digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Give your photos a Hollywood effect (Photoshop)

ebin.wordpress.com — At first glance there's a lot of steps here, but it's pretty straightforward, and the effect is very cool. It's an easy way to give your photographs a bit more visual impact, that's for sure. --via lifehacker.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • th3mail, on 10/11/2007, -96/+21My attempt at the Hollywood-style picture effect: http://qwertyuiop.tumblr.com/post/2174048
    I think that it came out okay.
    • dasilva333, on 10/11/2007, -50/+21it looks bad, the end effect is similar to a badly taken photograph blurry and out of focus and then they just changed the color balance
      i like the effects created at www.filterforge.com better anyhow
    • Swifty227, on 10/11/2007, -159/+31After extensive study, I've come to the conclusion that these images were most likely edited using Adobe(R) Photoshop(tm) Image Manipulation Software.
    • theratdotus, on 10/11/2007, -55/+4WHATS IN THE FALLAFELLL??
    • mrgono3, on 10/11/2007, -13/+115@swifty

      u killed the joke
    • G5Unit91, on 10/11/2007, -21/+4This would be great if someone could incorporate this into After Effects.
    • audiowizard, on 10/11/2007, -18/+6yeah, except these fx look retarded...
    • raindogmx, on 10/11/2007, -25/+4th3mail

      I don't know why they bury you. I think your attempt is cool.
    • Reziarfg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19I think your attempt made the guy giving the woman whatever that is, a bit too blurry. In such a way that he looks like you're purposefully blurring out his identity.
    • resplence, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3It actually looks kind of cool, but blacking out like 40% of the picture to make it "widescreen" killed the example.
    • qwertylicious, on 10/11/2007, -14/+4@em1990

      You killed the English language.
    • DeathBorn, on 10/11/2007, -5/+44Woah, it came out pretty awesome.
      This can be done on GIMP as well.

      http://i3.tinypic.com/681a1j4.png
    • Killerme, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4Why would you cover up half the image by unnecessary widescreen bars? That is just retarded. If you really want to add those stupid black bars put them above and below the image, not over it.
    • quakeIII, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4People need to demonstrate the effects on hot chicks, preferably with as little clothes as possible.
    • Ladon, on 10/11/2007, -6/+17"Why would you cover up half the image by unnecessary widescreen bars? That is just retarded. If you really want to add those stupid black bars put them above and below the image, not over it."

      You're not familiar with aspect ratio, are you...
    • Nerfdude, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2here, i did this on a picture i took at the digg million user party.

      http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k216/nerfdude/IMG_1472.jpg
    • OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I condemn this story.
    • InsomniaSlim, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Here's my modest attempt, with a link-back:
      http://www.clintandrewhall.com/blog/2007/05/new-picture-technique/

      (and no, I'm not trolling... I don't have any ads on my blog. I just want to share, s'all)
  • funnydale, on 10/11/2007, -5/+292Wow, you linked to the original source instead of Lifehacker? Just for that, I'm giving this a digg.
  • ThetaDot, on 10/11/2007, -5/+30I wonder if there is a way to save that as a macro and then apply it to frames of video?
    Maybe Adobe Premier can do that?
    • mattcoady, on 10/11/2007, -2/+38Get magic bullet suite plugin for premier or after effects. It does a much better job.
    • EelfinnTy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Adobe CS3 extended will do some video editing by frame and you could create an Action to make the changes. I'm not sure if you can apply the actions to every frame. I have never tried it.
    • grinding, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8What filter would you use in Magic Bullet to apply the same effect?
    • dbr_onix, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Haven't used Premier for ages, but there should be a "Export to > Filmstrip file" that you can open in Photoshop as a (huge) image. You then open the image in Photoshop, apply the effects to the entire image (Which may take a while, so it'd be an idea to either make an action and let it run while you do other things, or write down the settings for each filter so you don't have to wait 10 minutes for the preview to show up) and save it (Which should update the video im Premier).
      Since it'd be a pain to manually for each frame, it'd be easier to do the letterboxing in Premier (Although I dislike letterbox, either shoot in 16:9 or mask of your viewfinder and crop it after you capture the footage..)

