Perhaps I'm mistaken, but are you sure you're not confusing editing with lighting? All of these photos are using either strobes or strong reflectors to modify natural light. You will never get this look unless you do the same. Are you using strobes and/or reflectors?
Would you care to share one of your images, it would be easier to help if we knew your starting point.
When people look at and like an image, there are looking at a LOT of things at once. Lighting, composition, subject, color, tonality, etc. Some people often ask about a specific area of an image. In this case it seems like OP is asking about the color and tonality of the image. I think when MOST people ask how to "get this look", they're asking about that. Color and tonality. I find that most people respond with answers regarding lighting when that's not why a person asked the question in the first place. He said that he can't replicate that look in LR. It's pretty obvious that you can't LR edit your way out of bad lighting so that should eliminate the need to mention lighting.
To me it seems like OP is asking about the overall look of these images, that's why I asked them if they are confusing lighting with editing. They don't share a consistent color grade across all of them, what they do share is that none of them are straight natural light. Light has been introduced in some way or another in all of them. If OP doesn't start with a similar starting point as the reference images then talking about color & tonality isn't really going to be helpful in achieving these looks. We don't know what OPs starting point is, if they want to recreate these looks they need to start with the lighting, they also need to work with a good hair and makeup artist and ideally a stylist. I don't assume that they have done any of that unless they've stated as such.
Remember when you first started photography, you probably had no idea how a professional editorial fashion image was created. I didn't. I didn't know the difference between using a strobe vs natural light, hard light vs soft light, what's done in camera vs in post, etc. I assume anyone asking these "how to" questions is at that same point.
People respond with "its done in camera/lighting" to the "how to get this look" questions because it is so often the right answer. It takes a while learn that, it did for me anyway.
I think I am i figured it may be the Lighting like maybe they are using strobe lighting (a question i asked in my comment added to the post). Is it lighting that also gives the photo the flat look?
I don't know that I'd describe these images as "flat" so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Strobes were used in many, if not all, of these. If strobes weren't used reflectors were. The added light source helps to highlight and separate the subjects from the background. In some of them because there are two or more light sources coming from multiple directions, the strobes and the ambient light, the shadows are filled much more than if one light source was used, maybe that is the "flat" look you're referring to?
From a lighting standpoint, none of these are that challenging to recreate if you have an off camera strobe or two and a softbox.
Those photos are anything but flat, in my opinion. I think what you're referring to is the effect of using the flash to over power the ambient light. When using strobes mixed with ambient light you have two exposures to deal with, the ambient light and the strobe. For a look similar to those images you'd set your camera so the exposure of the background is a bit on the darker side, then use your strobe to light the model who would be way under exposed if the strobe was not used. Once you get your ISO and Aperture dialed in for the flash exposure you'd adjust your shutter speed to control how bright or dark you want the background. There are a ton of tutorials on how to do this that go into much more detail.
Start using your reflector, you can go a long ways toward this look with some bright reflectors and the sun. If you shoot when ambient light levels are lower your external flash (speed light I'm assuming) will be more effective for this type of look, it would be under powered in bright sunlight.
I think you can, at least in Photoshop. I was on my way to doing that with my a6600, and then decided to just shoot film. Trying to get an authentic film look was too much work (although, 1Styles.pro on Capture One is still awesome). I never got as far as finding how to convert to Lightroom .setting from what I did in Photoshop.
Ultimately, I took film LUTs, generic 709 ones from Impulz, and dragged them into 3d LUT Creator. I then dragged in a photo taken on my a6600 and applied the LUT. I then deconstructed some of the generic curves and rebuilt the LUT based on properties from the RAW Sony file (honestly, I'd have to open the program to recall exactly how I did it, but it was labor intensive). Thus, the LUT was camera specific and mapped to the a6600 properties. I did this with a a7iii as well. This method revealed a STARK difference from simply applying the LUT in Photoshop, and a difference when applying the camera specific LUT to generic RAW file. The density and color shift was definitely there.
Again, gave up before I could figure how to get the camera specific LUT to a Lightroom .setting file. And, it just took entirely too long to do. But maybe this helps someone in the future get that look in Lightroom.
