This question on How to achieve this retro elegant look? has been met with the typical response for re-creation questions. However, I think that OP gives enough body in the question to let us understand that they are interested in recreating the photo in all aspects - and it's easy to see that the image feels faded and lower in color sat, plus a vignette.

Both Olin and Matt have provided excellent answers to help OP get to creating their own Lightroom "Retro" filter - so the post has some good value to future readers.

Editing and Post-Pro is one of the things that, I think, a lot of new photographers struggle with. So, would it be beneficial to tag these types of posts as "Re-Create", bundle them up, and stack them in a dark corner of the site where those crazy post-pro guru's roll their...wacom pens?

These are some of the more interesting questions to solve, IMO, and they get shot down incredibly quickly it seems.

  • I'm not sure "photo-recreation" is the best tag name, but the concept is good. I don't have any better suggestions for a tag name off the top of my head though. It might be worth further sub-dividing based on if it is the shooting style, the post production style or content oriented, though it might not always fit cleanly in to just one of those. – AJ Henderson May 31 at 16:09

I say, "Have at it!" Once you've created the tag and written the descriptions, you can then scour through the site to add it to all of the "What's this effect?" and "What filter was used?" questions.

We have , which in its description says

Analysis of an image to determine setup and techniques that could be used to achieve certain properties of the image.

We could use that; this could work if people are consistent with re-tagging. I don't think it's very discoverable or obvious, and has the problem of overlap with hardware (or software, or firmware) reverse-engineering. Also, it's a pretty geeky term.

  • I like AJ's idea, and maybe editing the tag to be less of a geeky term and subdividing into Lighting and Post-Pro will help in organization moving forward. True, though, that I may have to have a relationship with these tags analogous to yours and filters. – Hueco May 31 at 22:27

There are different components to this as well as degrees (slight/pronounced) of each. We used to call this stuff "trick photography" which was related to "special effects/SFX," image analysis, etc.

  • Some image manipulation is concerned with the subject treatment as a style. The "camera" captures the creation. Such could run the gamut from lighting to studio atmospheric techniques.

  • Some image manipulation is concerned with the atypical features of some lens/filter/mount/body/yours… hardware treatment. The "camera" is modified in some manner for the capture of the image. "Pulling focus" during exposure and "lens-baby" lens use falls into such a category.

  • Some image manipulation is concerned with processing/developing the captured data. The captured image is distorted in a predetermined manner. Pushing or pulling processing, Pressure processing, coffee developers, etc. for chemicals and clipping, over-saturation, etc. for digital.

  • Some image manipulation is concerned with only the effects of software tools.

… and, or a combination of any and all of the above.

FWIW: The whole discussion can be turned-around. For example: some would see an undesirable technical problem where others would see a desirable creative solution.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .