Processing to mimic a silent movie

C&C from processing experts is requested and appreciated. I'm slightly above "utter novice" in Photoshop. I think I've bitten off more than I can chew here, but I'm fumbling through it and making progress.

Working on a little for-fun side project with some friends. It came about because over drinks, I decided my friend Mark looks like a villain. So I talked Mark and Tina into doing shoot in the style of a 20's silent movie. So, in my processing, I'm trying to recreate that "look" of a silent movie. I think I'm almost there, but just wanted some second opinions.

I've studied and analyzed all the silent movie stills I can find using Google Images. Looked up work by famous actors such as Harold Lloyd, Boris Karloff, Charlie Chaplin, Louise Brooks. I've found the following things that I think contribute to that "look:"

1. Lack of tonal range and definition. My barely-educated guess is maybe two stops less tonal range, and within that range there's less definition in textures, skin, etc. Blacks clip very early; there's generally no definition in the shadows - but the blacks aren't always "pure" black, they seem to be around 5-15 (on a scale of 255). Whites are also commonly blown out, but again aren't pure white.

2. Tinting/coloring of midtones and highlights. Doesn't seem to be a standard - many are plain white or sepia/brown, but there are also pink, blue/cyan, or green tints. Upon further reading, I found a Wikipedia page explaining some of this, and how later B&W films used different tints to convey different moods.

3. Vignetting. Pretty heavy in a lot of films.

4. Grain. I think this contributes to the lack of tonal detail described in point #1.


So, using a combination of Lightroom and Photoshop, I've tried my hand at a conversion.

My first step is B&W conversion in Lightroom. I didn't have a formula for this; I just fumbled around with it until it looked good. Then I run a Photoshop action that does the following:

1. Duplicate the layer
2. Blend mode Overlay on new layer to "stretch" the histogram past the clipping boundaries at both ends
3. Apply a slight motion blur to the overlay layer to remove some sharpness and destroy some texture and definition
4. Apply a Levels adjustment layer. Inputs set to 20, 1.20, 255; outputs set to 10, 230. This further removes some detail in the shadows, then boosts the shadows and reduces the highlights so they're not output at pure black or pure white.
5. Overlay a layer of color fill, sepia hue, about 1/3 saturated, 50% opacity. Set to blend mode of this layer to Multiply so it colors the midtones and highlights but doesn't mess with the shadows too much.
6. Apply a Curves adjustment layer, a straight line with the following points: input 0, output 10; input 175, output 255. This changes my tones back to approximately how they were before the color fill multiply layer. Blacks aren't pure black; whites aren't pure white; tonal definition is even further destroyed.
7. Apply another Curves adjustment layer; set a point with input 140, output 90 to reduce the midtones. Use a heavily feathered ellipse-shaped mask on this layer so it only affects the corners.


The vignette layer seems to intensify the color at the corners. I can't decide if this is undesirable or not.

I haven't attempted to put any grain or aging into it yet. I don't think I'm that good yet.

So, here are my images. First image is the original with Lightroom default import edits; second image is my B&W conversion; third image is after my Photoshop action.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/nathancarter/6​717306107/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/nathancarter/6​717412713/

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I think you've got the "feel" dialed in but it needs a little vignette and a drop in sharpness...

Optics weren't quite this good "back in the day"

It sounds like a fun project!

My only thoughts:

The wall "sticks out" to me -- it looks too "modern" or whatever. It's been a long time since I've seen a vintage film like that! It seems though that inside scenes tended to have bland walls, like white/off white. But I dunno.

I think Jay's suggestion on "a drop of sharpness" is good, something about the shot is still "bold", although I'm not sure if that's the right word for it.

Well, those are just random thoughts -- this type of editing ain't my "thing"!

B/W film back then was orthochromatic, not very sensitive to red light (panchromatic film came in in the late '20s) so red objects - lips, mostly - were very dark. So do the conversion to B/W with a blue filter or reduce red in the channel mixer.

