Fake Film

[Gary Briggs]

I have been shooting since 9 years old, never real serious. On two occasions I was around people who had a dark room and did all kinds of cool stuff, I was thrilled.
But I never developed my film or did any of that cool stuff, now I can cuz of computers.
I have no doubt that those in the past/present, got more satisfaction of doing it the hard way, I'd bet they would love to see what we could do today!
So to me it comes down to time, we all have different levels of passion and available time/effort to do our hobbies.

[Peter Wijninga]

What's this about Salgado having difficulty preserving his works on film? Anyone know what that means?

In one article I read his complaints of moving large quantities of exposed film through airports and of what airport scanning equipment did to his film.

[Stuart John]

Here I found two similar images. Different times of day I'm affraid.

This one is real Fuji Neopan in Rodinal.


This one is D80 converted to B&W with DXO film pack Neopan 1600

[The Meaness]

Thanks Andy and Stuart. I'd love to see more!

[f16sunshine]

Here is an M8 file. Lens was Canon f1.2/50mm, iso160 some contrast and blackpoint adjustment made to original.

Again full size images are in the flikr set:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3636632...7627553116045/

Original


Kodachrome 25 default settings


Velvia 50 Default Setting


Lomo Redscale100 Intensity 70% Grain 55%


APX100 default setting


Tri-x 400 default setting


Neopan 1600 Default setting

[f16sunshine]

And.. this one which has a custom setting to get an actual usable photo.
Here using Tmax400 emulation and tmax 3200 grain. The parameters are in a screenshot below the shot. I like it (sort of) Will likely order a print to see how it compares to the original (in print). BTW the high tones are much more clear and vibrant on my screen before being posted to flikr (as per usual).

[Stuart John]

That last conversion looks to be real nice.

D1h and converted to B&W using the DXO Neopan 1600 preset. I reduced the contrast a little to keep more details in the dark shirt.


Here is the image I posted earlier short on real Neopan400 developed in Rodinal.

[NickTrop]

Really there's nothing to debate and no controversy. Really, this whole black and white thing (and color print, and slides) are just variations of edge sharpness, channel curve manipulation, and dynamic range (perhaps), and brightness and contrast. The differences in the various films are subtle but noticeable shifts in these parameters that are easily done in pert-near any film emulation software or plug in and is easily done by yourself. The only justification for any of these plug-ins to charge anything is they make it a little easier and faster to convert. But mostly it's the psychological aspect, playing on the nostalgia factor of "old photo dogs" who are guilty they're now shooting digital and miss the experience of opening up and loading a fresh roll of Tri-X. That's what initially drew me in to trying this stuff - then abandoning them after realizing how silly I was being. And the big deal is that some do grain more realistically than others. (I do alls this myself now, but when I fooled around with some of this stuff, I turned grain off... I think adding grain to a digital capture is really silly...) Sillier still, is that they're now trying to emulate different developers and development time... please. If you looked at the code, I'm sure it's just subtle differences in sharpening and contrast they're passing off as "1:50 rodinal" - or whatever. What IS nice is that you can sift through a bunch of different "looks" per the film stock and make a "Velvia" or an "HP" file quickly and easily - and they all look just fine. All the stuff on this thread - digital or the "real" deal look just fine, and if you were intellectually honest you'd be hard pressed to tell the "real HP 5+" from the DXO stuff in a print on the table. You wouldn't take that challenge because you'd only embarrass yourself. I know I wouldn't.

[f16sunshine]

Thanks John. I think your neopan 400 in Rodinal is still the best looking sample shown here overall.

Nick I agree what you are saying. These programs are simply a matter of making the work easier (PP work). The question is. Does is work, will it make pp times shorter, and will the results be useful?

For me the jury is not yet in. I can see making presets in A3 that could do what this program is doing. Could I develop the presets that DXO has for EUR45 worth of my time..... not a chance. If they labeled the program with a name that did not infer film types but rather profile types ("monochrome low contrast medium grain with open shadows" as one type of profile) for example. This whole film vs Digital holy war aspect of what this program is would be meaningless. Take the program for what it is and it may be quite useful. I'll spend a few more hours deciding for myself. The "film" names they have applied to the profiles at this point mean nothing but names of any sort to me.

[NickTrop]

Originally Posted by f16sunshine

Thanks John. I think your neopan 400 in Rodinal is still the best looking sample shown here overall.

Nick I agree what you are saying. These programs are simply a matter of making the work easier (PP work). The question is. Does is work, will it make pp times shorter, and will the results be useful?

For me the jury is not yet in. I can see making presets in A3 that could do what this program is doing. Could I develop the presets that DXO has for EUR45 worth of my time..... not a chance. If they labeled the program with a name that did not infer film types but rather profile types ("monochrome low contrast medium grain with open shadows" as one type of profile) for example. This whole film vs Digital holy war aspect of what this program is would be meaningless. Take the program for what it is and it may be quite useful. I'll spend a few more hours deciding for myself. The "film" names they have applied to the profiles at this point mean nothing but names of any sort to me.

They're not without value... I agree. And I think you'll find they're definitely fast (Alien Skin more so than Silver Effects everyone raves about...) Especially at the specified price point. However, you can (over time) just make "looks" you like and save them as presets, actions - what have you. Why does it have to emulate "Tri-X"? The main reasons why I dropped these is: 1. I'm cheap and earlier iterations were more expensive than the DxO stuff... 2. I don't like to add grain, realistic or otherwise - (a major selling/boasting point of most of these progs) and 3. I no longer need to be "locked in" to a specific film look. Why would I want to impose such a constraint?

