PetaPixel

Faking the Lomo Effect in Photoshop

There’s plenty of tutorials out there teaching you how to fake the “Lomo effect” using Photoshop, but most of them don’t provide very realistic results. This “ultimate” tutorial by SLR Lounge attempts to mimic all the distinct characteristics of lomo photos (e.g. cross-processed colors, vignetting, blown highlights, and blurred edges) giving you a level of control over the results that an iPhone app could never do.

(via SLR Lounge via Fstoppers)


 
  • http://aspherical.foursevenfour.net/ SD

    Seems like it would be easier to just take the photograph with an actual Lomo in the first place.

  • http://twitter.com/kinora Paul Bryant

    Or, you know…

    Buy a Lomo.

  • http://twitter.com/JackCallum Jack Kennedy

    Fully agree with the two comments above. Faking Lomo is completely beating the object of toy camera photography. Yes, this tut does make a pretty good lomo reconstruction, but it just doesn’t cut it.

  • http://profiles.google.com/slimspidey Spider- Man

    Holgas an Lomos just aren’t for hipsters anymore.

    If you want to have some real fun go get an old Brownie Hawkeye!
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v623/slimspidey/620%20pics/scan0005-1.jpg

  • Elias Carlson

    Yeah, this has already been said, but I think it’s worth saying again…

    Just get a real lomo camera. It’s more fun and less work. Plus you get +10 hipster points if you shoot with REAL film.

  • Pingback: 5 Best Lomo Effect Photoshop Tutorial | Designer Likes()

  • Anonymous

    Hipster points are so overrated. Especially when you can fake it.

    Processing film is a snooze fest and some of us don’t have the time. Digital can do everything now except a real polaroid.

  • Anonymous

    Looks quicker to copy what was done in the tutorial than actually shoot film, then process it, scan it and dump it on Flickr.

    It’s going to end up as a digital image anyway.

  • patrick

    you don’t get it do you? 

  • patrick

    arn’t you a little twat.

  • Anonymous

    Wow, what a concise and well constructed counterpoint. You’ve given me something to mull over thank you.

    I guess some people take processing film/raw files a little too seriously.

  • Anonymous

    Wow, what a concise and well constructed counterpoint. You’ve given me something to mull over thank you.

    I guess some people take processing film/raw files a little too seriously.

  • Anonymous

    Wow, what a concise and well constructed counterpoint. You’ve given me something to mull over thank you.

    I guess some people take processing film/raw files a little too seriously.

  • Anonymous

    Ah Patrick my old friend, as a student of photography who is about to finish his MA, I clearly do and have made a deliberate choice for digital. What my various academic training didn’t prepare me for however was the religious decision I was about to make when I switched to digital after accepting film is basically dead, apart from Polaroid.

    Dead to those who haven’t got the outlay for processing film since not everybody can shoot film.

    Or if I still haven’t cottoned on why don’t you reply with something meatier than a 5 word pithy response and explain it to me. :-)

  • Anonymous

    Ah Patrick my old friend, as a student of photography who is about to finish his MA, I clearly do and have made a deliberate choice for digital. What my various academic training didn’t prepare me for however was the religious decision I was about to make when I switched to digital after accepting film is basically dead, apart from Polaroid.

    Dead to those who haven’t got the outlay for processing film since not everybody can shoot film.

    Or if I still haven’t cottoned on why don’t you reply with something meatier than a 5 word pithy response and explain it to me. :-)

  • patrick

    I guess I do take it too seriously. I can be silly at times. sorry. I am an asshat afterall.  

    the point of lomography, and shooting cross process film is the unexpected, the anticipation, and lack of control of the final output. whereas this is the antithesis, cherry picking a good shot, and controlling every aspect of the image in photoshop. there is no surprise, no happy accidents, and there is nothing unexpected or anticipated. 

    The process of cross process film photography is just as fun as the final image. its a journey, and photoshoping it really cheapens it for me. 

    I’d rather shoot it, though, I should of bought an original Lomo LCA when they were $40 a pop at a camera show. 

  • patrick

    I guess I do take it too seriously. I can be silly at times. sorry. I am an asshat afterall.  

    the point of lomography, and shooting cross process film is the unexpected, the anticipation, and lack of control of the final output. whereas this is the antithesis, cherry picking a good shot, and controlling every aspect of the image in photoshop. there is no surprise, no happy accidents, and there is nothing unexpected or anticipated. 

    The process of cross process film photography is just as fun as the final image. its a journey, and photoshoping it really cheapens it for me. 

    I’d rather shoot it, though, I should of bought an original Lomo LCA when they were $40 a pop at a camera show. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/jroalkvam Jostein Roalkvam

    “film is basically dead” haha, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about my friend. Digital is great for many things, B/W not being one of them. Also the tonal range is far superior to digital if you don’t have $50.000-100.000 to spend. A properly scanned medium/large format negative will crush any digital 35mm camera any day any time – not counting the insanely high ISO on the newer high-end 35mm dslr’s.

  • Anonymous

    That’s a valid viewpoint Patrick and I use to use my Holga and Vivitar compact (with expired film) for those exact reasons. I just don’t have the time and expense anymore for it.

  • Anonymous

    Starting your reply with a flat out denial of my knowledge of film says more about your ignorance of the medium than mine. Do I need to attain a Phd next in order to converse with you? I’ve used film long enough to understand and be frustrated with its limitations.

    It would seem you’re the one lacking clues.

    ‘Saying film is basically dead’ isn’t even a firm statement on my part, how can you contradict it. If I said ‘Film is dead’ then you could try and prove otherwise. I think you jumped on my post too soon, I had also stated: 

    ‘Dead to those who haven’t got the outlay for processing film since not everybody can shoot film’. – Which is almost everybody.

    Processing labs are closing, film production is slowing or stopped, prices are going up, only Polaroid is bucking the trend, I can’t see how film isn’t basically dead, or should I have should the present tense; dying? PP is even saying in a recent article film won’t exist in the US within this decade.

    By the way, I do question the comparisons you made. How does one compare medium/format film scanned with a high quality scanner vs 35mm digital. Shouldn’t it be 35mm film vs 35mm digital? You are right but you’re stating the obvious by using an unfair comparison. A few years ago film die-hards were saying a good 35mm neg would beat any digital 35mm, are you unconsciously shifting the argument to a larger film media to keep film in favour?

    I also don’t get why you’re mentioning ISO capabilities of modern digital cameras either, higher ISO don’t retain the detail of lower ISOs. Again you’re stating the obvious pretending they are a relevant and intelligent response.

    Btw, James Nachtwey, the world’s greatest living photojournalist has now switched from film to digital and shoots black and white. He prints large for exhibitions, I think if it’s good enough for him, then digital is good enough for anybody. Check out his latest photo essay regarding the aftermath of the disasters in Japan in April.

  • ted

    awwww… nice to see you both made up :-)

  • Thomas Casey

    One question. Why?