For my 2 cents, one of the defining aspects is a lack of local contrast, so you should find some way to soften the image up. It's not that the image can't be sharp or lack detail, but old films always had a very soft look. Here's a shot from a movie I don't particularly like, but it illustrates the point - sharp and detailed image and lots of global contrast, but low local contrast throughout the whole film.
http://4.bp.blogspot.c​om …/The%2BSeventh%​2BSeal.jpg

Also, pay attention to the lighting, old film wasn't very light-sensitive, so large powerful lights that could set the stage on fire had to be used to provide the necessary illumination. If you look at any still from any old movie, you'll see that the light is very hard with sharp shadows. (notice the shadows on the faces)
http://image.toutlecin​e.com …n-kane-welles-o--05-g.jpg
http://blog.commarts.w​isc.edu …s_a_wonderful_l​ife_11.jpg

But in your image, everything is illuminated evenly and there is a lot of micro contrast thanks to modern optics. You should look into perhaps buying a vintage manual lens for this purpose, they are rarely more than $200 a piece, and may help deliver the look you need. M42 mount lenses attached through an adapter are the most common and easy option.

Thanks for the comments and hints. As for the lighting, lens and set - I'll definitely keep those in mind for next time, but I can't really go back and re-shoot this one.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #13722174
I think you've got the "feel" dialed in but it needs a little vignette and a drop in sharpness...

tonylong wrote in post #13722960
I think Jay's suggestion on "a drop of sharpness" is good, something about the shot is still "bold", although I'm not sure if that's the right word for it.

Thanks. I used a 3px motion blur on the first overlay layer, but I agree that it doesn't seem to be quite enough. I experimented some more with different blur filters, and I think a box blur on that layer might be the way to go, to further reduce overall sharpness. I'm not sure exactly what the box blur does, but it does seem to give the right look.

I might also try an additional layer just above the background (normal blend and full opacity) with a blur. Right now the only blur filter is on the layer that's set to overlay, which is probably why it's not doing quite enough.

tzalman wrote in post #13724089
B/W film back then was orthochromatic, not very sensitive to red light (panchromatic film came in in the late '20s) so red objects - lips, mostly - were very dark. So do the conversion to B/W with a blue filter or reduce red in the channel mixer.

Thanks for that tip, I'll go back and revisit my B/W conversions. For now, I started with LR3's "B&W Creative 4" preset, then changed the sliders so it looked like a good starting point - no real science behind that conversion.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #13724372
For my 2 cents, one of the defining aspects is a lack of local contrast, so you should find some way to soften the image up. It's not that the image can't be sharp or lack detail, but old films always had a very soft look. Here's a shot from a movie I don't particularly like, but it illustrates the point - sharp and detailed image and lots of global contrast, but low local contrast throughout the whole film.

Thanks. I think I understand what you're describing - in my first post, I used the phrase "less [tonal] definition in skin and other textures" where you use the probably more correct phrase, "lack of local contrast." But other than simply reducing overall image sharpness through a blur filter, I don't know how to achieve that end result.

nathancarter wrote in post #13724994
Thanks. I think I understand what you're describing - in my first post, I used the phrase "less [tonal] definition in skin and other textures" where you use the probably more correct phrase, "lack of local contrast." But other than simply reducing overall image sharpness through a blur filter, I don't know how to achieve that end result.

Well, any software or PS plugin that has a way of controlling clarity, structure, local contrast or whatever they call it can generally work. Topaz plugins I know for sure have such effects.

If using only the tools available in PS, a good start on reducing LC would be to make a duplicate monochrome layer, set the layer to overlay blend mode and invert it (ctrl+I). Then you run the high-pass filter on this layer and pick the radius you think looks best, and finally adjust opacity to taste.

The best no-nonsense option is of course Silver Efex 2, which with only a minute of messing around you can get something like the following, which I think looks nice if going for a vintage look.

Thanks for the further info.
I've been considering Silver Efex. Maybe next time I have a project that justifies it, I'll pick it up. My next expenditure should be a decent printer, though.

Anyway, I'm reaching the point of diminishing returns on my editing on this set, and have more projects that I need to move on to. I used a box blur to reduce some sharpness, and adjusted the vignetting, and calling them done (for now). Next step will be to learn PhotoJunction and put them into a book or album.

Here's the full set, 29 frames including the title card:
http://www.flickr.com …/in/set-72157628948360413