The analogue film look as in photos of Monaris is a widespread look that is relatively easy to achieve.
The most important two elements are:
Attenuation of high frequency contrasts especially in midtones and highlights. Various methods can be used for this. The easiest way is with a contrast equaliser.
As far as colours are concerned, roughly speaking rotation of blue towards cyan and red towards orange - very popular teal and orange look. This is practically channel mixing and can be done with channel mixer or RGB primaris.
To take Steven’s example photo, you always start with white balance:
This means you lose a little of the global contrasts, which can be enhanced again with the color balance module. For example, in this case with global offset and highlights gain:
Now you can turn your attention to colour grading. For teal and orange, one instance of the rgb primaries module is sufficient. I will first move it over the tone-mapper (Sigmoid in this case) because I want to avoid “distorting” the colour settings in Sigmoid. I’m practically working on a fully formed photo whose colour mood I want to change additionally.
Now I move the blue primary in the direction of cyan, which also shifts red in the direction of magenta. This also makes the yellow tones a little more orange. And that is more or less the basis for teal and orange:
Now it’s all about creating the greenish-bluish colour mood that Monaris’ photos have. So the entire colour composition must be shifted in this direction.
Accordingly, we select a colour with hue tint slider and move the white point in that direction using the tint purity slider:
You can refine it and adapt it to motifs. In this case, I could make the shadows a little bit more bluish to create an even colder impression and so on:
Thanks Boris! Looks good. I might just add that in the text, you call the second step the tone equalizer which (in english) is a different tool - looks like you mean the contrast equalizer.
Just mention for anyone who could be confused. I’m impressed with the new primaries module. Very versatile!
A LUT would certainly be quicker initially. That one’s a bit too ‘crispy’ for my taste although obviously it could be backed off a bit.
Would work well in it’s own right though.
Thank you for the hints Boris,
When trying to reproduce your example, in the shadows appear
very bright pixels what is happening here and how to prevent this?
I found out what was causing it - it was global offset in colour balance module. You can also increase contrast with briliance sliders. Then the artefacts no longer appear:
I find interesting how perceived quality of an image is culturally shifted :
how some optic, processing and broadcasting characteristics of the film era that can be associated to “defects” is spontaneously recognised by many of us as quality indicators like :
reduced dynamic with blacks not black and even color shifted same for the whites, reduces high frequency contrasts that could be linked to the quality of the optic or focus.
I find these traits very pronounced on the given example (low DR and softness)
But then again the quality of an image, and edit is not about maxing the contrast and color capability of your medium
More on the topic as @s7habo and @123sg have demonstrated here, thanks to colorbalance RGB, contrast equalizer and primaries, it’s almost a 3 module job on DT once the basics (technicals modules + WB and exposure compensation) have been taken care of.
@s7habo : Since I’ve had some difficulties to apprehend channel mixer (but I’m kid of ok with that now) I’m curious to know , Have you ditched it since Primaries is available or are you using both depending the edit ?
There are indeed some things in edit that are particular to the cinematic style. Some things I’d like to add: pull down the target white in filmic / sigmoid for a more uniform look in the highlights. This can work a treat on moody portraits. Lifting target black also gives that sometimes desirable “fog” - just don’t overdo it.
However, I think the term “cinematic” itself is very slippery and hard to dissect - its meaning will also depend on each person’s own preferences and background.
For me, I think creating cinematic pictures starts well before even pressing the shutter button. The shots that I find the most cinematic tend to always have a sense of depth - either in form of clear subject-background separation, atmospheric haze or perspective. The best images seem to have a clear storyline and guide the viewer to read the picture. Often, those pictures tend to have a person in them.
So compose your shots well. Think about the storyline and use the leading lines, foreground, whatever you have to convey the story to the reader. Ditch that dehaze preset.
(btw: the most obvious cinematic tip is to shoot/crop 16:9 or even wider to be closer to the format used in cinemas )
It’s ironic that shallow depth of field is considered cinematic by photographers (who spend so much on f1.n lenses to try to achieve it ). Cinema tends toward deep focus, as far I understand, particularly classic movies, because a good director can use blocking to control the image while providing more subliminal information for the viewer in the background or the geometry of the actors and objects. This great IGN analysis of Kurosawa’s High and Low is a good example and a treat of visual storytelling.
Even great directors like Denis Villeneuve who do use shallow depth of field tend to deploy it in the exact opposite way that stills photographers trying to be cinematic do. In the montage video of his work below, Villeneuve’s using the out of focus areas not generally to isolate the key action but to blur that action, forcing the viewer to strain to see what’s going on.
Even great directors like Denis Villeneuve who do use shallow depth of field tend to deploy it in the exact opposite way that stills photographers trying to be cinematic do. In the montage video of his work below, Villeneuve’s using the out of focus areas not generally to isolate the key action but to blur that action, forcing the viewer to strain to see what’s going on.
Well, it’s not the opposite. I mean some photographers do, yes, but for me the blurred OOF background has to mean something to the sharp subject in the foreground (or vice versa). Otherwise there’s no point of the image except saying “yeah, nice bokeh, you isolated your object”. But that’s it, it’s one-dimensional. Connection to both planes has to exist to be good.
Denis V. is the master of cinematography for sure. There are only few directors that have that style for me and he’s one of them. Every one of his films has that signature visual style and tension-rich atmospherics. Can’t wait for Dune 2. Watched Dune 1 eight times in cinemas, all flavors.
And just days ago was watching Blade Runner 2049 again. Was blown away even more.
Agree. There’s a certain tendency to focus on style, sometimes with little regard to the purpose or meaning of a picture. Like what’s that stylistic turn actually doing there. It’s a major weakness in my own photos, for sure.
xD Yeah I know. I was addicted and hugely inspired by the film, cinematography, music, story.
There’s a certain tendency to focus on style, sometimes with little regard to the purpose or meaning of a picture. Like what’s that stylistic turn actually doing there. It’s a major weakness in my own photos, for sure.
I think we all do when the lens is new or learning the new technique. Or just having fun.
But if working for the news agency taught me something back in the days, it’s the fact that every image has to portray something and tell a story. One of the tricks to use is the separation of the planes, where foreground emphasizes something that’s in the background, or vice versa.
[off hook] That’s why you should never trust a photojournalist working for the news agency on a sensitive matter - we all try to make the best photo by connecting pieces that are on the streets to tell a story. And those pieces are usually highly subjective or in-sync with the news.
That one’s a bit too ‘crispy’ for my taste although obviously it could be backed off a bit.
)
). Cinema tends toward deep focus, as far I understand, particularly classic movies, because a good director can use blocking to control the image while providing more subliminal information for the viewer in the background or the geometry of the actors and objects. This great IGN analysis of Kurosawa’s High and Low is a good example and a treat of visual storytelling.
