# Do these look like they were shot with film?



## Robin Usagani

My friend Jonathan likes to make his own Christmas card each year.  It is more personal I think.  Anyway, I am trying to edit them to make them look like it was taken with film.  How did I do?



















Here is one attempt to make it look like colored film









UPDATE:
Ok here it is:




SOOC, no adjustment








B&W using B&W button on LR, no adjustment








Kodak T-Max 3200








Kodak Potra 800








Fuji 800Z


----------



## tirediron

I'm assuming you're after an 'older' look?  If so than i think these have missed, not because of any fault in processing (Really, it should be virtually impossible to determine whether a good monochrome print started out as a digital file or a negative), but rather because of all the little modern hints.  The hammer with a fibreglass handle, aluminum gutters and downspouts, the aluminum ladder plastered with warning decals, the thermo-pane style windows, asphalt shingles, etc.   Again, assuming my thought is correct, I would choose #2 as the most suitable.  Nice series though.


----------



## o hey tyler

Nice work! They do have a very film-y feel to them, and the black and white processing works well. I would have cropped a bit more on the right side of the last photo, but I like the leading line into the image. You have more snow than we do. 

Was it scary being perched on the roof?

Edit: Upon reading John's comments, I agree with the content of the photos not being antique. However, I thought you were just processing them to look like film. I didn't get the impression you were going for a vintage era feel, just that your friend dresses like he shops from the LL Bean Signature collection.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Yeah John.  Not sure where to find older tools.  We wanted 1970 feel.  Once he picks which photo to use, I will do more photoshopping.


----------



## Robin Usagani

These were done with VSCO plugin for LR.  $120.  Pretty good investment I think.


----------



## tirediron

Schwettylens said:


> Yeah John. Not sure where to find older tools. We wanted 1970 feel. Once he picks which photo to use, I will do more photoshopping.


Check out Salvation Army.  For 1970s, you should be going for that bright, slightly desaturated C135 processed colour look!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

#2 and the one in color are pretty nice!


----------



## Robin Usagani

Link?



tirediron said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah John. Not sure where to find older tools. We wanted 1970 feel. Once he picks which photo to use, I will do more photoshopping.
> 
> 
> 
> Check out Salvation Army.  For 1970s, you should be going for that bright, slightly desaturated C135 processed colour look!
Click to expand...


----------



## Robin Usagani

I used this
Visual Supply Co (VSCO)


----------



## dxqcanada

I think they should be "grainier".


----------



## Robin Usagani

These are supposed to be "ASA 400".  Large Image Adorama Sku#KKTX36U.jpg


----------



## Josh66

dxqcanada said:


> I think they should be "grainier".


I agree.

They look like they 'could' be film, but not 400 ISO.  This is what Tri-X looks like in what looks to be similar lighting as you have in the first shot:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3113/5763221910_31b9bd7775_z.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5108/5762700783_978ce9b3b1_z.jpg


----------



## tirediron

Schwettylens said:


> Link?



Here's a whole page...  (I assume you didn't mean for the Sally-Ann!  )


----------



## Derrel

If you want these to look like 35mm film from the 1970's, you need to add some obvious film grain to the images. The large, plain side of the white house..if that had been shot on film, we'd likely see some grain there. Same with the sky in that frame...too smooth, no grain,looks digital. In another vein, the tonality looks very "digital"...these look digital. Low noise, smooth broad areas with NO visible grain, and compressed tonal range. Film images that were shot on ASA 125 to 400 B&W film and developed in almost anything, anything at ALL,would show grain in the sky,and on larger, smooth-toned expanses.


----------



## Josh66

Derrel said:


> If you want these to look like 35mm film from the 1970's, you need to add some obvious film grain to the images. The large, plain side of the white house..if that had been shot on film, we'd likely see some grain there. Same with the sky in that frame...too smooth, no grain,looks digital. In another vein, the tonality looks very "digital"...these look digital. Low noise, smooth broad areas with NO visible grain, and compressed tonal range. Film images that were shot on ASA 125 to 400 B&W film and developed in almost anything, anything at ALL,would show grain in the sky,and on larger, smooth-toned expanses.


That sums my thoughts up pretty well.  You're better at putting it into words than I am, lol.

They all look "too clean" to me.

