# How can I get a 70s vintage effect?



## rumblion (Jun 11, 2018)

I have a Canon AE-1 Program, it's my first camera and I don't really know so much about photography. This camera as I know was released at 1981 so I don't know if it's possible to get what I want. Having said that I want to recreate this kind of 70s vintage magazine photos:

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/38/c7/d2/...b4499a1--beautiful-women-beautiful-people.jpg

blob:https://web.whatsapp.com/e856f029-4fc9-4dd5-8db7-c819c06a9342

http://79hbm1979mg58bnh1fp50y1bry.w...7/Guido-Harari-Kate-Lindsay-Kemp-1993-015.jpg

I like the B&W photos and that kind of sepia effect.
Please I really appreciate your help. 
Thankss ♥


----------



## rumblion (Jun 12, 2018)

another pic:

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/15/1d/e3/151de38af47e4d7e22a16e1aae065221--music-film-foto-film.jpg


----------



## cgw (Jun 12, 2018)

Get the free Nik plug-ins for Adobe products. The look you're after can be recreated with some work and experimentation with neg scans.


----------



## keen.observer (Jun 12, 2018)

They make sepia type filters to put on your lens. Also, most editing programs will have a sepia effect you can apply to an image.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jun 12, 2018)

Ilford XP2 developed and printed by a C-41 lab. Cheap and easy.


----------



## compur (Jun 12, 2018)

Sepia is a 70s vintage effect? You mean *18*70s, right?


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 12, 2018)

Keep in mind, folks, this is the FILM subforum.  Not PhotoShop.

You can shoot black & white film for the first image.  It's just very high contrast and can be done with the right paper, developer and filters in the darkroom.

Sepia can be done in the darkroom as well to a monochrome image.


----------



## john.margetts (Jun 13, 2018)

The easiest way to get the 1970s look is to use a 1970s camera and 1970s film. The camera you already have. Ilford FP4+ is a 70s film and Bob's your uncle.

The rest of the look is lighting and pose which you can copy from your example pictures.

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Jun 13, 2018)

480sparky said:


> Keep in mind, folks, this is the FILM subforum.  Not PhotoShop.
> 
> You can shoot black & white film for the first image.  It's just very high contrast and can be done with the right paper, developer and filters in the darkroom.
> 
> Sepia can be done in the darkroom as well to a monochrome image.



Part of shooting film in this day and age is photoshop and scanning.

Shoot some Kodak Tri-x, Fuji Velvia, and Kodak Portra. Get some scans then do the post work to get the look you would like. If you would like to do it in camera, find a lens from the 60s/70s and shoot with that.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jun 13, 2018)

The OP states the AE-1P is his first camera and knows little about photography. So darkroom,photoslop and the like are out of his realm at this time. Try a roll of Ilford XP2 and have the local lab develop and print it C-41 process. It has a wonderful sepia like appearance when printed on color paper. If your lab returns the negatives there's a bonus- they can be printed like any other B&W 35MM film. The stuff has some great attributes that he can get to using after he has gained some experience and begins to know what he wants/likes. It prefers to be under-exposed vs. over and that's a plus for many beginning photographers.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 13, 2018)

SoulfulRecover said:


> Part of shooting film in this day and age is photoshop and scanning.................. .



Says who?


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Jun 13, 2018)

about 98% of the people who shoot it. That's generally how it shows up online for people to view. People scan their film, color correct it, do a little dust removal and post it.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 13, 2018)

I've never had 98 out of 100 people tell me I MUST scan my film.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jun 13, 2018)

Where'd ya get that 98% figure? Did ya have to stand up?


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Jun 13, 2018)

Lol at you both.

The point is, the MAJORITY of people scan and edit their film. You don't have to and if you don't, you'd fall into the minority. Photoshop and scanning is very relevant to the film sub forum.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jun 13, 2018)

Nah the majority go to MalWart and take whatever they offer. However as I stated earlier this person is not to that stage in development making the reference moot. Let's help them and not waste anymore bandwidth.


