filmfan
Well-known
I am starting to agree with this. I like the softer look with smoother transition from focus to blur of film, as well as the grain structure -- all of which provide WAY more ambiance and mood to the shot.
Considering the X-Pro 1 -- I need my BW grain though
- Thread starter filmfan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 40
- Views 5K
I am starting to agree with this. I like the softer look with smoother transition from focus to blur of film, as well as the grain structure -- all of which provide WAY more ambiance and mood to the shot.
bhop73
Well-known
I use VSCO for digital "film conversion" I think their Tri-X looks close to my real Tri-X.. at least the way I like it to look, as far as the contrast/grain levels, and if you use lightroom, you can always bump the grain up or down.
X100T
Tired Boy by Brandon, on Flickr
M6
Breakfast In Bed by Brandon, on Flickr
X100T
Tired Boy by Brandon, on FlickrM6
Breakfast In Bed by Brandon, on Flickr
danielsterno
making soup from mud
This would of been advice above, personally you have a lot of control within silverEfex…. you'll have fun
nongfuspring
Well-known
The idea that any digital camera takes more "film like" images than another I think is largely a myth unless you're only using jpegs SOOC.
VSCO's LR plugins are pretty good for grain. I've been fooled more than a few times into thinking my converted fuji files were my actual Tri X scans. If you look (very) closely at the grain level, it's still somewhat possible to tell the VSCO files are a filter that sits on top of the image, but under any normal circumstances this would not be noticeable in print.
Following from what jbielikowski said, I also discovered quite a bit of what I attributed to the "film look" was actually the rendering of film era lenses and not the film itself. Considering that of all the digital lenses I've tried the Fuji 35mm 1.4 is probably one of the ones I think of as being the most film-era like because it has so much character. I'm sure you'll really enjoy it.
VSCO's LR plugins are pretty good for grain. I've been fooled more than a few times into thinking my converted fuji files were my actual Tri X scans. If you look (very) closely at the grain level, it's still somewhat possible to tell the VSCO files are a filter that sits on top of the image, but under any normal circumstances this would not be noticeable in print.
Following from what jbielikowski said, I also discovered quite a bit of what I attributed to the "film look" was actually the rendering of film era lenses and not the film itself. Considering that of all the digital lenses I've tried the Fuji 35mm 1.4 is probably one of the ones I think of as being the most film-era like because it has so much character. I'm sure you'll really enjoy it.
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
I have VSCO Essentials in ACR and Nik PS plugin, first for some basic raw correction and color work, but grain is so much better with Nik. And one thing I always do manually, bumping midtones with curves, just a little bit.
Dogman
Veteran
I agree. At least partially. What I miss about film is Kodak's color palette, i.e., the Kodachromes and the Ektachromes. I liked the clean, cooler tones from the days of color transparencies. As for B&W, I'm fine with digital. And I'm actually okay with JPEG monochromes straight from the camera in full digital gray range glory. I think a lot of people ruin their B&W by turning up the contrast, trying to emulate darkroom prints done badly on the old Agfa Brovira #6 paper.
willie_901
Veteran
I too prefer working with digital images since they are more flexible.
You can render digital images to resemble film. The degree of resemblance is disputable as such judgements are subjective. But, you can't render film images to resemble digital images. Likewise, whether or not this is a disadvantage or advantage is also debatable.
A 100% analog workflow from capture to display is quire different from a hybrid analog/digital work flow. What percentage of film photographs result from a 100% analog work flow? Surely the ratio of 100% analog B&W photographs to color photographs is extremely high.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
I agree here. This is why for my street work, I'm not going to bother upgrading my X-Pro1. If find the 16mp is already for the most part, the top of what I'd get with 35mm film in terms of rez. lower rez may be better. I think that is why some of my old 6mp images that were processed though Silver Efex look more like 35mm film.....now with high rez cameras, they look like MF film for rez...but with 35mm film grain....it just doesnt feel right.
daveleo
what?