I shoot film pretty much exclusively, and these don't look like "film" to me.  They could be film, but not 35mm 400 ISO.  Medium format maybe, but not 35mm.


----------



## paigew

These are great! I agree, a little grainier. My favorites are the first and last.


----------



## Josh66

Just a thought for when you want "the film look" - why not use film?

You could buy a decent body that uses the same lenses you already have for less than $100.  Instead of trying to imitate film, just shoot film.


----------



## Robin Usagani

If I had a Josh in my gear bag, I would have done it .  The only film I have shot was a point and shoot or disposable camera .



O|||||||O said:


> Just a thought for when you want "the film look" - why not use film?
> 
> You could buy a decent body that uses the same lenses you already have for less than $100.  Instead of trying to imitate film, just shoot film.


----------



## Robin Usagani

I will do more edits tonight and add more grain.


----------



## ghache

Schettylens, send me the shots tonight and ill give it a try


----------



## DiskoJoe

Hit the photos with one of these curves......

Crossprocessing Curve Presets by ~PederDingo on deviantART

there is one that makes the photo sort of brown. Used that on and then go to saturation and lighten the whole image a bit and increase the saturation. This might help for the color shots. For the bw you might add a bit of noise but i really dont like recommending that. Its better to try to get it when you shoot.

if you want you can send me a raw and i can see if I could tweek it for you.


----------



## raphaelaaron

i don't think this was mentioned, but if you don't want to deal with film, you can also try shooting through older film lenses adapted for your digital. some of the way lenses were made in earlier eras contributed to the film look. i agree more grain should be added in post. also try getting older vintage lenses.

here's a picture i took of my girlfriend with a russian lens called Helios i used on my 5D with a photoshop vintage action to process.


----------



## Robin Usagani

VSCO is supposed to be one of the best to make your digital film like.  I will work on it more tonight.  I have had it only a couple of days.


----------



## DiskoJoe

you can get a look like the photo above with those curves i posted a link to.


----------



## Robin Usagani

I know Joe.  I am testing VSCO. I spent $120 on it, might as well use it.  I like it so far.  Havent played with it enough.


----------



## DiskoJoe

Schwettylens said:


> I know Joe.  I am testing VSCO. I spent $120 on it, might as well use it.  I like it so far.  Havent played with it enough.



Never played with vsco. Im cheap and just figure out how to do it manually, lol. Must be nice to be a pro and be able to skip all the trial and error with fancy software plug ins.


----------



## Robin Usagani

I am no pro.  Just dad with a camera.


----------



## Derrel

Here's a new film emulation app that Reichmann says is fantastic:  DxO Film Pack


----------



## PhotoWrangler

Derrel said:


> If you want these to look like 35mm film from the 1970's, you need to add some obvious film grain to the images. The large, plain side of the white house..if that had been shot on film, we'd likely see some grain there. Same with the sky in that frame...too smooth, no grain,looks digital. In another vein, the tonality looks very "digital"...these look digital. Low noise, smooth broad areas with NO visible grain, and compressed tonal range. Film images that were shot on ASA 125 to 400 B&W film and developed in almost anything, anything at ALL,would show grain in the sky,and on larger, smooth-toned expanses.




What about the sharpness? Film wouldn't be this tack sharp would it?


----------



## Robin Usagani

Here is why VSCO is better than other emulators derrel:

"VSCO Film produces beautiful post-processing results in seconds. With our patent pending technology, VSCO Film utilizes camera specific film profiles to alter the way Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw sees your RAW file. Welcome to the future. Welcome to the gold standard of film emulation."

It is not just presets for LR.  It actually add more camera profiles to your lightroom along with their presets.


----------



## Derrel

Well, if those images are representative of VSCO's "35mm Tri-X" look, their product is far off-base...the shots posted look absolutely nothing at all like Tri-X...I shot Tri-X from 1976 to 1999...the grain is wrong, but even more importantly the tonality looks absolutely NOTHING like Tri-X...the highlights look dreadful. Digital as heck.

I have not used VSCO, nor the brand-new DxO Film Pack application software, but I do know what images made on Tri-X look like, when shot and processed in multiple different ways.

