How can I get a 70s vintage effect?

[MartinCrabtree]

Nah the majority go to MalWart and take whatever they offer. However as I stated earlier this person is not to that stage in development making the reference moot. Let's help them and not waste anymore bandwidth.

 

[webestang64]

the MAJORITY of people scan and edit their film.

From the film that comes to my lab for processing we scan well over 75% of each roll. We have the 20% that just gets it processed and the rest get 4x6 prints only.
Based on 100-150 C-41 rolls a week and 75-100 rolls of BW each month.

 

[Derrel]

Part of shooting film in this day and age is photoshop and scanning.................. .

Says who?

Ummm, says a LOT of people who shoot film...scanning negs, scanning transparencies...it's pretty damned common these days. Of course, so is adjusting the scanned image data, using this stuff called software on a 'com-pooter.

One thing this thread brought up: there are now some labs that will develop film but NOT return the film!!! I personally find that a HORRIBLE, and un-acceptable practice, and I would encourage the OP to never, ever spend money on a lab that does not return the developed film negatives or positives, even if they do furnish a scan as part o their services.

As far as a "vintage" look...I love the feel of many types of so-called vintage looks. The easiest way I think, to get cool "vintage" looks is with Lightroom software, and some of the various color filter effects, combined with what are called "presets"; this process requires a scanned or digitized image, and then the desired effect(s) are computer-generated.

 

[480sparky]

Part of shooting film in this day and age is photoshop and scanning.................. .

Says who?

Ummm, says a LOT of people who shoot film...scanning negs, scanning transparencies...it's pretty damned common these days. Of course, so is adjusting the scanned image data, using this stuff called software on a 'com-pooter.

Sorry, but I ain't buying what you're selling. A lot of people use computers and have internet and cell phones. But those are not required either. My point is: Shooting film does not require transitioning to digital once the negs dry. Just because most do so doesn't mean it's automatically a necessity.

 

[Derrel]

Jesus Christ...on a bicycle...it's as if you're stuck in the tintype era...LOL...the fact is that digitized images are the most-common way to work since about 2010...

As far as I know, nobody said it's necessary to digitize film-shot images, it's simply the fastest, easiest, highest-quality, most-economical,most-repeatable, and most easily-learned method.

But Dektol and stinky fixer are good too...but monochrome or duotone inkjet prints are very good these days..

Color images are another bird entirely: wet darkroom C-41 chemicals and paper cost more than good wine per quart and more than inkjet carts, and are a PITA, pollute,and are difficult to work with. Sending out images to White House or Millers is FAR more-economical for most people than is maintaining a wet darkroom...

Inkjet prints are faster, better, and more-economical than wet C-41 neg prints are...Better because daylight,software-based burning,dodging, and adjustment brush work is FAR better than the color-negative prints most labs can make. FACT. Unless you have a truly Master-level darkroom printer making prints from your film, you get a better, more-perfected print from a digitally-optimized file than from a negative or slide printed by enlarger or print machine. Fact.

But of course, nothing is "necessary" here or in the real world, except to present the facts as they truly are, not as they were in 1979, or 1999...and to deal with the way things are,by and large, done by the vast majority of folks in the 21st century. Webstang says his lab scans 75% of the rolls they develop: I gave that comment the rarely-used "Winner badge", for its relevance.

Old fuddy-duddies and wet darkroom experts often have very different ideas than newcomers and those without a lot of experience. We've (Colton Stark and myself at least) tailored our remarks to the OP...not to 480sparky types or hardcore wet darkroom afficionados; I know the difference between various user types...and my comments were to the OP, not to an old-school wet darkroom worker...

 

[480sparky]

Insult me all you want. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Resorting to name calling and sarcasm..........ah yes sarcasm the last resort of someone with nothing to say.

 

[terri]

Everyone take a step back. Everyone has their own work flow, and that's perfectly okay. There's no reason to refer to traditional analog users as fuddie duddies, for crying out loud. In the film forum especially! Not cool.

Let’s respect our various approaches without passing judgment.

 

[cgw]

Film is just a capture medium. What you do with it post-exposure and how you do it is up to you, OK? Nothing in the forum description to the contrary.

Hate to see the ecumenical outlook of this site lapse into intolerance and negativity. Enough of that in the water all round us.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

Part of shooting film in this day and age is photoshop and scanning.................. .

Says who?

Ummm, says a LOT of people who shoot film...scanning negs, scanning transparencies...it's pretty damned common these days. Of course, so is adjusting the scanned image data, using this stuff called software on a 'com-pooter.

Sorry, but I ain't buying what you're selling. A lot of people use computers and have internet and cell phones. But those are not required either. My point is: Shooting film does not require transitioning to digital once the negs dry. Just because most do so doesn't mean it's automatically a necessity.

No, its not required to do so, BUT, it is a large part of shooting film in the current era. So to say that photoshop shouldn't be discussed in the film sub is ridiculous.

 

[Dave Colangelo]

The best way to do it is to buy a 70's camera, shoot film stocks that were available in the 70's, develop in chemistry that was around in the 70's and print it in a dark room like its the 70s...

Thanks to B&H, craigslist and ebay you can get everything you need to do that for pretty cheap. If you hunt around, pester a local lab, ask some forum members to help out you may even get most of the printing gear for free.... (or at least bum some darkroom time for free).

You may also want to get some 70's costumes....

Most of the images you linked are fairly high contrast, you can do that in the film development process (if you are processing at home). In the printing process, if you have dark room access either with filters or graded paper or (dare I say it) in photoshop after you have scanned the negative, it all depends on what your chosen medium of delivery is for the final product.

Just do your best NOT to contract disco fever...

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Just do your best NOT to contract disco fever...

boo

 

[limr]

Sorry, but I ain't buying what you're selling. A lot of people use computers and have internet and cell phones. But those are not required either. My point is: Shooting film does not require transitioning to digital once the negs dry. Just because most do so doesn't mean it's automatically a necessity.

No one said it was required. The only point made was that most film shooters have a hybrid process these days, and so the discussion of digital post-processing is still relevant in a film photography forum. There's no need to restrict the conversation to purely darkroom processes.

 

[DanOstergren]

Something that I think is worth pointing out is that if you want that 70's look, it's going to help a lot that you study the fashion, hair and makeup of that era and apply those looks to your photo shoot. The film you choose or the editing technique wont matter if the contents of the photograph don't convey the era.

 

[Derrel]

Sorry, but I ain't buying what you're selling. A lot of people use computers and have internet and cell phones. But those are not required either. My point is: Shooting film does not require transitioning to digital once the negs dry. Just because most do so doesn't mean it's automatically a necessity.

No one said it was required. The only point made was that most film shooters have a hybrid process these days, and so the discussion of digital post-processing is still relevant in a film photography forum. There's no need to restrict the conversation to purely darkroom processes.

Some moderation/commentary with some sensibility and understanding of the modern era, 18 years into the twenty-first century. Exactly what this thread needed. As others have said, post-processing of film-shot images is ENTIRELY relevant to the film sub-forum and its members. A lot of butt-hurt in this thread, and apparently a commercial lab worker's note that well over 75% of rolls develop are scanned seems to count for nothing with some folks here.

As far as arriving at the so-called "vintage 70's look"...that is these days, almost entirely,entirely done using software manipulation of images, images captured either on film, or on a digital sensor. Apparently, statistics, and facts, and observations about the actual working methods of well over a plurality of workers has ruffled the feathers of more than one member here.

I received a PM about the poor behavior of members here, in relation to my comments made last night. Defending my comments, and disparaging the behavior of others in this thread. Just sayin...