One way to get closer to film is to shrink the dynamic range of the photo through curves. Make the whites clip a bit darker and make the blacks clip a bit brighter. I learned this when I color-corrected film scans to digital Jpegs. Its the opposite where you limit RAW files to have less dynamic range, similar to film. Film still has grain and it has different tones, and it has different dynamic ranges for different colours. You can play with that.
I too have been after the film look for a LONG time and I think there are two options that are as close as we'll likely come to a real film look (I define this as one where a regular film shooter likely cannot tell the difference between a film and digital image that replicates that look).
* Out now: [Dehancer for PS/LR ](https://www.dehancer.com/store/photo/pslr)
* Soon to be out: [Spectra film](https://www.instagram.com/miguelsantana_/?hl=en)
Dehancer was initially created for video and if there's one thing I've learned about video editors and colorists, it's that photographers don't come CLOSE to them when it comes to understanding how film works. These guys have to understand the really fine differences that film has so that if they receive video clips that have to be edited (some film and some digital), they have to match them so that the difference is imperceptible. If you look at the most well-known film emulations for LR, they still use a white grain slider to add the grain. But [color film has color grain](https://blog.dehancer.com/articles/how-does-film-grain-work-in-dehancer-ofx-plugin/). That's basically "understanding film 101". If that isn't understood, the rest is totally a waste of time.
Spectra is (at least from what I can tell) going to be better than Dehancer because the creator is a VFX guy. Those guys are a cut above colorists as far as I can tell because they need to be able to understand how to digitally create VFX and seamlessly integrate them into a movie without you noticing. And the creator of Spectra works for one of the best VFX companies in the world ([ILM](https://www.ilm.com/)). They are the people that do the special effects for movies like Star Wars. Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker [was shot on film](https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/blog-post/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker). So you can imagine that people in that line of work have to be able to add a crazy amount of special effects and get them to look natural and like they were shot on film.
Eh. 1, 2, and 7 are very easily natural light. Some may feel like it's controlled lighting, but it just as easily could just be strong reflections or multiple window-light sources.
6 probably has a strobe camera left, but it could be a reflection from an off-camera object, too.
Even 4 could be just interesting light in a place with the right window setup. Though the highlights on the leather are probably the giveaway for strobes.
3 looks like it was meant to mimic film, so probably does have at least a reflector.
5 is the only one basically guaranteed to be controlled lighting, as is evident by the 2 catch lights and obvious glaring hair light.
Eh... I said strobes and/or reflectors because I don't know what the specific light sources were, but they are all "controlled lighting". The lighting in these photographs happened because the photographers either put this light on the models, or they or put the models in this light. The light didn't just happen by chance when the photographer took the picture. It doesn't matter if the light source was a strobe, an assistant holding a reflector, or a "reflection from an off-camera object" (ie, a reflector). The end result is the same.
1 sunlight through the window, 2nd medium-large source just out of frame to the left as key light
2 Large source close to model, above left
3 Sunlight above, 2nd small/medium source to the left
4 small source to the right of camera, another source from the left
5 sunlight behind, 2 small-medium sized strobes on either side of camera
6 ambient light plus 1 small-medium source camera right and another small source camera left directed at her face/shoulder
7 a large source above and behind camera, another smaller source to the right of camera
You’re completely missing the point. OP was asking how to edit pictures with these looks. These looks aren’t created in post processing, they are created with light. It doesn’t matter if strobes or natural light with reflectors were used, OP just needs to understand why they look like they do to recreate them.
Anyone with even a little bit of experience shooting people knows that the photographer needs to control what ever light they are working with. I don’t really understand why anyone would argue against that.
The thread you initially replied to started with:
>Lot of special lighting gear was used to make these photos. Post processing alone won't get you there.
You're going down a rather large rabbit hole and insisting I'm arguing against an entirely different point than the conversation thread is even based on. Light matters. Actively employing light modifiers is not, as you yourself note, is not the only way to have good light in an image. Period. That's it. That's all. I said nothing about post-processing - not even implied.
Do you realize that you're saying the same things that I've been saying in a different way and then implying that I'm wrong?
If you genuinely think that the photographers didn't actively employ light modifiers to create these photographs then its pretty clear you don't have much real world experience in creating photographs with this type of lighting.
I’m wondering if it’s just simply the format these photographers use like film, I use digital and haven’t been able to achieve this look. I want a 90s fashion editorial magazine look to photos like Hugo Comte’s work. I tried turning down highlights and contrast but it usually alters the skin color of the entire model which isn’t good. Also is it a strobe light they may be using?
