I have not seen a plug-in, but I do stuff like that by hand frequently and it is easy.

Desaturate the image, increase the contrast, and adjust the brightness to taste.

Create a new layer and render a "cloud" noise. Desturate that layer, and then adjust the blending option till the noise layer gives the picture the right texture. Often times I will also simulate vignetting and blur the outter edges. Some examples:

Oringinal:


Old photo:



Original:


Old photo:



Original:


Old photo:


Old photo simulating focal plane shutter distortion:
img src=http://images.adameros.net/albums/userpics/10003/normal_img_3218-vivid-crop-old_photo-shear2.jpg>


Like I said, it's really easy. The trick is all in right contrast and the "noise".

Sorry... I messed up the html for that last image. Here it is:

cool. thanks for the tips!

http://share.studio.adobe.com/axAssetDetailSubmit.asp?aID=11634&back=http%3A%2F%2Fshare%2Estudio%2Eadobe%2Ecom%2FaxBrowseSubmit%2Easp%3Fc%3D37

Maybe this?

i've been using a holga filter that i got from Flaming Pear. it's called Melancholytron and you can download it here: http://flamingpear.com/download.html

a few samples of what i've done with it:
http://www.penelopesloom.com/archives/2005/07/fathermother.php
http://www.penelopesloom.com/archives/2005/06/big_bridges.php
http://www.penelopesloom.com/archives/2005/04/holga.php

you can customize the settings a lot.

Thanks!!!!!

you don't by chance happen to have a key-code for that do you?

Wouldn't it be a problem with the changing of tones and inverting as you view the image from various angles, as it does with a Daguerreotype? :-p (That's a major difference between a Daguerreotype and a tintype. Also. A Daguerreotype had a mirror-effect, which Tintype ddn't have.)

I do think one need to have it in mind already when photographing. After all, it's the poor sensitivity to light that make a lot of the Daguerreotype, with exposure of about 15 mins etc, and I actually think one need to use a very long exposure to sort of get the same feeling to start off with. But obviously that also affected the grayscale.

You haven't forgot to look for Actions have you?

Interesting article: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2479/is_1_30/ai_89985961

thanks. I haven't forgotten about actions... I'm just not very skilled with PS unfortunately. I'm self-taught. That usually means spending hours messing up one photo just to see what I can do. I was looking for something a bit quicker.

I would need to see a Daguerreotype actually do the tone shift, but if it is like how an LCD colors/brightness invert at extreme angles, that could be simulated...

Create a layer of "noise", then use a mask to make it so the noise is only on the outer edges (much like you would to to simulate vignetting), and then use a blend option of "difference". The "difference" will create a textures reverse video, almost looking solarized.

Here is a quick attempt at it... The edges are not large enough to the brightness inversion, but if I make the edges wider the distract too much from the subject. Pluse there is a weird flat halo where the "difference" layer starts. But with a little work this idea might work for you.

interesting. thanks!

Might work better on a flat screen compared to a CRT, but..

I guess the major look of a Daguerreotype is the fact that it's glassy.. It have a sort of shiny, mirror-like black (since it's essentially a mirror). The drawback to it, is that if you look at it from different angles, is that you get a solarizing effect of it..

You get the same effect at times, if you look at a film negative, don't remember if it's when the pictures are too bright or dark, and turn it slightly.. where you can see a positive image, sort of.. some areas turn positive, on the negative, while others stay negative.. Polaroid positive film have the same effect, as well.

That way, those are very much "alive", which is the hard thing to mimic on a static media, but since most know Daguerreotypes from static reproductions, and it's the idea of what an Daguerreotype look like, rather than what they look like, it will work to fool most people.

What I miss most with "Digital", is that it isn't as alive as film are. You have less options. Even if you print the images out, it becomes slightly too static, in a sense. Mostly because with film you have so many options when it comes to selecting style of film, what paper you're using etc. It's sort of a whole "soup", where all ingredients influence it. Even if you can mimic a lot of it with digital, it somehow become streamlined into a certain look, because you can't get say... what fuji Neopan enlarged on Emaks cristal paper look like, since you can't get cristal paper to print on, etc..