      Photoshop CS3 has direct video-editing features in it, but the Filmstrip file support as been in Premier for ages and will do what you want..

      ..although, you should be able to get this effect with Premier's built-in colour correction tools, the Hue/Saturatoin and Exposure settings are definitely there, the lens-blur may be slightly more time-consuming (Unless you want the lens-blur static regardless of camera movement or people/objects moving etc - Pretty sure they used a similar tilt-shift blur in Heroes and it worked quite well..), but still do-able. The "Film Effect" is just vignetting which there should be a filter for (if not a black-slug and a layer-mask will do it), and there should be a noise filter.
    • mattcoady, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2@ Grinding

      I'm doing this from memory so bare with me. I'd start with basic as a preset, then put up the white diffusion for the bloom. Lower the saturation. For the blur use after effects gaussian blur and make a radial gradient mask. If you want the tint start with Berlin as the preset.
    • srg13, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Do it in After Effects - you'll get much better results.
    • davidave, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1yes i too would like to know how to replicate this in after effects

      video tutorial would be even better
    • atomicshed, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1i would have thought you could apply a similar colour effect in AE (basically a colour overlay and adjusting the curves/levels), then a slight blur
  • ij00mini, on 10/11/2007, -53/+24Just my opinion, but I don't really like how it comes out.

    Pre-emptive: thanks for digging down my opinion.
    • exoendo, on 10/11/2007, -9/+19@ij00mini (#6782193)

      welcome.
    • therightclique, on 10/11/2007, -28/+5act like a douche, get treated like a douche.
  • proghead, on 10/11/2007, -9/+27'course, the "before" photo is a happy "tourist-vacation" type feel and the "after" has had all the joy sucked out of it...
    • randomgeek, on 10/11/2007, -2/+41Which means it's a really good effect. Hollywood often sucks all the joy out of me. :(
    • OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Make those "boring" vacation tropical beach pics look like you spent your vacation in a grainy, desaturated WW2 movie directed by Steven Spielberg.
  • etoiles, on 10/11/2007, -6/+41I think this is more like "Give your photos a video game cinematic effect" (the only thing missing is the specular bloom :-)
  • Kinjiru, on 10/11/2007, -38/+7The same thing can be done in Paintshop Pro as well and alot cheaper than APS (assuming you actually buy the software) or in Gimp for that matter. :)
    • MSTK, on 10/11/2007, -4/+35It's a tutorial for photoshop, not a marketing campaign.
    • therightclique, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16are trying to insinuate that gimp or paintshop are even in the same league as photoshop!?!?!?? you'd have to be mentally challenged. paintshop is lame. gimp i understand. easily the best free editor available for any OS. paintshop is a waste of time.
    • Barryke, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10you forgot MS Paint.
      version 5.1 really hits the limits of current graphical capabilities.
  • bobbothegrayson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Personally I think it looks best after the second step.
  • ricodued, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4Yes, but how can I apply the hollywood effect to my videos? :)
  • praveenmarkandu, on 10/11/2007, -13/+3when i use DIGG ME LATER (greasemonkey) extension it goes back to
    http://digg.com/design/Make_your_photo_appears_like_the_300_movie .... odd
  • RedTroll, on 10/11/2007, -8/+68Please don't mention Adobe Photoshop around here, it makes the Linux zealots angry.
    • skyfire1, on 10/11/2007, -4/+99I prefer to call them gimpy old men.
    • vornan19, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2@RedTroll
      'Please don't mention Adobe Photoshop around here, it makes the Linux zealots angry.'

      Not so much angry as left out. I mean, where's the G.I.M.P. translation? Where is exposure setting in G.I.M.P.?