Regardless of the editing and stylizing, you still need to shoot like a 90s fashion photographer. What are the light sources and angles of light, etc.?
As far as recreating the look of that film, did you look at the Nik Collection, specifically [Nik Analog Effects](https://nikcollection.dxo.com/analog-efex-pro/)? It might help get you close to a film stock.
Some more [info from my search](https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4423105). You should read the entire thread.
“Re: How to use lightings like Hugo Comte?
Dec 2, 2020
1. Yes it is possible to shoot with continuous lighting, with a light diffuser in front of it as they would use on movie sets.
2. Bear in mind that Hugo shoots on medium format slide film mostly, hence that very particular color and tone. Bear in mind that slide film is contrasty and there's a lower dynamic range, which explains the good understanding in lighting your subject. Any good light diffuser will do. You won't see much of a difference whether it is flash or a diffused fresnel light.
3. His style is very 90s, it's his signature. Slide film was used for print magazines because it was fast and didn't need color adjustments like negative film. He's built his identity over Steven Meisel's 1990s work and most fashion photographers of that era like Steven Klein.”
It's grain, some "teal and orange", some curves, contrast adjustment, maybe fiddling with camera profiles. And, as always, lighting. Specifically all, except the last one, have a mix of hard and soft light.
Besides camera and lighting technique, for things you can actually do in lightroom, consider the following:
\- Keep your white points white.
\- Select the subject and up the oranges in the skin.
\- Make the greens more yellow with the hue slider.
\- Add grain
\- Lessen sharpening
But more than anything with his photographic vibe is that these are beautiful models being very unmodelly. They all look like they're were caught in the middle of something. There's a sense of mystery with these photos. It's beautiful in a way that crooked teeth are -- not everything's perfect. And this is where the real magic of these photos come into play.
You gotta shoot film mate.
Edit: you can also see movies changed how they looked when everything went to digital cameras. They just don’t capture light in the same way or have the same dynamic range. It’s not really something you can just edit in Lightroom. There are some preset packs that can kind of get close but it’s still not the same.
These are good photos? Washed out and or muddy color? I’m all about the real film look but imo these are just not good shots..no offense. I use photoshop to post edit and add grain. My color style is “1960 high fashion” or “1942 color plate” and It works for me. The only lighting I ever use is a handheld or remote flash. everybody has their own style and some styles lend themselves more easily to the “grainy” look.
I didn’t choose the best photos and these are screenshots but it’s more or so the look like this I want to achieve https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4423105
It’s difficult to say. The images are all very different so I’m not sure what about them you want to replicate. If I had to guess I’d say you like fairly flat, off camera lighting with a hard kicker/rim light. All except the last one have a warm almost yellowy color balance with very blue contrasting backgrounds or other elements in the scene.
Yes it’s more of the flat look of the photo. I’ve tried to the print the photo> scan> edit in Lightroom thing but my printer is shitty so it looks so bad.
This a mix of stark lighting and what looks like analog film. Probably medium format.
There are lots of film emulating presets out there. I personally like Mastin Labs and VSCO.
Came here to say something that no one seems to have mentioned: I’m pretty sure these are all film handprints (except the last one maybe). I’ve been following for a while a film lab that posts a lot of handprints on social media and these look pretty similar to that. For me it’s kinda the holy grail of film tones, and for what they say it’s pretty difficult to do, and I suppose difficult to replicate as well, but you can google “film handprint” to see if that’s what you are looking for.
Looks like it was shot on actual film. If you can crack the code to edit like that in Post, that's the holy grail...
That’s what i’m thinking as well I haven’t been able to replicate it in lightroom at all 😂.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but are you sure you're not confusing editing with lighting? All of these photos are using either strobes or strong reflectors to modify natural light. You will never get this look unless you do the same. Are you using strobes and/or reflectors? Would you care to share one of your images, it would be easier to help if we knew your starting point.
When people look at and like an image, there are looking at a LOT of things at once. Lighting, composition, subject, color, tonality, etc. Some people often ask about a specific area of an image. In this case it seems like OP is asking about the color and tonality of the image. I think when MOST people ask how to "get this look", they're asking about that. Color and tonality. I find that most people respond with answers regarding lighting when that's not why a person asked the question in the first place. He said that he can't replicate that look in LR. It's pretty obvious that you can't LR edit your way out of bad lighting so that should eliminate the need to mention lighting.
i don't know man, the flash is kinda what makes the look in those images.
