Any know a plugin/workflow for Photoshop to add LF feel to 35mm photos?

[marshallarts]

Thanks for all the replies, I look forward to trying out the techniques some suggested!

I've always been curious about blurring techniques in this manner but of course thought it is best to shoot LF if I really wanted the look. There is a reason I asked now and claim I "need" to try.

I just got back from my honeymoon, I got married in the San Juan mountains of West Colorado. Me and the wife were traveling around Ouray, Telluride, and Silverton. In Silverton there was an old-timey-photography studio. It claims to be the oldest in operation in the US, the guy who runs it opened 36 years ago and the location is also the oldest brothel in Silverton as well! He had wonderful samples plastered all over the walls but it was obvious there was different formats. You could tell some were 4x5 and looked incredible, others seriously looked like a cell phone camera!? Turns out he was using a 5MP Olympus from years past. I had my Canon 5DmkII with me and pleaded that he use that but he refused. I asked about the samples that looked like film and he sort of dodged the question saying he used to do film but not anymore. I went along with it and the photos do look great, just not like 4x5 like I wanted. This will probably go on to be my favorite picture from our honeymoon and I really wanted to Photoshop it to add the feel of LF.

So yes, I agree the question can be annoying to some, but in this case I really do "need" to try

[Ben Syverson]

Congratulations on getting married! I just recently got engaged.

Listen, it's never going to look like a 4x5. You might try uploading the photo to this "old timey" photo generator.

[lilmsmaggie]

Not sure which version of Photoshop you have, but if you can convert a working layer to a smart object. This way, all your changes/adjustments, and filters like lens blur, etc., to the original will be nondestructive.

You might want to check out Layers Magazine for tutorials etc:

http://layersmagazine.com

I've found the the site be very helpful.

[Frank Petronio]

This guy is pulling your legs... he wants to duplicate "Old-Tyme Portraits" from a tourist trap, he knows nothing of nuances you're all babbling about....

If you aren't a troll, then the old-tyme portraits you're enamored with were done with a larger camera, using either Polaroid prints or Printing-Out-Paper, both of which are no longer on the market.

The closest you could come with a modern DSLR like your Canon is to get a fast portrait lens, like the 85/1.2 L, and shoot wide-open. Print a sepia colored inkjet. Properly done, it will be a nice looking, high quality photo.

The next step would be actually using a large camera.

The proprietor of the portrait business, who was using a P&S, was probably merely making sepia-colored prints.

[rdenney]

I went along with it and the photos do look great, just not like 4x5 like I wanted. This will probably go on to be my favorite picture from our honeymoon and I really wanted to Photoshop it to add the feel of LF.

If the picture "looks great", what does that mean? The color is accurate and everything is crisply sharp? If so, that is an outcome many who use 4x5 would be thrilled with. So, the term "4x5" is not descriptive of what you are really wanting to see. Is it a blurry background? Black and white (and maybe with weird, old-timey eye colors)? Sharp with a gigantic print? Edges that look like they were sponged on? A look like an old tin-type photo? Soft all over? Swirly patterns in the out-of-focus areas? Any of these might be achieved using 4x5, but for the last 75 years or so, many 4x5 photographers are using view cameras to achieve all-over sharpness.

You could really help us by being very specific about what you think a large-format photograph looks like.

Rick "who doesn't know of a specifically 'large-format' look, except extreme levels of detail unreproducible by any Photoshop technique'" Denney

[paulr]

Rick "who doesn't know of a specifically 'large-format' look, except extreme levels of detail unreproducible by any Photoshop technique'" Denney

What about just getting really good with the brush tool? I think this guy uses old fashioned paint, but I've seen similar work by photoshop lunatics.

[Daniel_Buck]

Hopfully this thread stays here long enough for you to read my reply :-)

You can stitch a grid of images shot wide open with a fast and somewhat long lens, when you stitch them back together you will get much thinner DOF than with just one shot on a wider lens. Like these below. These were shot with 35mm digital camera (Canon 1Ds2), using a 85mm f1.2 lens wide open. No extra blurring added, all of the defocusing is from the lens. I stumbled upon this years ago when I was using a camera that did not have very much resolution, so I would shoot a grid of images and stitch them together to get much higher resolution images. A few times I accidentally left the lens wide open, and noticed that the DOF got dramatically thinner than what it would have if I shot the scene with a lens of similar view angle. I now understand why this happens, but at the time I didn't understand it. There are now tutorials online about how to do this (search for "Brenizer Method"), so I guess I'm not the only one to have stumbled upon this :-)

The number of images you shoot (how large your grid is) determines both how wide of a view you get, and how thin the DOF is. (as well as how close to your subject you are, affects the DOF). Starting with a fast lens helps, but isn't nessisary for the effect to work. It's alot more work than just taking one image, but it's really the only way to get this effect with a small format camera, and no "fake" bluring. And the larger you see these printed, the thinner the DOF looks. Here small on a computer screen the DOF doesn't look near as thin as it does when it's printed bigger. I have a 48" print of a shot similar to some of these below, and it's really quite interesting looking! I enjoy the process, and I'm going to start doing more of this in the future when I have time. To me it's fun, but then again my life is digital imaging (Visual Effects), both my work that puts food on the table, and my personal work just for fun.

1st shot was just a few images, 2nd shot was alot of images, somewhere around 20-30, and the 3rd shot was about 4 images I think, and the last shot was with about 15 images I think. You can easilly get thinner DOF than a large format camera, and quite possibly more resolution as well, if you have the patience to shoot alot of images :-) Don't let any of the film nuts here brush you off just because you are asking a question about simulating film, there are those of us here who are digital guys too. I like film, and digital :-)

[Donald Miller]

Thanks Daniel, I will give this a try the next time that I am out shooting digital.

[Ron Marshall]

Actually the best place to ask this sort of question is over at APUG.

They'll love to help you out!

[Doug Herta]

Actually the best place to ask this sort of question is over at APUG.

They'll love to help you out!

Oh the humanity!