ecen by 1980's film and developers.

Want to emulate this? Sure, try a film simulation from VSCO or Lightroom. To me, these two do not look like good film work...the grain looks digital-like to me on both.

Wow! Thank you so much for your reply, it is greatly appreciated! You mentioned something called the ASA rating, and the film being pushed, excuse me for my poor understanding but I am not aware of what either of these terms mean, would it be possible for you to give me a better understanding?

ASA is what film used to be rated at in terms of film speed. We use ISO today.

'Pushed' means intentionally underexposing the film and then overdeveloping it. Doing so increases the grain and contrast.

 

[zombiesniper]

If these are not your photos please take them down and link to their location. Posting photos that you do not own is against forum rules.

 

[Derrel]

URLS to the images:

tumblr_oaiwootHpV1si5uebo1_r1_1280.jpg



tumblr_oaiwqchxKJ1si5uebo1_r1_1280.jpg

 

[oliverparsons]

If these are not your photos please take them down and link to their location. Posting photos that you do not own is against forum rules.

Sorry about that! Like I said i'm new to this so I appreciate you letting me know!

 

[tirediron]

If these are not your photos please take them down and link to their location. Posting photos that you do not own is against forum rules.

Sorry about that! Like I said i'm new to this so I appreciate you letting me know!

No worries - as a community of photographers, copyright is very important to us, and we do our best to ensure that it is respected by all.

 

[jcdeboever]

I do not think those are film, I am 99.9% certain of it. I looked at them on my phone, the reason not 100%. As Derrel mentioned, there are presets in software to simulate but I don't care for them. I like to to do my conversions manually, in GIMP. As far as artistic quality, nothing stands out to me but what do I know.

I still shoot film and I would say HP5 has the most tonal range, followed closely by T-Max. I think T-Max black is slightly richer and probably my regular film for that reason.

Almost forgot, the best film simulation I have seen is with the Fujifilm X-100T in the Acros film simulation mode.

Sent from my XT1254 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Ysarex]

I do not think those are film, I am 99.9% certain of it. I looked at them on my phone, the reason not 100%. As Derrel mentioned, there are presets in software to simulate but I don't care for them. I like to to do my conversions manually, in GIMP. As far as artistic quality, nothing stands out to me but what do I know.

I still shoot film and I would say HP5 has the most tonal range, followed closely by T-Max. I think T-Max black is slightly richer and probably my regular film for that reason.

Almost forgot, the best film simulation I have seen is with the Fujifilm X-100T in the Acros film simulation mode.

Sent from my XT1254 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

Definitely scanned film. No other explanation for this: "Noritsu KOKI EZ Controller" in the EXIF data.

And they are poor quality scans.

Joe

 

[jcdeboever]

I do not think those are film, I am 99.9% certain of it. I looked at them on my phone, the reason not 100%. As Derrel mentioned, there are presets in software to simulate but I don't care for them. I like to to do my conversions manually, in GIMP. As far as artistic quality, nothing stands out to me but what do I know.

I still shoot film and I would say HP5 has the most tonal range, followed closely by T-Max. I think T-Max black is slightly richer and probably my regular film for that reason.

Almost forgot, the best film simulation I have seen is with the Fujifilm X-100T in the Acros film simulation mode.

Sent from my XT1254 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

Definitely scanned film. No other explanation for this: "Noritsu KOKI EZ Controller" in the EXIF data.

And they are poor quality scans.

Joe

Wow, crazy. The film that doesn't look like film. I'm not home yet, looking forward to peeking at it on the monitor.

Sent from my XT1254 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[jcdeboever]

I do not think those are film, I am 99.9% certain of it. I looked at them on my phone, the reason not 100%. As Derrel mentioned, there are presets in software to simulate but I don't care for them. I like to to do my conversions manually, in GIMP. As far as artistic quality, nothing stands out to me but what do I know.

I still shoot film and I would say HP5 has the most tonal range, followed closely by T-Max. I think T-Max black is slightly richer and probably my regular film for that reason.

Almost forgot, the best film simulation I have seen is with the Fujifilm X-100T in the Acros film simulation mode.

Sent from my XT1254 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

Definitely scanned film. No other explanation for this: "Noritsu KOKI EZ Controller" in the EXIF data.

And they are poor quality scans.

Joe

Yup, glad I didn't say 100% Lol.