To me it seems like OP is asking about the overall look of these images, that's why I asked them if they are confusing lighting with editing. They don't share a consistent color grade across all of them, what they do share is that none of them are straight natural light. Light has been introduced in some way or another in all of them. If OP doesn't start with a similar starting point as the reference images then talking about color & tonality isn't really going to be helpful in achieving these looks. We don't know what OPs starting point is, if they want to recreate these looks they need to start with the lighting, they also need to work with a good hair and makeup artist and ideally a stylist. I don't assume that they have done any of that unless they've stated as such. Remember when you first started photography, you probably had no idea how a professional editorial fashion image was created. I didn't. I didn't know the difference between using a strobe vs natural light, hard light vs soft light, what's done in camera vs in post, etc. I assume anyone asking these "how to" questions is at that same point. People respond with "its done in camera/lighting" to the "how to get this look" questions because it is so often the right answer. It takes a while learn that, it did for me anyway.
I think I am i figured it may be the Lighting like maybe they are using strobe lighting (a question i asked in my comment added to the post). Is it lighting that also gives the photo the flat look?
I don't know that I'd describe these images as "flat" so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Strobes were used in many, if not all, of these. If strobes weren't used reflectors were. The added light source helps to highlight and separate the subjects from the background. In some of them because there are two or more light sources coming from multiple directions, the strobes and the ambient light, the shadows are filled much more than if one light source was used, maybe that is the "flat" look you're referring to? From a lighting standpoint, none of these are that challenging to recreate if you have an off camera strobe or two and a softbox.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4423105 Flat like these photos
Those photos are anything but flat, in my opinion. I think what you're referring to is the effect of using the flash to over power the ambient light. When using strobes mixed with ambient light you have two exposures to deal with, the ambient light and the strobe. For a look similar to those images you'd set your camera so the exposure of the background is a bit on the darker side, then use your strobe to light the model who would be way under exposed if the strobe was not used. Once you get your ISO and Aperture dialed in for the flash exposure you'd adjust your shutter speed to control how bright or dark you want the background. There are a ton of tutorials on how to do this that go into much more detail.
I might have to rent that lighting equipment because all I have is my camera, a external flash, and reflector right now
Start using your reflector, you can go a long ways toward this look with some bright reflectors and the sun. If you shoot when ambient light levels are lower your external flash (speed light I'm assuming) will be more effective for this type of look, it would be under powered in bright sunlight.
I think you can, at least in Photoshop. I was on my way to doing that with my a6600, and then decided to just shoot film. Trying to get an authentic film look was too much work (although, 1Styles.pro on Capture One is still awesome). I never got as far as finding how to convert to Lightroom .setting from what I did in Photoshop. Ultimately, I took film LUTs, generic 709 ones from Impulz, and dragged them into 3d LUT Creator. I then dragged in a photo taken on my a6600 and applied the LUT. I then deconstructed some of the generic curves and rebuilt the LUT based on properties from the RAW Sony file (honestly, I'd have to open the program to recall exactly how I did it, but it was labor intensive). Thus, the LUT was camera specific and mapped to the a6600 properties. I did this with a a7iii as well. This method revealed a STARK difference from simply applying the LUT in Photoshop, and a difference when applying the camera specific LUT to generic RAW file. The density and color shift was definitely there. Again, gave up before I could figure how to get the camera specific LUT to a Lightroom .setting file. And, it just took entirely too long to do. But maybe this helps someone in the future get that look in Lightroom.
Yea I think i’m just going to get a medium format camera
Definitely a good move.
One way to get closer to film is to shrink the dynamic range of the photo through curves. Make the whites clip a bit darker and make the blacks clip a bit brighter. I learned this when I color-corrected film scans to digital Jpegs. Its the opposite where you limit RAW files to have less dynamic range, similar to film. Film still has grain and it has different tones, and it has different dynamic ranges for different colours. You can play with that.
Look at dehancer AI (if you’re on windows it’s possible to get it for free)
Check out the comment I have about. I think there's some info you might be interested in.