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Griffin

Sorry Keith, hadn't seen that

I just check the homepage and click on whatever thread sounds interesting.

My friend asked me why I don't I just shoot digital and then make them look like analog photos.

I had to kill him of course.

Good response!

[tomalophicon]

Originally Posted by Peter Wijninga

In one article I read his complaints of moving large quantities of exposed film through airports and of what airport scanning equipment did to his film.

I read he didn't take his film through the X-Rays, hence the bother.
I think he said he had a giant bag full of film and unpacking all of it for hand inspections was a real pain. He was talking about 120 rolls I believe.

[Keith]

It appears to be pretty good software and without going down the digital V film route I have to make one admission as a reaonably happy digital user. Occasionally, the lack of dynamic range of digital really pi$$es me off but when sensor technology fills in this gap, as it eventually will obviously, there will be no limitations and comparisons between the the two mediums will become pointless.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by f16sunshine

I made a sample set using a Scanned tmax 400 file. Just for fun. Of course this program is intended more for digital RAW files from digital cameras.

The set is here and I left full size files if you want to look at them.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3636632...7627553116045/

Original tmax 400 shat at 100 developed in tmax developer and scanned with V700


Tmax400 DXO filter with default settings

Oh god look how limited the dynamic range on the digital shot is!! Look how fake it looks! Look how fake the digital version is compared to the film!!!

edit: damn, not what I thought it was.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by Keith

It appears to be pretty good software and without going down the digital V film route I have to make one admission as a reaonably happy digital user. Occasionally, the lack of dynamic range of digital really pi$$es me off but when sensor technology fills in this gap, as it eventually will obviously, there will be no limitations and comparisons between the the two mediums will become pointless.

Expose for the highlights, develop for the shadows with digital.
I find myself getting much more dynamic range available to me this way than I do with film.

[mathomas]

My only beef is with the tagline:

"Rediscover the magic of film"

There's truly only one way to do that, IMO, and that's by shooting film. With software, you can really only:

"Discover the magic of emulating film"

But it's just marketing-speak, so we have to be cool. I shoot both digital and film and am happy to have Silver Efex in my toolbox. I use it for both scanned negs and digital files. In my case, it's:

"Discover the magic of emulating darkroom techniques on your scanned film image"

Good stuff, though.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by fdigital

Expose for the highlights, develop for the shadows with digital.
I find myself getting much more dynamic range available to me this way than I do with film.

Yes I agree totally and that's what any experienced digital user does but my point is that when the true dynamic range of digital does eventually match film the one brick bat that people still happily take to digital will be gone!

The fight will be over and we can get back to photography!

[mathomas]

Originally Posted by fdigital

Oh god look how limited the dynamic range on the digital shot is!! Look how fake it looks! Look how fake the digital version is compared to the film!!!

Did you actually get the point that he started with a film scan and applied the filter to the film scan? As he says, you'd normally use this tool on a digital file. Sorry if I misunderstood your post.

That being said, I actually do prefer his "untouched" film scan. Nicer range of tones, IMO.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by mathomas

Did you actually get the point that he started with a film scan and applied the filter to the film scan? As he says, you'd normally use this tool on a digital file. Sorry if I misunderstood your post.

That being said, I actually do prefer his "untouched" film scan. Nicer range of tones, IMO.

Nope completely missed that. But it doesn't make this whole topic any less ridiculous. brb 99% of professional photojournalism and photography is 'fake' because the digital results mimic the look of film. ekk...

[Peter^]

Wow! When I started this thread I had no idea it would turn into such a lively discussion, and I definitely did not want to bring up the whole film vs. digital debate again.
But I still find a compelling chunk of irony in the thought of a software which specializes in making a digital image look like film. This seems to me to be some kind of high-tech aesthetic nostalgia. The ad copy on the dxo website talks of "authentic and creative". I just can't figure out what either of these words are supposed to mean in this context.

[christian.rudman]

Originally Posted by Keith

Yes I agree totally and that's what any experienced digital user does but my point is that when the true dynamic range of digital does eventually match film the one brick bat that people still happily take to digital will be gone!

The fight will be over and we can get back to photography!

I'm on my way out from being a "learned with digital" user back to my photographic roots in film (just picked up an RB67 and I'm in love all over again), I can't advocate going any further into digital. But, (here's where I contradict myself) have you ever seen what Sigma's Foveon sensors do with light? The cameras are crap right now, but the sensor is amazing and brilliant! Check out a few Nikon/Canon v. Foveon images and it will blow your mind. Now they just need to stick that sensor in an M10....

[olleorama]

Originally Posted by sanmich

I wonder how it works on scanned Tri-X

Oh my god! Tri-X^2!

But wait, if you shoot a scene with tri-x, wet print the neg, shoot the print with tri-x, scan the negative of the print, and then apply tri-x filter.. tri-x^3?

[Brian Sweeney]

Originally Posted by mabelsound

In my day, if we wanted a picture, we painted it. Just sayin'.

In my day, if we wanted a Digital image we just made our own Digital camera. Thirty years ago. How things change.

Of course I used Ektachrome if i wanted hardcopy of it.



Fake Digital... Digital Image recorded with Film. Dicomed. I miss Heavy Metal Computers.

...Raw Image of Course...Channel 7 of 32 channels.

[Brian Sweeney]

Too Funny. Made this picture at about the same time as the above image.



Ektachrome.

In 1982, you definitely got more "Pixels" using Ekatachrome with a film camera than you did with a Digital camera.

[cosmonaut]

Lightroom has some great presets that produce film like pictures. With that said once you scan a negative you are dealing with a digital image from that point. I don't think most scanners can do film the justice a good enlarger can.