How can I duplicate the PP

[winparkman]

Nev, quit confusing your opinion for facts.
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.

 

[hoopla]

Can be done in Nik Color Efex Pro 3.0 - Bi Color Filter applied plus some ps levels and contrast twicking. Hope it helps!

 

[hoopla]

tried quickly with an ordinary photo if looks similar then try the above Nik Color Efex have fun!

 

[Sammy Yousef]

You're debating what particular manner of aging damage???

I'm sorry but for me artistic merit has it's limits, and these photos cross the line.

As far as I'm concerned the effect is urine, vinegar and food colour, shot with a 1MP phone camera, printed on a $40 printer and smudged! The only emotion they illicit is the same one that I have when my food comes back up.

They are THAT bad.

I can think of one good legitimate use for photos like this - as a stage or movie prop.

A second one that isn't so legitimate is as a prop for criminal fraud.

I feel similarly about most Sepia - why pretend your photos have been damaged by selective fading and chemical tea staining?

I once saw a painting - a canvas painted half way between mid and dark grey with no detail titled "Untitled Grey" hanging in a large state gallery. That wasn't art either.

--
Sammy

 

[faxmachineAnthem]

Count me as another who thinks the photos are great. I really like that effect.

 

[Madwand1]

A crucifix in a jar of urine was supposed to be art too, wasn't it? That doesn't make it so...If I smear a turd on a piece of plywood and say it's art, does that mean it is? Not likely.
--

I got no fancy film learnin'.

 

[winparkman]

Your comparison is absurd.

A crucifix in a jar of urine was supposed to be art too, wasn't it? That doesn't make it so...If I smear a turd on a piece of plywood and say it's art, does that mean it is? Not likely.
--

I got no fancy film learnin'.

--
OK, not so purely a hobby.

 

[jakew8]

1. It doesn't matter if you think that they're junk. They have a right to exist and the original poster has a right to ask how to make them without being harassed.

2. Stop misspelling "its."

You're debating what particular manner of aging damage???

I'm sorry but for me artistic merit has it's limits, and these photos cross the line.

As far as I'm concerned the effect is urine, vinegar and food colour, shot with a 1MP phone camera, printed on a $40 printer and smudged! The only emotion they illicit is the same one that I have when my food comes back up.

They are THAT bad.

I can think of one good legitimate use for photos like this - as a stage or movie prop.

A second one that isn't so legitimate is as a prop for criminal fraud.

I feel similarly about most Sepia - why pretend your photos have been damaged by selective fading and chemical tea staining?

I once saw a painting - a canvas painted half way between mid and dark grey with no detail titled "Untitled Grey" hanging in a large state gallery. That wasn't art either.

--
Sammy

 

[rundadar]

Why on earth would you intentionally strive to make your art to look like someone else's?

While pre-packaged PP magic (like this effect) may look 'cool', they make pictures look exactly the same. So, you buy a plugin, she buys a plugin, I buy a plugin and we all become very 'creative' straight away. So creative in fact, that now our pictures are indistinguishable from each other. Now, we start looking for another plugin to make us look even more 'creative'. And so, it continues.

Where is photography in all that? Where does it leave you ?

Just sayin'...
--
Cheers,

Alex Glickman

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rundadar/

 

[FoolyCooly]

It's art if the creator calls it art.

A crucifix in a jar of urine was supposed to be art too, wasn't it? That doesn't make it so...If I smear a turd on a piece of plywood and say it's art, does that mean it is? Not likely.
--

I got no fancy film learnin'.

 

[tyoung]

It's art if the creator calls it art.

And unlike fine art, the merits of which can be argued forever, who says the photographer is calling these images "art"? Most likely they're part of his bag of tricks that he offers to clients upon request. If they like it, they buy it and take the prints home. Everybody's happy, even if the curators over at the Louvre remain less than impressed.

Tom Young
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/

 

[Sammy Yousef]

1. It doesn't matter if you think that they're junk. They have a right to exist and the original poster has a right to ask how to make them without being harassed.

I didn't say they weren't allowed to exist, or that the OP didn't have any right to ask the question. I just said that they are junk. I too have a right to express this opinion.

2. Stop misspelling "its."

This is an Internet forum and I'm writing quickly in my spare time without an editor and without being so pedantic. You can stop being so pedantic too at any time.
--
Sammy

 

[Scorsone]

Why on earth would you intentionally strive to make your art to look like someone else's?

That's how you learn. Regardless of the art form, you learn from copying others. When you can see an effect (regardness of how you feel about it) and figure out how to duplicate it, you learn something. I like to manually try to duplicate a canned effect, then you can make it your own.

You know, I haven't read or posted on this forum for a while. I don't see a lot of the old timers here any more that I used to enjoy reading. Perhaps threads like this drove them away.

--
Joe
http://scorsone.smugmug.com

 

[chinolofus]

count me as another who likes the look.

 

[Sammy Yousef]

Lets see a show of hands. Be honest. If a client asked for this look, how many of you would be able to do this?

1. I'm not a pro. I don't have clients

2. If I were a pro, I would never allow my name to be attached to such images for anything but a very specific set of uses - mainly prop work for tv/movie.

3. Emulating damage is not as hard as you've made out. It's a lot easier and allows a lot more artistic license than image restoration or refinement. Any idiot can put ugly colour washes over an image wit bad filters. It's much harder to use software to remove that damage.

4. Suggesting people with enough taste to find this repulsive are just jealous is LAUGHABLE.

Once you've mastered tack-sharp images and accurate color then producing looks like this is the next step. I for one would love to have this tool in my bag of tricks. Post-processing is probably more important than the actual image capture.

You're welcome to this particular technique. While you're at it please take sepia too.

--
Sammy

 

[winparkman]

You are the arbiter of taste because you have enough taste to find them repulsive? The photos aren't damaged, they files have simply been modified. If they were shot in RAW, restoring them is quite easy. Your plan is to get better and learn...being offensive, close-minded and presumptuous are hardly going to get you there.

Lets see a show of hands. Be honest. If a client asked for this look, how many of you would be able to do this?

1. I'm not a pro. I don't have clients

2. If I were a pro, I would never allow my name to be attached to such images for anything but a very specific set of uses - mainly prop work for tv/movie.

3. Emulating damage is not as hard as you've made out. It's a lot easier and allows a lot more artistic license than image restoration or refinement. Any idiot can put ugly colour washes over an image wit bad filters. It's much harder to use software to remove that damage.

4. Suggesting people with enough taste to find this repulsive are just jealous is LAUGHABLE.

Once you've mastered tack-sharp images and accurate color then producing looks like this is the next step. I for one would love to have this tool in my bag of tricks. Post-processing is probably more important than the actual image capture.

You're welcome to this particular technique. While you're at it please take sepia too.

--
Sammy

--
OK, not so purely a hobby.

 

[jakew8]

I and some others have jumped on the naysayers in this thread, defending the photos (or at least their right to exist and to be appreciated). My argument is that it doesn't matter if you don't like them--that is, the fact that you don't like them is irrelevant to the discussion of how to duplicate the effect.

Well it turns out that I'm a hypocrite because the other comments in favor of the effect--calling it nostalgic, creative, etc.--they're also irrelevant. But nobody jumps on them. Why not? Because they're nice.

I think that my mother said it best: "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all."

 

[Sammy Yousef]

You are the arbiter of taste because you have enough taste to find them repulsive?

I am not the arbitrer of good taste but I maintain that without any context showing these images to average joes and photo enthusiasts and asking if you consider these "good photos" you'd receive a resounding no, and if you asked if they looked "damaged by age" you'd receive a resounding yes.

The photos aren't damaged, they files have simply been modified.

I disagree.

If they were shot in RAW, restoring them is quite easy.

If you kept a copy of the original and it didn't look like that out of camera you can do anything to the image you like. However turning it into something this awful is a waste of time and energy.

Your plan is to get better and learn...being offensive, close-minded and presumptuous are hardly going to get you there.

Seriously, i do not wish to learn how to do that. I have zero interest in vomiting rainbows and coffee stains over my images. It's hideous. That's my opinion. I'm not saying that the photographer shouldn't be allowed to do that nor am I trying to restrict him. I'm just saying that it's not a worthy goal.

--
Sammy

 

[Sammy Yousef]

I can say something nice, but it wouldn't be genuine. It also isn't nice watching someone produce what you consider horrible and not letting them know.

Even calling this effet hideous isn't nasty. I haven't abused the photographer, or said he shouldn't be allowed to do this. I've expressed what I frankly think would be the majority view. If the photographer is going to expend time and effort duplicating the technique he may as well get a sense of what people are going to think of it.

If someone asked you how to take out of focus overexposed pictures that were badly framed, would you not feel the need to warn them that people aren't going to like them?

--
Sammy

 

[winparkman]

The majority view? See, to me, you are attempting to speak for those that have a rigid conception of what a photograph should be.

I can say something nice, but it wouldn't be genuine. It also isn't nice watching someone produce what you consider horrible and not letting them know.

Even calling this effet hideous isn't nasty. I haven't abused the photographer, or said he shouldn't be allowed to do this. I've expressed what I frankly think would be the majority view. If the photographer is going to expend time and effort duplicating the technique he may as well get a sense of what people are going to think of it.

If someone asked you how to take out of focus overexposed pictures that were badly framed, would you not feel the need to warn them that people aren't going to like them?

--
Sammy

--
OK, not so purely a hobby.