muted tones??

#1

hi,may i know how can i adjust the images to muted tones like this in photoshop ?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/domcruz/3235102109/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/domcruz/3231664034/

it look nice and like movie feel
any tutorial pls :frowning:

#2

Two ideas:

LAB color space. Flatten and shift the A and B channels.

Use the Black&White tool to desaturate. Be careful to get light and dark in the right places. Maybe tint. Then Fade.

Ooo, I just had another idea…

#3

Yeah, looks like there’s some potential here.

Copy the layer.
Black&White that.
Create a gradient of your fave two colors.
Apply the gradient.
Play with blend modes and transparency.

#4

It really depends where are you starting from and can then be done by adjusting saturations, leves and hues.

Quick and dirty might be creating curves layer with preset “cross process”, then adjusting opacity and maybe blending modes of that. Maybe also narrowing range a bit, leaving out the blackest blacks and whitest whites.

Or just reducing saturation and adding some “greenish light” layer with soft light and adjusting opacity. (photographing some abstract - like out of focus image - with luminosity variation, gives better results than just solid color layer).

But if you are after “movie look”, there are also some other things like aspect ratio, depth of field, noise etc, which have an effect to that look.

#5

Most people do this stuff with filters (I do). There are a bunch that are good: NIK Color Efx, Alien Skin Exposure and now Magic Bullet Photolooks. They emulate film (and effects like cross-processing/bleach bypass, etc) better than just desaturating and applying contrast to an image. They use LUTs (look-up tables), not just a simple curve and gain/desaturation.

http://grab.by/3n3k

#6

better than just desaturating and applying contrast to an image. They use LUTs (look-up tables), not just a simple curve and gain/desaturation.

Would you like to explain that a bit?

#7

they map your image colours to values that would exist in the film you’re imitating. An LUT is a standard way of translating colour information - it’s just a chart of values. Desaturating, doing curves on channels and adding contrast just changes everything the same way without regard for how a film will show a particular value of red. You can get decent results this way but it’s not really imitating film.

#8

^ so basicly it works as we had a color profile for the film we are trying to imitate?That kind of profile would have it’s advantages, since one could do adjustments in wider gamut profile and then just convert to film profile or use that and be sure that only colors available for certain film are in use.

So using regular tools you could get also the same results, but of course it a lot easier if someone has already set the limits.

And what comes to noise I just agree that photoshop doesn’t have the right way to do it.

#9

ya - that’s another thing. The grain in Alien Skin Exposure is much more film like than add noise or the Grain filter that’s in the PS Filter Gallery. I use them as a final pass on my album covers (with a ton of other post-processing):

http://www.3eige.com/design/monoblock.html

http://www.3eige.com/design/slg.html

I recently composed an entire set of 3D magazine illustrations in After Effects so I could use Magic Bullet Looks for the film feel:

http://www.can-con.ca/portfolio_ad_enroutegear2.html

Otherwise, that image would look like a CG rendering composite with product photography. Glad that they finally came out with a PS version of Magic Bullet. AE is so painfully slow with 16-/32-bit layers.

#10

You make it all way too complicated, it’s basically just a levels adjustment layer; sliding the gray slider for RGB and then fine tuning each individual channel. If you correct the posted image to bring back the original color and lightness and then follow my advice, you’ll see that the result is extremely close.

#11

I’m not saying that exact image effect can’t be replicated with individual channel tweaks and some desaturation. But if you want the feel of film in different variations, there is more to it than just that. I guess I’m extrapolating a bit. One approach might be to get the Magic Bullet Photolooks demo and see if you can reverse engineer some tweaks based on its settings. That filter might use corrections only - not LUTs, like Exposure. But it does a lot behind the scenes that would make for a ton of layers, adjustment layers and masks.

#12

Sure, but that’s only needed to fine tune the results. the basic idea doesn’t take a lot of effort.
Buying third plug-ins all the time like you seem to so is not a good solution either, it’s just a cheap way out. Trying to do it with Photoshop only, not only saves you money, but encourages you to learn the program as best as you can. There is nothing more satisfying than to be able to clone almost every look you see or to create any effect you have in mind without having to hunt for an expensive plug-in that often doesn’t exactly achieve what you want. Being good at Photoshop will also allow you to create more effects than all plugins combined.

#13

If you think Photoshop is just about desaturation and contrast, then you’ve never seriously taken the time to get to know Photoshop.