----------



## webestang64 (Jun 14, 2018)

SoulfulRecover said:


> the MAJORITY of people scan and edit their film.



From the film that comes to my lab for processing we scan well over 75% of each roll. We have the 20% that just gets it processed and the rest get 4x6 prints only.
Based on 100-150 C-41 rolls a week and 75-100 rolls of BW each month.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 14, 2018)

480sparky said:


> SoulfulRecover said:
> 
> 
> > Part of shooting film in this day and age is photoshop and scanning.................. .
> ...



Ummm, says a LOT of people who shoot film...scanning negs, scanning transparencies...it's pretty damned common these days. Of course, so is adjusting the scanned image data, using this stuff called software on a 'com-pooter.

One thing this thread brought up: there are now some labs that will develop film but NOT return the film!!! I personally find that a HORRIBLE, and un-acceptable practice, and I would encourage the OP to never, ever spend money on a lab that does not return the developed film negatives or positives, even if they do furnish a scan as part o their services.

As far as a "vintage" look...I love the feel of many types of so-called vintage looks. The easiest way I think, to get cool "vintage" looks is with Lightroom software, and some of the various color filter effects, combined with what are called "presets"; this process requires a scanned or digitized image, and then the desired effect(s) are computer-generated.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 14, 2018)

Derrel said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > SoulfulRecover said:
> ...



Sorry, but I ain't buying what you're selling.  A lot of people use computers and have internet and cell phones.  But those are not required either.  My point is:  Shooting film does not_ require_ transitioning to digital once the negs dry.  Just because most do so doesn't mean it's automatically a necessity.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 14, 2018)

Jesus Christ...on a bicycle...it's as if you're stuck in the tintype era...LOL...the fact is that digitized images are the most-common way to work since about 2010...

As far as I know, nobody said _it's necessary_ to digitize film-shot images, it's simply the fastest, easiest, highest-quality, most-economical,most-repeatable, and most easily-learned method.

But Dektol and stinky fixer are good too...but monochrome or duotone inkjet prints are very good these days..

Color images are another bird entirely: wet darkroom C-41 chemicals and paper cost more than good wine per quart and more than inkjet carts, and are a PITA, pollute,and are difficult to work with. Sending out images to White House or Millers is FAR more-economical for most people than is maintaining a wet darkroom...

Inkjet prints are faster, better, and more-economical than wet C-41 neg prints are...Better because daylight,software-based burning,dodging, and adjustment brush work is FAR better than the color-negative prints most labs can make. FACT. Unless you have a truly Master-level darkroom printer making prints from your film, you get a better, more-perfected print from a digitally-optimized file than from a negative or slide printed by enlarger or print machine. Fact.

But of course, nothing is "necessary" here or in the real world, except to present the facts as they truly are, not as they were in 1979, or 1999...and to deal with the way things are,by and large, done by the vast majority of folks in the 21st century. Webstang says his lab scans 75% of the rolls they develop: I gave that comment the rarely-used "Winner badge", for its relevance.

Old fuddy-duddies and wet darkroom experts often have very different ideas than newcomers and those without a lot of experience. We've (Colton Stark and myself at least) tailored our remarks to the OP...not to 480sparky types or hardcore wet darkroom afficionados; I know the difference  between various user types...and my comments were to the OP, not to an old-school wet darkroom worker...


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 14, 2018)

Insult me all you want.  You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jun 14, 2018)

Resorting to name calling and sarcasm..........ah yes sarcasm the last resort of someone with nothing to say.


----------



## terri (Jun 14, 2018)

Everyone take a step back.   Everyone has their own work flow, and that's perfectly okay.    There's no reason to refer to traditional analog users as fuddie duddies, for crying out loud.  In the film forum especially!  Not cool.  

Let’s respect our various approaches without passing judgment.


----------



## cgw (Jun 15, 2018)

Film is just a capture medium. What you do with it post-exposure and how you do it is up to you, OK? Nothing in the forum description to the contrary.