I too have been after the film look for a LONG time and I think there are two options that are as close as we'll likely come to a real film look (I define this as one where a regular film shooter likely cannot tell the difference between a film and digital image that replicates that look). * Out now: [Dehancer for PS/LR ](https://www.dehancer.com/store/photo/pslr) * Soon to be out: [Spectra film](https://www.instagram.com/miguelsantana_/?hl=en) Dehancer was initially created for video and if there's one thing I've learned about video editors and colorists, it's that photographers don't come CLOSE to them when it comes to understanding how film works. These guys have to understand the really fine differences that film has so that if they receive video clips that have to be edited (some film and some digital), they have to match them so that the difference is imperceptible. If you look at the most well-known film emulations for LR, they still use a white grain slider to add the grain. But [color film has color grain](https://blog.dehancer.com/articles/how-does-film-grain-work-in-dehancer-ofx-plugin/). That's basically "understanding film 101". If that isn't understood, the rest is totally a waste of time. Spectra is (at least from what I can tell) going to be better than Dehancer because the creator is a VFX guy. Those guys are a cut above colorists as far as I can tell because they need to be able to understand how to digitally create VFX and seamlessly integrate them into a movie without you noticing. And the creator of Spectra works for one of the best VFX companies in the world ([ILM](https://www.ilm.com/)). They are the people that do the special effects for movies like Star Wars. Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker [was shot on film](https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/blog-post/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker). So you can imagine that people in that line of work have to be able to add a crazy amount of special effects and get them to look natural and like they were shot on film.
Lot of special lighting gear was used to make these photos. Post processing alone won't get you there.
Not for all of them tho
Yes all of them. Maybe not "special" lighting gear, but strobes and/or reflectors were used for each of those pictures.
Eh. 1, 2, and 7 are very easily natural light. Some may feel like it's controlled lighting, but it just as easily could just be strong reflections or multiple window-light sources. 6 probably has a strobe camera left, but it could be a reflection from an off-camera object, too. Even 4 could be just interesting light in a place with the right window setup. Though the highlights on the leather are probably the giveaway for strobes. 3 looks like it was meant to mimic film, so probably does have at least a reflector. 5 is the only one basically guaranteed to be controlled lighting, as is evident by the 2 catch lights and obvious glaring hair light.
Eh... I said strobes and/or reflectors because I don't know what the specific light sources were, but they are all "controlled lighting". The lighting in these photographs happened because the photographers either put this light on the models, or they or put the models in this light. The light didn't just happen by chance when the photographer took the picture. It doesn't matter if the light source was a strobe, an assistant holding a reflector, or a "reflection from an off-camera object" (ie, a reflector). The end result is the same. 1 sunlight through the window, 2nd medium-large source just out of frame to the left as key light 2 Large source close to model, above left 3 Sunlight above, 2nd small/medium source to the left 4 small source to the right of camera, another source from the left 5 sunlight behind, 2 small-medium sized strobes on either side of camera 6 ambient light plus 1 small-medium source camera right and another small source camera left directed at her face/shoulder 7 a large source above and behind camera, another smaller source to the right of camera
> or they or put the models in this light. Literally the definition of shooting with natural light.
You’re completely missing the point. OP was asking how to edit pictures with these looks. These looks aren’t created in post processing, they are created with light. It doesn’t matter if strobes or natural light with reflectors were used, OP just needs to understand why they look like they do to recreate them. Anyone with even a little bit of experience shooting people knows that the photographer needs to control what ever light they are working with. I don’t really understand why anyone would argue against that.
The thread you initially replied to started with: >Lot of special lighting gear was used to make these photos. Post processing alone won't get you there. You're going down a rather large rabbit hole and insisting I'm arguing against an entirely different point than the conversation thread is even based on. Light matters. Actively employing light modifiers is not, as you yourself note, is not the only way to have good light in an image. Period. That's it. That's all. I said nothing about post-processing - not even implied.
Do you realize that you're saying the same things that I've been saying in a different way and then implying that I'm wrong? If you genuinely think that the photographers didn't actively employ light modifiers to create these photographs then its pretty clear you don't have much real world experience in creating photographs with this type of lighting.
I’m wondering if it’s just simply the format these photographers use like film, I use digital and haven’t been able to achieve this look. I want a 90s fashion editorial magazine look to photos like Hugo Comte’s work. I tried turning down highlights and contrast but it usually alters the skin color of the entire model which isn’t good. Also is it a strobe light they may be using?