 All those programs you mention are a pure waste of money. Take the effect of the picture posted in this thread; how many times can you use this effect before it starts to become boring? I tell you; once.
  
  All these filters come up with all kind of cool slogans and lure photographers with all kind of film names just to sell their product. A program like Alien Skin Exposure costs $245, Magic Bullet Photolooks costs $199 and so does  NIK Color Efx pro!! This bring the total to $643 for just 3 plug-ins, almost the price of Photoshop CS4. And you think it will make your photos better? The only thing that makes photos better is the user and the user is also capable to create a very personal, unique style. Why do you think people get almost virtually "shot" by experienced users if they use Photoshop's lens flare?
  
  Trust me, I lost count the times that one of my forum posts on a manufacturer forum was removed that contained a quick way to achieve the same result or better, it's not even funny anymore. And all I would post was always; "I don't see why you need this plug-in, if you can achieve the same in Photoshop by using the following straightforward steps:".
  
  Some argue that these products allow you to work quicker, but those people have obviously never heard of Photoshop actions and heck, you can even download thousands of them for free at  the Adobe Photoshop Exhange if you don't want to create any yourself. Paying $200-$250 for those commercial plug-ins mentioned earlier is just too foolish for words, even if you're a professional photographer and work with high volume.
#14

lol. I think that you assumed that because you haven’t seen me around here that I’m new to PS. I don’t come here much because I’m an expert and don’t have much to learn about Photoshop. I’ve been a professional retoucher for 17 years (before PS had layers, when we had to use a third party plug-in to do what Adobe eventually incorporated as “actions”). I never recommend “enhance” bullshit plug-ins unless I think they do something that PS doesn’t do by default - which is the case here. Care to see if I know Photoshop? Read my articles - I’ve been a beta tester and consultant to Adobe for years (I’ve got a phone call on Friday to discuss CS6 features). Here are a few of my PS articles to get you started:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/10/adobe-cs4-review.ars

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/04/photoshop-cs3.ars

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/08/mystery.ars

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/10/mystery-2.ars

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/01/mystery-3.ars

or just Google “Photoshop CS* review” - mine will turn up on the first page. I’m writing the CS5 review right now.

I’m a “teach a man to fish” guy myself but there are plug-ins that do more than enhance - the film emulation plug-ins I mentioned are some of those. These and Neat Image are the only plug-in I’ve bought for PS. Let me know when you cook up a home-made Neat Image.

#15

Man oh man, what a childish guy you are. If you feel the need to waste almost your whole post on writing a “resume” or coming up with lame examples like NeatImage to prove a point, then you must be quite desperate to prove your skills or to brag about yourself, especially when you start acting like this self-proclaimed expert by saying “I’m an expert and don’t have much to learn about Photoshop”.

 Also I can easily cough up my Photoshop history and the factual influence my work has had on millions, backed up by several globally well known Photoshop individuals, but unlike you I focus on this forum on what has been said and not someone's private life, whether his name is Thomas Knoll or whether Adobe discussed CS6 features on the phone...seriously...
 
   Why should your background change my opinion about some of your skills (read "some") if you continue to make foolish comments like this:

I never recommend “enhance” bullshit plug-ins unless I think they do something that PS doesn’t do by default - which is the case here

 So if it's not a quick default tool or effect in Photoshop that will do the job, you recommend an expensive plug-in? 
   If you can't achieve the effect of the image posted without an expensive third party plug-in, then I continue to have serious doubts about your Photoshop expertise in [b]some[/b] areas.
 
 I don't what to hijack the thread of the original poster with off topic discussions, so I have decided to end this discussion.
#16

There’s a reason these things are expensive: they contain quality engineering. Like I said - I don’t recommend enhancement plug-ins and my whole “Photoshop without the Mystery” series was basically an argument much like what you’re saying here:

Eventually [this series] should also help you look and see what is wrong with your image while reducing your reliance on those “fix image please” buttons that only half work. You should walk away from this as an image mechanic: If the image is broken, you’ll know how to fix it even with the most minimal of tools. Kind of like MacGyver, only you won’t look like a golden retriever. Also, avoiding the limited choices given to you by idiot-friendly programs, you will give you more room for experimentation in the future, getting results that aren’t as canned.

So why am I recommending these in this case? Because these do more than use basic in-app edits to “enhance.” They are the exception to the rule because of the engineering used and the complexity of the edits.

Anyway - have fun fighting the good fight. I have a review to write.

#17

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.