Beginner Creating a vintage look - first camera purchase

Messages
2
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello

I am looking to start photography and to purchase my first camera. I am hoping to create a vintage look like the images attached. Can anyone guide me what would be the best way to create this faded, out of focus look? What camera should I consider? See photos on this thread. Are these just instant throw away cameras from 1990 ? or is there a SLR that would be suited?



 
To be honest, those don't look like 'vintage' photos to me, they look like they were taken on film and underexposed quite badly, and someone has tried to get what they can out of them when printing the negative! To me, they are not a good look, even if someone has taken some time to deliberately create that look using image processing software. I think there are much better looking recreations of vintage film photographs out there.

If you want to replicate a 'vintage' film photo effect then have a look at the various tutorials on Photoshop and Lightroom on Youtube or the Internet. Apps are also available for smartphone cameras to give a supposedly vintage film effect at the click of a button (probably with varying degrees of success!). However, it's something of an acquired taste, so not everyone will appreciate your efforts! Before spending money on apps or 'plug-in' features, many of these sort of effects can be obtained through using standard image processing software such as Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, etc.

This 'vintage' photo was created in Photoshop Elements by converting a colour shot to black and white, adding a sepia effect and then a vignette effect. I only did it as someone suggested the photo might look good with a vintage look, it's really not my cup of tea and I didn't spend much time on it. To be honest, I'd rather get the vintage look by using a film camera and the right sort of film, but each to their own. Hope this is useful and best of luck joining the world of photography. (y)

48838449072_5376054c03_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
If you look at the lines in the first photo, you'll see that it isn't out of focus. The hand is in focus, the word 'Scholl' is in focus, that white panelling at the right-hand side, about halfway down the shop is in focus. In fact, you have to look right at the back to see anything that's out of focus, and even then it's only slightly out. And this can happen if you shoot a photo with a narrow aperture (f/22, or even up to f/8, say) in a dark place.

The second photo looks as if it might well be in focus, or not far off. You can at least see detail in the faces. But this was not only taken in a dark place, the subjects have a couple of lights behind them. Most modern cameras, set to Auto mode (or too old to have anything but an Auto mode, will compensate for the brightness of the lights by dimming the whole scene down.

Both of the above situations will result in a photo that's too dark to make out any detail. And if you brighten up a photo that's like this, you'll get the kind of result you're seeing above. A washed-out look, no real black tones, blown highlights, and lots of the detail washed away by noise.

You can do this kind of thing with most cameras if you really want. Just put the camera into manual mode, choose a high f-stop number (f/22 or above), choose a very low ISO number (100 or less), then dial the shutter speed to a value that means that you can't see very much on the LCD (or through the viewfinder). You'll end up with dark photos with very little detail that will be easy to process so they look like the two above photos.

Or you can do it all in post-processing, so you have more control. Just load your photo into something like Lightroom that has a curves adjustment. Click on the small circle at the bottom left and drag it to about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way up. That on its own will get you most of the way there. If you haven't got a Curves adjustment, just drag the Blacks slider up to get a similar effect, though you'll have to drag the Shadows up a way to get the same effect as with the Curves too.

For the colour effect in the top photo, if it's not looking yellow enough, just drag the Temperature slider up. For the cooler look of the bottom one, drag it down slightly. Maybe add a dark-greenish filter effect. In fact, many post-processing programs have a built-in set of filters and effects, including those suitable for vintage photos.

In all honesty, though, you hit the nail on the head in your post. Really, they're just instant throwaway photos from an instant throwaway camera. They could be improved a lot, but you could obviously do much better with a decent camera. Even a cheap DSLR like the Nikon D5xxx series. As long as you learn the relationship between aperture (f/stop), shutter speed, and ISO, plus a little about colour balance, and how to manipulate all of those, you'll be off to a good start. It doesn't take long, and can last a lifetime.
 
I occasionally try to make a picture look like it was taken a long time ago. In my case got the idea from museum displays which were not photography related but had pictures which tended to be.... well.. often crap :D Low resolution picture blown up way beyond reason, next to no contrast, too much contrast, grain etc.

The results I've been most happy with are those taken with film era lenses and highly processed often with heavy crops too to try and imitate that blown up beyond all reason look.

Nik filters is still available free and might be worth playing with as a part of all this. If you go to the web site you should be able to find the free edition, if not post here and someone (maybe even me) will post a link.
 
Yeah you can do a lot in post but starting off with lenses of character is one way to go.

To be honest the second photo is just really bad veiling glare from a really cheapo lens/camera. A lot of legacy lenses from the 60/70’s will do this with lighting pointing straight into the lens - but maybe not to the same extent.

You could also try smearing vaseline on a clear front filter on any lens - lots of other ways to do it.

If you really intend to do this seriously, my guess is that at some time probably sooner rather than later you may be wanting to stick on some Russian or Eastern european lenses from rangefinder cameras. They all have different looks but the main thing is that they are cheap.

You cant put these on a dslr in any reasonable way but put a few slr legacy lenses ( contax yashica, Pentax M42 .... ) on a Canon dslr but very very few on a Nikon DSLR ( without an adapter with optics in which gets expensive.