I have seen some pretty good images made with some of the Nik software B&W film apps. But like Josh said, the ones of the L.L. Bean-looking dude putting up the Christmas lights--those are far,far too "clean" to look like they had been made using 35mm Tri-X film...the images as shown are virtually grainless, so if those came thru VSCO, then I think you need to tweak the settings quite a bit if film emulation is your goal. Oh...and add some dust, some scratches, and some water spots too!! lol


----------



## Robin Usagani

derrel, I might very well didnt use it right.  There is also a preset for "screen view".  I should have used that maybe.  I will work on it again tonight.


----------



## Robin Usagani

the reason im staying away from Nik is that it is photoshop based.  My workflow would be way too slow if I have to use photoshop almost every image.  I rather stay inside LR.


----------



## GeorgieGirl

Schwettylens said:
			
		

> the reason im staying away from Nik is that it is photoshop based.  My workflow would be way too slow if I have to use photoshop almost every image.  I rather stay inside LR.



I thought you could select LR based from some webinars I took. Check into that.


----------



## unpopular

The highlight transition is too harsh. Was the original clipped?


----------



## Robin Usagani

unpopular said:


> The highlight transition is too harsh. Was the original clipped?



Ill do before and a few afters tonight.


----------



## Helen B

Derrel said:


> Well, if those images are representative of VSCO's "35mm Tri-X" look, their product is far off-base...



I had a look at the VSCO website and tend to agree with Derrel. They make a big claim about their authenticity, but fail to deliver on it - in fact anyone who claims to have an authentic "look" for negative film is either fooling themselves or taking their customers for gullible idiots. There's no such thing really, especially for negative films that changed over their life, such as all the Portra films, Tri-X and TMZ. Negatives have to be turned into positive images for viewing. If you are using prints as your basis for the "look" then the look depends as much, if not more, on the paper used. For B&W negative film there are almost as many looks as there are combinations of film developers and developing techniques. For most neg films how do you get an authentic look when the digital original has less dynamic range than the film it is trying to emulate - you would have to start off with underexposed images to try to get the highlight tonality that film can deliver.

There's no harm in producing some good-looking profiles that can be applied to Raw images to make them look a bit like film, but calling them accurate representations of various negative films is something of a con.

Best,
Helen


----------



## raphaelaaron

ChristopherCoy said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want these to look like 35mm film from the 1970's, you need to add some obvious film grain to the images. The large, plain side of the white house..if that had been shot on film, we'd likely see some grain there. Same with the sky in that frame...too smooth, no grain,looks digital. In another vein, the tonality looks very "digital"...these look digital. Low noise, smooth broad areas with NO visible grain, and compressed tonal range. Film images that were shot on ASA 125 to 400 B&W film and developed in almost anything, anything at ALL,would show grain in the sky,and on larger, smooth-toned expanses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the sharpness? Film wouldn't be this tack sharp would it?
Click to expand...


i beg to differ.


----------



## Josh66

ChristopherCoy said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want these to look like 35mm film from the 1970's, you need to add some obvious film grain to the images. The large, plain side of the white house..if that had been shot on film, we'd likely see some grain there. Same with the sky in that frame...too smooth, no grain,looks digital. In another vein, the tonality looks very "digital"...these look digital. Low noise, smooth broad areas with NO visible grain, and compressed tonal range. Film images that were shot on ASA 125 to 400 B&W film and developed in almost anything, anything at ALL,would show grain in the sky,and on larger, smooth-toned expanses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the sharpness? Film wouldn't be this tack sharp would it?
Click to expand...

Film often has more resolving power than digital.  Especially slower film like 25-100.

There are a lot of things that can affect sharpness, but I don't think the film you use is one of them.  For example, I can use the same lenses on either a digital or film body...  The frames from the film body always look sharper to me (they're bigger too)...


----------



## tirediron

Just out of curiosity Robin, if you wanted the look of film, why not just shoot film?????


----------



## unpopular

If you're on a mac, you can use Raw Photo Processor. While not taking into account grain, it's various film simulations are pretty good IMO.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

I don't understand, why not just shoot film in the first place? Than you take out all the guesswork of trying to fake it?

It's like putting lipstick on a pig....it's still a pig.


----------



## Robin Usagani

You guys are funny.  Always find something to argue about.  VSCO is no joke.  It is a nice LR plug in.  Just because I dont know how to use it YET and dont know what film photos should look like, dont assume it is crap.  This isnt a rip off presets people sell.  I already said why I didnt shoot it with film.