Hate to see the ecumenical outlook of this site lapse into intolerance and negativity. Enough of that in the water all round us.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Jun 15, 2018)

480sparky said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



No, its not required to do so, BUT, it is a large part of shooting film in the current era. So to say that photoshop shouldn't be discussed in the film sub is ridiculous.


----------



## Dave Colangelo (Jun 15, 2018)

The best way to do it is to buy a 70's camera, shoot film stocks that were available in the 70's, develop in chemistry that was around in the 70's and print it in a dark room like its the 70s...

Thanks to B&H, craigslist and ebay you can get everything you need to do that for pretty cheap. If you hunt around, pester a local lab, ask some forum members to help out you may even get most of the  printing gear for free....   (or at least bum some darkroom time for free).

You may also want to get some 70's costumes....

Most of the images you linked are fairly high contrast, you can do that in the film development process (if you are processing at home). In the printing process, if you have dark room access either with filters or graded paper or (dare I say it) in photoshop after you have scanned the negative, it all depends on what your chosen medium of delivery is for the final product. 

Just do your best NOT to contract disco fever...


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jun 15, 2018)

Dave Colangelo said:


> Just do your best NOT to contract disco fever...



boo


----------



## limr (Jun 15, 2018)

480sparky said:


> Sorry, but I ain't buying what you're selling.  A lot of people use computers and have internet and cell phones.  But those are not required either.  My point is:  *Shooting film does not require transitioning to digital once the negs dry*.  Just because most do so doesn't mean it's automatically a necessity.



No one said it was required. The only point made was that most film shooters have a hybrid process these days, and so the discussion of digital post-processing _is still relevant_ in a film photography forum. There's no need to restrict the conversation to purely darkroom processes.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jun 15, 2018)

Something that I think is worth pointing out is that if you want that 70's look, it's going to help a lot that you study the fashion, hair and makeup of that era and apply those looks to your photo shoot. The film you choose or the editing technique wont matter if the contents of the photograph don't convey the era.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 16, 2018)

limr said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but I ain't buying what you're selling.  A lot of people use computers and have internet and cell phones.  But those are not required either.  My point is:  *Shooting film does not require transitioning to digital once the negs dry*.  Just because most do so doesn't mean it's automatically a necessity.
> ...



Some moderation/commentary with some sensibility and understanding of the modern era, 18 years into the twenty-first century. Exactly what this thread needed. As others have said, post-processing of film-shot images is ENTIRELY relevant to the film sub-forum and its members. A lot of butt-hurt in this thread, and apparently a commercial lab worker's note that well over 75% of rolls develop are scanned seems to count for nothing with some folks here.

As far as arriving at the so-called "vintage 70's look"...that is these days, almost entirely,entirely done using software manipulation of images, images captured either on film, or on a digital sensor. Apparently, *statistics, and facts, and observations* about the actual working methods of well over a plurality of workers has ruffled the feathers of more than one member here.

I received a PM about the poor behavior of members here, in relation to my comments made last night. Defending my comments, and disparaging the behavior of others in this thread. Just sayin...


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jun 16, 2018)

So you two who disagreed with my post stating name calling and sarcasm are poor form believe they contribute to a discussion? Really?


----------



## DanOstergren (Jun 17, 2018)

MartinCrabtree said:


> So you two who disagreed with my post stating name calling and sarcasm are poor form believe they contribute to a discussion? Really?


"Old fuddy-duddies and wet darkroom experts" is hardly name calling and absolutely not something to villainize Derrel over.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jun 17, 2018)

Villanize? Never mind.............


----------



## limr (Jun 17, 2018)

Moving on, folks...


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 17, 2018)

So, to get back to the OP... the examples linked as well as much of what I've seen online that's supposed to look like film images look to me more like someone tried to replicate photos that were stuck in a shoe box in somebody's attic for years. What you've seen that seems to be a '70s look probably really isn't; what you've looked at could be photos particularly in color that shifted over the years and were shot with something like an Instamatic.

If you shoot fresh film with a nice sharp lens on that Canon you could get photos similar to what could be done with other SLRs/DSLRs. My digital camera uses the same manual focus lenses that I use with film rangefinder cameras so the results are comparable; each is a different format of course and there are differences in the paper, gloss, etc. when printed.