This really means a mirrorless body but they are not cheap: starting at 500 for a used sony a7 or more for a used a7ii - much better imo.

You can get fujifilm used bodies that are not too expensive but they have a crop sensor which means that you will capture a narrower field of view.

These are just my own views and I guess everyone will have their own opinions - I think you learn more by trying things out yourself.

BTW I have used old lenses on micro four thirds, Sony Nex and a Sony A7. In the long run I found the A7 the best and the cheapest though, for other reasons, I use a Nikon z6 now.
 
Sorry for my late reply thanks for all the information! I've been away for a few weeks. I am going to get an Olympus OM-10 and play around with lenses and experiment a lot. Your help has really helped - cant wait to get stuck in :)
 
Sorry for my late reply thanks for all the information! I've been away for a few weeks. I am going to get an Olympus OM-10 and play around with lenses and experiment a lot. Your help has really helped - cant wait to get stuck in :)

Best of luck and don't forget to check out the Film and Conventional section of Talk Photography, there's lots of hints, tips and info in there, together with a lot of friendly and knowledgeable film photographers. Talk Film & Conventional | Talk Photography (y)
 
Start off by using an old manual focus lens, that will give you the right type of contrast in the image (modern lenses have wayyyy too much microcontrast, which is why the faux vinatge images above simply don't look remotely vintage at all). Then bring up the black point on curve, add grain and your pretty much there, just colours to tweak if you want to match a specific film.
 
Start off by using an old manual focus lens, that will give you the right type of contrast in the image (modern lenses have wayyyy too much microcontrast, which is why the faux vinatge images above simply don't look remotely vintage at all). Then bring up the black point on curve, add grain and your pretty much there, just colours to tweak if you want to match a specific film.

I assume you have seen what old film era lenses are capable of on a modern mirrorless camera. If you're using anything better than a old milk bottle bottom you'll probably get all the resolution and contrast you want anywhere you'd place a main point of interest at least when stopped down a bit. Flare and funky bokeh and the like are another matter.

If you want to say that the film look is difficult to reproduce with digital that's a point but I think you're off on old manual lenses and the right sort of contrast unless you're looking at something especially old or unpresentative and crappy.

The picture above was just a bit of fun and taken with a TZ100 which isn't the best camera and doesn't have the best lens on earth. I'd probably place every single film era lens I have and use on my mirrorless cameras ahead of it for resolution and contrast.

This could well be one of the oldest lenses I own, according to the serial number it was made in the 60's, or maybe a Rokkor is. Anyway, certainly decades old. Here's what Uncle Ken has to say about it... other reviews are available... and sample pictures taken with digital cameras are relatively easy to find on line.

 
Last edited:
An alternative to the vintage lens and adapter on mirrorless is to pick up one of the cheap "toy" lenses.
SLR Magic and Lomography spring to mind.
I bought a "Holga" for micro 4/3rds a while back for a tenner off eBay to try something new,
It's not at all sharp but it creates an interesting nostalgic look.

The earlier shots in this album were barely edited.
Later I did a bit more.

An old M43 body for <£50 from someone like MPB and an eBay lens and you'll be in business for less than a few rolls of film,
Not that there's anything wrong with film if that's what you want to do.


Fish and Chips
by AMc UK, on Flickr


Maison, Saint-Étienne-du-Grès
by AMc UK, on Flickr


Dunes
by AMc UK, on Flickr
 
I'm not entirely sure why anyone would think that a "vintage look" would involve fuzzy, unsharp and grainy images.

The photographers of the Victorian period went to a lot of trouble to obtain sharp, well lit images. The move to ever smaller formats led to decades of effort to improve sharpness and reduce grain. Images in the post war period succeeded despite such failings, not because of them.

In the 1960s, our slightly fuzzy, grainy images from 35mm were a compromise, which we made because we didn't want to lug around large format cameras when even the 35mm cameras were bulky and heavy (being made largely of brass and other dense metals).

Some pictures from the latter half of the 1960s...

Masada Israel Pentacon FM 1968 01-28.jpg
Bonfire.jpg
Man on wall photographing boy by Thames Pentacon FM 67-9001.jpg
Pentacon FM 1968 01-18.jpg
Pentacon FM 67-9006.JPG
 
I'm not entirely sure why anyone would think that a "vintage look" would involve fuzzy, unsharp and grainy images.

Possibly because they or their parents were using a cheap box with few controls and a crappy lens on it. My parents had a Diana whilst my first camera was an Kodak Instamatic. Then I suppose there's the film and how it's processed.

An old lens though may give good results and the gap between it and a modern mirrorless lens (I say modern mirrorless because these are the newest) may only be seen towards the edges and corners or at wide apertures. I may be wrong but as I have about a gazillion pictures taken with old lenses on mirrorless cameras I've sort of formed the conclusion that some aren't really all that bad :D
 
I'm sure what is perceived as a vintage look is really a 'poor camera and lousy processing' look. Or what LOMO offer new right now. [emoji6]
 
Back
Top