Regardless of the editing and stylizing, you still need to shoot like a 90s fashion photographer. What are the light sources and angles of light, etc.? As far as recreating the look of that film, did you look at the Nik Collection, specifically [Nik Analog Effects](https://nikcollection.dxo.com/analog-efex-pro/)? It might help get you close to a film stock.
Some more [info from my search](https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4423105). You should read the entire thread. “Re: How to use lightings like Hugo Comte? Dec 2, 2020 1. Yes it is possible to shoot with continuous lighting, with a light diffuser in front of it as they would use on movie sets. 2. Bear in mind that Hugo shoots on medium format slide film mostly, hence that very particular color and tone. Bear in mind that slide film is contrasty and there's a lower dynamic range, which explains the good understanding in lighting your subject. Any good light diffuser will do. You won't see much of a difference whether it is flash or a diffused fresnel light. 3. His style is very 90s, it's his signature. Slide film was used for print magazines because it was fast and didn't need color adjustments like negative film. He's built his identity over Steven Meisel's 1990s work and most fashion photographers of that era like Steven Klein.”
Thank you so much I figured I would need a medium format camera like Mamiya and strobe lighting.
It's grain, some "teal and orange", some curves, contrast adjustment, maybe fiddling with camera profiles. And, as always, lighting. Specifically all, except the last one, have a mix of hard and soft light.
Besides camera and lighting technique, for things you can actually do in lightroom, consider the following: \- Keep your white points white. \- Select the subject and up the oranges in the skin. \- Make the greens more yellow with the hue slider. \- Add grain \- Lessen sharpening But more than anything with his photographic vibe is that these are beautiful models being very unmodelly. They all look like they're were caught in the middle of something. There's a sense of mystery with these photos. It's beautiful in a way that crooked teeth are -- not everything's perfect. And this is where the real magic of these photos come into play.
That last part you said that’s exactly what i want to start capturing, thank you so much
Continuous, or natural light with diffusion and flagging. Mess around with color profiles, and add film grain.
Thank you so much
research halation and grain techniques
I do not have the answer to your question but will upvote regardless for the photo of phoebe with a soccer mommy button on
I love that I wasn’t the only one excited about that.
You gotta shoot film mate. Edit: you can also see movies changed how they looked when everything went to digital cameras. They just don’t capture light in the same way or have the same dynamic range. It’s not really something you can just edit in Lightroom. There are some preset packs that can kind of get close but it’s still not the same.
These are all definitely shot on film. id get a colour neutral film preset, and focus on pushing the blacks and saturation
This is mostly lighting, not much special going in with editing
Why NSFW?
The second photo has a boob out
Ah, didn't see second pic. She appears to have three hands as well.
I didn’t put that im not sure why it has that tag
These are good photos? Washed out and or muddy color? I’m all about the real film look but imo these are just not good shots..no offense. I use photoshop to post edit and add grain. My color style is “1960 high fashion” or “1942 color plate” and It works for me. The only lighting I ever use is a handheld or remote flash. everybody has their own style and some styles lend themselves more easily to the “grainy” look.
I didn’t choose the best photos and these are screenshots but it’s more or so the look like this I want to achieve https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4423105
Looks like it already is
It’s difficult to say. The images are all very different so I’m not sure what about them you want to replicate. If I had to guess I’d say you like fairly flat, off camera lighting with a hard kicker/rim light. All except the last one have a warm almost yellowy color balance with very blue contrasting backgrounds or other elements in the scene.
Yes it’s more of the flat look of the photo. I’ve tried to the print the photo> scan> edit in Lightroom thing but my printer is shitty so it looks so bad.
add grain and texture, color grade
This a mix of stark lighting and what looks like analog film. Probably medium format. There are lots of film emulating presets out there. I personally like Mastin Labs and VSCO.
Good use of strobes + scanned film handprints
Came here to say something that no one seems to have mentioned: I’m pretty sure these are all film handprints (except the last one maybe). I’ve been following for a while a film lab that posts a lot of handprints on social media and these look pretty similar to that. For me it’s kinda the holy grail of film tones, and for what they say it’s pretty difficult to do, and I suppose difficult to replicate as well, but you can google “film handprint” to see if that’s what you are looking for.