----------



## unpopular

Here is my stab at the film-like look using Raw Photo Processor and Image Fuser. I used the A25 profile, which I think is supposed to emulate the tone of Agfapan 25 film. Because RPP does not add grain, it does not simulate grain.

For the hilight detail, the settings were R:0, B:-3, G1:-1, G2:-0.9921 (auto), simulating an orange filter - if I am imagining it right. RPP allows you to perform a sort of channel mixing on RAW files. Overall exposure was set to zero.

For the shadows I used settings of -2, +3, -3, 3.0078 (auto), simulating a blue filter. Again, overall exposure at zero.

I then merged the two images together in ImageFuser, which is similar to but different from tone mapping. The fusion needs some further work, as you can see a feathering effect over the hilight transition area on the right building. I also added a highpass filter, one for local contrast and another to enhance sharpness. This is not a finished work:










RPP handles noise a bit differently than most processors. At first you get this kind of "holy hell" reaction, but it really does render out nicer. If you're going to have noise, I'd rather it look like the noise produced by RPP than some of the other processors. It looks like Rodinal 1:15 to me, but with much smoother highlights. You get the same kind of assertive grain effect in color. Keep in mind, the shadow region was pushed +3EV on the blue channel and already taken at ISO 800, so it's going to be pretty loud. If this were something more serious, I'd prefer to have taken two exposures:






So I think that you can get some film-like qualities if you have the right tools and knowledge. But I don't think it would ever be as simple as just pressing a button. Even though RPP provides some great profiles, getting it look good still takes some work. In any case, the simulation is never complete.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Ok here it is:




SOOC, no adjustment






B&W using B&W button on LR, no adjustment






Kodak T-Max 3200






Kodak Potra 800






Fuji 800Z


----------



## unpopular

idk. there just seems to be something missing.


----------



## Robin Usagani

i didnt adjust anything on these.  I could add grain, vignette, etc.  Each one is one click.


----------



## o hey tyler

I kinda like the look of the Fuji 800Z...


----------



## Helen B

Schwettylens said:


> You guys are funny.  Always find something to argue about.  VSCO is no joke.  It is a nice LR plug in.  Just because I dont know how to use it YET and dont know what film photos should look like, dont assume it is crap.  This isnt a rip off presets people sell.  I already said why I didnt shoot it with film.



Schwetty, I made my comments about VSCO after looking at their site and all the film emulations they show. I didn't base my comments on your use of it. I was only criticizing their ridiculous claims of accuracy. They make a big thing of it, and it is nonsense.

Is your intention simply to make your images look good, or do you want them to look authentic? It's your choice, of course, and nobody should criticize you for the choice itself. For example, the last images you show (post #45) look something like badly underexposed film (so they appear to tell us that your ability to get a decent exposure is poor)  - the shadows under the guy's arm are blocked up and grainy. I suggest opening up the shadows before conversion so that you get detail in there. Of the presets you show, the real Portra 800 has superb dynamic range and very low graininess - it is effectively invisible on prints of 5x8 and smaller, and wouldn't be visible at the size you show. If graininess is visible in poorly exposed areas, it would be more noticeably coloured: graininess is not the same in all colour channels (the blue-sensitive layer is the most grainy), and it is not the same at all levels of exposure.

As I said, it's up to you whether you want a preset that makes your pictures look 'film-like, in a sort of vague, advertising executive sort of way' (which is OK if that is what you want) or more authentic, and less likely to trigger howls of derisive laughter from people who actually know what the respective films look like (but thanks for the amusement). If the former is your aim, then why not drop the imaginary film descriptions, or at least accept that they are imaginary by calling them 'Fake Portra 800' for example?

Best,
Helen


----------



## Robin Usagani

Helen, my plan was to use it for my wedding work.  I will do adjustment first before I use VSCO (WB, adjustment brush, etc.).  Unfortunately I never had experience with film.  This plug in is perfect for someone like you.  I am sending you a pm.


----------



## DiskoJoe

The updates look better. I like the fuji 800z.


----------



## cgipson1

Schwettylens said:


> Unfortunately I never had experience with film. .