      I dunno, spent 30 minutes trying to find it though.
  • xXShadowstormXx, on 10/11/2007, -13/+31Hollywood sucks.
  • danklogix, on 10/11/2007, -14/+9Looks okay to me. Dugg.
  • drgmdp, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5why... i wonder *WHY* the fake DOF....
    • Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2...especially if done that way - alpha channels is the way to go on that one :O
  • robohoe, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Yah, I like the effect too. I think with some more effects, you could turn out something pretty neat.
  • CNSecrest, on 06/02/2008, -9/+3I tried it. Not a desirable effect.
  • mogoi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+58Still waiting for the Bollywood effect...
  • barkingfrog, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I call it the Munich effect.
  • anewname, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Experiment with the Orton Effect on your photos for a bit of the 300 look.

    For example:

    - duplicate your layer twice (for an original backup)
    - set top layer to screen mode
    - merge down
    - duplicate layer
    - Gaussian blur enough to take out details
    - set layer to multiply

    I put that in a Photoshop action that halts on the blur step for input. ;)
    • anewname, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4*****, I thought I was submitting to the one with 300 in the title that was on the front page a second ago.
    • Teaboy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1nice.
  • mannymix03, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2this is more like give your photos the effect that they were taken with a 1999 webcam

    and btw, its not photoshop its Adobe® Photoshop® software.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Pretty much.. the end result looks like *****.
  • bellend, on 10/11/2007, -11/+0It's photoshop you prick.
  • jacotyco, on 10/11/2007, -16/+2i like how they say:
    What you need to have: Adobe Photoshop
    • dimplemonkey, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13yeah, and....what's your point?
  • verbal272, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1you can only do this with photoshop geeze everybody knows that
  • fnkydonuts, on 10/11/2007, -4/+34http://www.flickr.com/photos/40257736@N00/506370906/in/photostream/

    my attempt
  • jubba, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Nasty.

    "Here's how to make a picture look like a blurry, oddly coloured and low resolution version of its former self."
  • sayer, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Another photo - cinematic effect
    http://heron-productions.com/cinematic.html
  • iamdegenatron, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Now I know how to add the Matrix green to my sinister face
  • danger127, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=4uo2b8k

    here's mine
    • resplence, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4It looks more like some game I can't really remember... Some version of Resident Evil, I think.
  • vhtrading, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Nice tutorial, but...

    Am I the only one who's getting tired of this effect in the movies themselves? Too many films have this semi-colorized, bleached-out, filtered-all-to-hell look. On rare occasion it befits the movie, such as the green-tinted look of the Matrix or Spielberg's washed-out documentary look during the battle scenes in Saving Private Ryan. But too many directors are overusing these digital filters just because they can. It can be 12 o'clock on a nice, sunny day in the movie and it looks like the sky's going dark and green and a tornado is able to hit...Just gimme some real, natural colors.
    • UCFartstudntJON, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7It's simply a tool to create continuity and style in a film, but I agree, overused.
    • dbr_onix, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6There's been very few films I've seen that use extremely heavy colour-grading to the point where I find it detracts from the film - Even PItch Black, despite being "over-graded" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1wdppJP6d4 # From about 1:30 in is how most of the day-time parts of the film look) I still think it adds something to the film.
      Atleast with low- (or no-) budget films the biggest problem is *lack* of colour-correction or colour-grading, spending 5 seconds a shot making sure the colour is consistent, or applying subtle tints (When it makes sense, not just "because I can") and the likes can make a huge difference in how professional or "good" a film looks.
      As for feature films, I don't think there's any huge jump-up in colour grading from all the processing done to films compared to colour-grading when they use DI - Most directors know what they want the film to look like, and will get it one way of another (Filters on the camera, film processing or DI grading)

      Obviously the "Matrix-tint" on a grimy documentary is going to look silly, and there are times when ungraded film makes sense - I've not really noticed many out-of-place grading in films (Then again given the budget on them I'm not surprised), and I don't watch much TV where it might be more prevelant.
      The reason behind "It can be 12 o'clock on a nice, sunny day in the movie and it looks like the sky's going dark and green and a tornado is able to hit" is that it's a lot easier to make a dark scene look good than it is to do a brightly lit set - Darkness hides things well, so you might get away with cutting of a day or two of set-dressing, or that extra layer of makeup on your actors - It's not really an excuse, and it's also easier (and more common, for what ever reasons) to make films about more "dark" events/people : I don't imagine you'll see much in the way of thunderstorm-graded skies in a kids TV show - It just doesn't make sense in such shows, but a lot of films do lend themselves to dark and scary lighting..