It could be possible to get a more vintagey soft look similar to the (apparently) digitally edited images in the links by using a vintage midcentury viewfinder camera that has maybe two aperture settings and a clacky shutter release (like the Agfa Clack, which sounds like its name). It's a matter of figuring out what subject could work with that look. 
edit - For some unusual films and more about film photography try these - 
Home - The Film Photography Project 
Lomography Shop

To get sepia which yes, goes back waaay earlier than the 1970s, you could tone 'wet' prints done in photo chemistry (and don't need a darkroom for toning if I'm remembering right). Or you could digitally edit film scans for a sepia tone.

I don't think Dan meant necessarily for a camera to have a '70s fashion vibe, but someone could get a groovy camera strap. Or maybe wear bell bottoms, but please, no disco.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 18, 2018)

I would start off with shooting a C41 b & w film (Ilford XP2), get them developed at a local lab. If there is an option for your scans to be scanned at higher resolution (standard, enhanced, super), try the enhanced, it will give you a better print of you decide to print an image. You can then download the images from the CD to your computer .

Then it's a matter of what post software you want to use based on the type of hardware your using to edit....phone, tablet, windows PC, laptop, mac  etc. let us know that so we can give you some options there. 

If you start to shoot C41 color, I would start at box speed (200 and 400 are common) for the first roll, check to see if you like the results. 2nd roll, 1 stop over exposed for the enitire roll and see if you like the results and compare to the first. You could do a third roll of 2 stops over exposed and compare the three. You will be surprised by the difference. I typically shoot color film 1 stop over exposed.

This is how I was told to approach it in the beginning and it works. Now I develop my own at home, scan at home, and can even wet print at home. It's a very slippery  slope. It all depends on how much you like it. You can do it all yourself, or send it out and edit the scans on a computer. Either way, it costs money. Figure around $15.00 dollars a roll (not including cost of film), to develop, enhanced scan, CD, shipping, and getting negatives back.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jun 18, 2018)

A lot of good advice here and it's all based on actual observation, rather than a definition of the words used to label something.

The 70's *look* was a combination of fashion, aesthetics and the technologies of the day, including print processes.

It is also a purely descriptive term that serves to delineate how these images look different to us today when we are more used to the modern fashions, aesthetics and technologies. It is not really a term that describes how the images *looked* to us in the 70's because they looked much newer and fresher then.

I saw this best summed up in the title of a book; "Seeing is forgetting the name of the thing one sees."

Having said all that the actual images linked to look surprisingly easy to duplicate. To me the Kate Bush images look like push-processed film, blocked shadows and grainy. The other image has a *larger format* feel and is not what I call 70's other than the subject matter. It seems to be a 70's shot trying to replicate the 1870's, (in line with the dress sense of the main character?). The resolution and gradations suggest MF but are possible with 35mm *if* you know how to extract the maximum performance possible from film. Something that won't happen if you send them away to be developed.

Now what must also not be forgotten is that we are viewing all these images on a computer screen and not how they were viewed in the 70's, (or indeed early 80's). So if we take some old push processed Tri-X or HP5 print it in a magazine using 70's press technology and scan that print... Or take a short cut, use modern Tri-X or HP5+ push processed so the shadows are blocked then digitalise it so it shows the limitations of the processes at the time rather than modern aesthetics of contrast and sharpness and I think you will be near. I don't think that the plug-in filters are really worthwhile here.

The other shot though is not one you can duplicate easily with 35mm film. First and foremost you MUST forget about digital methods of sharpening because it is the lack of these that give the appearance of resolution, The other thing is that once scanned and processed you MUST re-size the image using a *soft* algorithm that doesn't overly preserve acutance. It is partly this, the resizing, that can give the image it's clean look when viewed on a computer screen. There is also a lack of clear *mid-tones* as though the interval of middle-grey has somehow been subtracted:






If I showed you the full sized scan it would look far more like a grainy 35mm shot.


----------