It is never too late, Robin! Film Bodies and lenses are cheap now... and it would be fun to play with.


----------



## Josh66

Helen B said:


> As I said, it's up to you whether you want a preset that makes your pictures look 'film-like, in a sort of vague, advertising executive sort of way' (which is OK if that is what you want) or more authentic, and less likely to trigger howls of derisive laughter from people who actually know what the respective films look like (but thanks for the amusement). If the former is your aim, then why not drop the imaginary film descriptions, or at least accept that they are imaginary by calling them 'Fake Portra 800' for example?


+1

Since the presets don't really look like the films they're named after - I would just not say which you used.  Just say "color negative", "B&W negative", etc...  I agree that it's totally fine if you just want it to be "filmy", but don't care if it actually matches a specific film.

If you DO want to match a specific film, a much better investment would have been a 35mm body and a few rolls of film.



DiskoJoe said:


> I like the fuji 800z.


I would like it more if it looked anything like 800Z.  800Z was one of my favorite color films...  (It's discontinued, so I can't get any more...)


----------



## Robin Usagani

If I do pursue it, what 35mm body shall I get that will accept all of my lenses?


----------



## Josh66

You shoot Canon, right?


----------



## Robin Usagani

Yes, EF lenses.


----------



## Josh66

Canon EOS 1N:
Canon EOS 1N 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS CAMERA BODY - KEH.com

$120 for BGN grade (might have cosmetic wear, functions perfectly)
$200 for EX grade (basically looks brand new)

I buy from KEH a lot - BGN grade is usually really good.

Another one with the battery pack for $84:
http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-CE02999047069Z?r=FE

edit
That last link says 'surface sticky'...  May want to skip that one unless you can live with a sticky camera, or change the grips.


----------



## unpopular

Schwettylens said:


> If I do pursue it, what 35mm body shall I get that will accept all of my lenses?



If the transition was as hard for me as digital was from film, going back from digital to film will be even harder. Not to be discouraging...


----------



## Robin Usagani

I don't think it will be that hard.  That is a modern film camera.  As long as it has a built in metering, I'm confident I can nail the exposure.


----------



## Josh66

unpopular said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I do pursue it, what 35mm body shall I get that will accept all of my lenses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the transition was as hard for me as digital was from film, going back from digital to film will be even harder. Not to be discouraging...
Click to expand...

That might be true with a full manual, no meter camera - but with a modern body like, well, pretty much any EOS body, I don't think it will be much of an issue.

Do you look at the LCD on the back of the camera a lot?  You'll have to get used to not having that.  

You know what you're doing though, so you should be fine getting a good exposure without the LCD.  And hey - without all the LCD screens and crap, you'll only have to change the batteries every six months or so.


----------



## Derrel

Helen B said:
			
		

> >SNIP>As I said, it's up to you whether you want a preset that makes your pictures look 'film-like, in a sort of vague, advertising executive sort of way' (which is OK if that is what you want) or more authentic, and less likely to trigger howls of derisive laughter from people who actually know what the respective films look like (but thanks for the amusement). If the former is your aim, then why not drop the imaginary film descriptions, or at least accept that they are imaginary by calling them 'Fake Portra 800' for example?
> 
> Best,
> Helen



Hey, did I just hear a balloon pop? It sure sounded like that to me...


----------



## DiskoJoe

O|||||||O said:


> Canon EOS 1N:
> Canon EOS 1N 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS CAMERA BODY - KEH.com
> 
> $120 for BGN grade (might have cosmetic wear, functions perfectly)
> $200 for EX grade (basically looks brand new)
> 
> I buy from KEH a lot - BGN grade is usually really good.
> 
> Another one with the battery pack for $84:
> Canon EOS 1N WITH BATTERY PACK BP-E1 SURFACE STICKY 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS CAMERA BODY - KEH.com
> 
> edit
> That last link says 'surface sticky'...  May want to skip that one unless you can live with a sticky camera, or change the grips.



My canon is similar to these. Good cameras for the price. For testing you can always take your digital with you to do test shots. Then take final shots with the film after you have setting your comfortable with.


----------



## Josh66

Knowing that Shwetty is plenty competent with a camera, I don't really expect him to have any problems shooting film.  If anything, film will be easier, with the greater exposure latitude - there is more room for error.  Color negative film is pretty hard to blow out...  If in doubt on the right exposure, lean towards overexposure.