      I don't think DI-grading (Digital replacement for film-post-processing, in case someone actually read the above text without knowing what it was..) is so much making directors over-use it for the sake of using it, as much as it gives them the flexibility to do what they want (If nothing else, by being able to experiment with different grades by playing with a computer, instead of having to wait for film labs)
  • zmigliozzi, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4I prefer saying cinematic effect, because who honestly likes hollywood?
  • johal55, on 10/11/2007, -8/+0Wow strong spam.
  • spargett, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2Oh great, another to trick people into thinking there's a way to make a bad photo, good.



    Read my lips... It will never happen.
  • bellend, on 10/11/2007, -9/+0stfu
  • DragonGirl724, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2@killerme
    "Why would you cover up half the image by unnecessary widescreen bars? That is just retarded. If you really want to add those stupid black bars put them above and below the image, not over it."


    ....well, it's something called "composition".
  • neoian, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Mine seems to turn out too dark after the exposure step. I don't know what the problem is.
  • Zeldafreak104, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Meh, its ok...
  • jasonsalas, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Looks like the cinematography used in "Minority Report." Sweet.
  • Chords0fLife, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Yea, I prefer to bring out the blue for the "indie" look over the hollywood look.
  • SolipsismX, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Heh... modern mise en scene blows.

    Seriously, this looks is really cheesy... I can't wait until we move past it.
  • th3mail, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I don't know why why my first comment was buried. :(
  • th3mail, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0I haven't seen anybody else post there attempts.
  • MimoG3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/55705060/
  • battlerex99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Where in the hell is exposure in the PC version of Photoshop... I just can't find it!!! Help please!
    • MimoG3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0go to Image > Adjustments > Exposure
    • battlerex99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0No, it's not there... here's what's in the adjustments category:

      Levels, Auto-Levels, Auto-Contrast, Auto-Color, Curves, Color Balance, Brightness/Contrast, Hue/Saturation, Desaturate, Match Color, Replace Color, Selective Color, Channel Mixer, Gradient Map, Photo Filter, Shadow/Highlight, Invert, Equalize, Threshold, Posterize, Variations.

      That's it. No exposure.
  • mrsneakypat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p49/mrsneakypat/attempt.jpg?t=1179713571
    • JCDenton513, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4What looks good is good but you used way to much blur on the sides. Makes it look like the viewer had tunnel vision.
  • secondimpact, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Hey..why doesnt the "point of focus" ever show up? I clicked on the layer mask, clicked on brush, 400px diameter..and i click on the point of focus and nothing happens...Anyone know why?

    Thanks.
    • Flanker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Make sure you're painting in black. You probably need to swap the background/foreground colors. Hit 'x'. =)
  • lefrat, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6GIMP "translation" of the tutorial if anyone is interested: http://gimpology.com/submission/view/make_your_photo_look_like_a_hollywood_movie/
  • RoflMyWaffle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1dugg and bookmarked in my "holy ***** thats the most ballinist ***** i've ever seen" folder
  • MimoG3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1im using photoshop cs2, maybe that could be it, what version of photoshop are you using?
    • secondimpact, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1yeah CS 2...yet im still not too sure why it doesnt work.
    • nickstl77, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Mine doesnt work either.. and im using CS2
    • nickstl77, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@secondimpact

      Figured it out, in CS2 when you click on the brush, you also have to select "Exclusion" in the drop down box for the properties of the brush instead of "Normal".
  • otep, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I wish there was a "duhh" button.
  • Synn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/55771036/
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.