And a modern camera, like the ones I linked to, will be pretty much the same as the cameras he's used to using - minus the LCD.  The meter is good though, so you shouldn't really need the LCD.  Just meter where you need to meter.

I don't expect him to develop his own film just yet, but hey - he may decide that he likes it and might want to feel that route out.


If you don't expect to shoot a lot of film, sending out to a lab is probably more economical.  If you think you'll be shooting more than 20 rolls a year - I would start looking into learning to do it yourself.  It's easy, and C-41 is not as hard as everyone makes it sound.  I wish I started doing my own C-41 years ago - I bought the "color is hard" thing that gets repeated over and over on forums for too long.  Color is easy.  Maybe even easier than B&W.


Film is more fun than digital to me...  Plus, if the 'film look' is something you want every now and then - nothing will get you better results than the real thing.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

Schwettylens said:


> Kodak T-Max 3200


LOL again with the guesswork, why not just shoot TMAX 3200?:





Seriously though, shooting film is a hell of alot easier than digital most of the time in daylight situations. if shooting color neg film, just meter at half-box speed and for the shadows. Easy peasy.
 If you use a really good lab like RPL or NCPS(enhanced scans), it's just about point-and-shoot easy.


----------



## unpopular

What was that developed in, lith developer?

I seem to remember TMAX 3200 being a bit less contrasty... not that it's bad, but I am unsure that it's typical.


----------



## Derrel

unpopular said:


> What was that developed in, lith developer?



I chuckled!!! I really did!


----------



## unpopular

^^ am I wrong, it's been a while...

I know it's a contrasty film and all, but at the same time, iirc, that was when I was even washing my underpants in pyrocat.


----------



## Derrel

I knew what you meant! How about, "What was that developed in, Rodinol diluted 1 to 5 at 75 degrees?". It's got some gnarly grain!!


----------



## unpopular

LMAO. I was going to go with Rodinol 1:5, really I was ... but I figured if I was going to make a point, I might as well go all the way to Arista A/B Litho.

Though seriously, what _was_ that developed in?


----------



## Sw1tchFX

LOL developed with D76 at the recommended time and temp, than scanned off a Frontier


----------



## Derrel

Sw1tchFX said:


> LOL developed with D76 at the recommended time and temp, than scanned off a Frontier



Recommended time and temp would be 19 minutes with 5 sec. agitation every 30 sec., at 76 degrees, right??? Lol...

Merry Christmas man!! And a happy New Year. Twenty-twelve comin' up!! zOMG. 

"/./\\x.x.c.c,w'.,as;vlc,q's;,c;dLVMS'd v;ds V!!!! "


----------



## skyy38

Derrel said:


> If you want these to look like 35mm film from the 1970's, you need to add some obvious film grain to the images. The large, plain side of the white house..if that had been shot on film, we'd likely see some grain there. Same with the sky in that frame...too smooth, no grain,looks digital. In another vein, the tonality looks very "digital"...these look digital. Low noise, smooth broad areas with NO visible grain, and compressed tonal range. Film images that were shot on ASA 125 to 400 B&W film and developed in almost anything, anything at ALL,would show grain in the sky,and on larger, smooth-toned expanses.



Funny, I thought "noise" according to these boards, was the "enemy"...is it..or is it *not*....?

Adding "grain" or "hairs" or "scratches" or "whatEVER" to pictures, moving or not, is NOT a solution...to making anything look like film,.....

That's like saying adding "pops" and "hiss" and "distortion" to digital audio recordings will make them sound MORE like "analog".....

Like saying..adding Angelina Jolie to Derrel's photo will make *him* look like Brad Pitt.......

Well , Derrel gets off easy on this one.........because Brad Pitt is obviously *OLDER* than Darrel.......


----------



## unpopular




----------



## tevo

Schwettylens said:


> the reason im staying away from Nik is that it is photoshop based.  My workflow would be way too slow if I have to use photoshop almost every image.  I rather stay inside LR.



I believe you can open images from LR as a smart object in PS, make changes, save them and then return to LR and continue working. I haven't personally used this since my workflow generally remains within LR, but I have heard that the two work together seamlessly.


----------