There may be a glass filter somewhere that creates a "more film-like" feeling on digital images ? ?
Then the question becomes "what film?".
Then the question becomes "what film?".
filmfan
Well-known
I just popped on an XPro1 w/ grip and 35mm 1.4 lens. Should arrive in 4 days.
Might have to do something about my username now...
Might have to do something about my username now...
kxl
Social Documentary
Dogman
Veteran
Great choices!
You can still be "filmfan" if you like the XP1. It's a Fujifilm brand camera after all.
lamefrog
Well-known
Looks like I'm in the minority here but my advice is : DON'T DO IT . I'm using caps to get your attention because of my personal experience and the time and opportunities I wasted. If you really want a film rendering , use film. Especially if you like a specific film/developer combo. Sure, if you spend enough time in front of the computer screen pushing around sliders you might reach an ok approximation of a scanned version of a negative , but as a photographer, is that really how you want to spend your time ? I tried to like digital and even acquired a Monochrom but every every photo I took with it now seems like a wasted opportunity . There's nothing wrong with digital - just don't use it as a replacement for film . And as John rightly noted , its just about impossible to get film-type highlights in digital (and imho approximating specific film tonal ranges is also an issue)
filmfan
Well-known
I feel this.
However, I just don't have the passion needed to eff around with film like I used to. I am hoping the XPro1 will get me "good enough" which would be good enough to get me to shoot photos again.
However, I just don't have the passion needed to eff around with film like I used to. I am hoping the XPro1 will get me "good enough" which would be good enough to get me to shoot photos again.
Black
Photographer.
Sometimes its productive to have a break from a particular format - you'll appreciate it all the more if and when you return to it.
I've shot film for years now - but am curious and excited to be visiting digital again (Sigma sd Quattro) and will enjoy the benefits it offers. I'm not giving up on film (I'm still a "fan" and, indeed, it is still my favourite format) however, I am over the evangelical waffling about film and fitting in with the cool kids.
I'll shoot both, thanks - but I am very happy to be dipping my toe in all those zeros and ones again.
I've shot film for years now - but am curious and excited to be visiting digital again (Sigma sd Quattro) and will enjoy the benefits it offers. I'm not giving up on film (I'm still a "fan" and, indeed, it is still my favourite format) however, I am over the evangelical waffling about film and fitting in with the cool kids.
I'll shoot both, thanks - but I am very happy to be dipping my toe in all those zeros and ones again.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
I use the X-Pro 1 along with the 23, 35 an 18-55. I like a grainy, high contrast look for street...like grainy films of the 60's that are pushed. I run the raw files through Lightroom, then Silver Efex 2, then Analog Efex to get he best grain, contrast, and stressed look. Not for everyone...but I'm liking it compared to the films I use as well
A bit higher rez from one. Gotta learn how to post pics better here
A bit higher rez from one. Gotta learn how to post pics better here
Attachments
Jake Mongey
Well-known
Honestly, just go for any type of camera. As long as you go and like taking photos
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Best advice ever!
mdwsta4
Matty Westside
The XP1 is still a great camera. You'll love it! Like so many others have mentioned, between VSCO and Silver Efex, you'll be able to emulate film pretty easily. May not be perfect, but it's still really good.
For example, here are two sets of photos. One digital, the other film. Not exactly apples to apples comparisons, but I'd say pretty close. Can you guess which is film and which is digital? (thought I had better examples, but can't find them right now)
A
B
A
B
For example, here are two sets of photos. One digital, the other film. Not exactly apples to apples comparisons, but I'd say pretty close. Can you guess which is film and which is digital? (thought I had better examples, but can't find them right now)
A
B
A
B
filmfan
Well-known
Thanks! I am excited to give it a shot.
Nice shots! But I am less interested in comparisons from low-res jpegs on my monitor as I would be 11x14 prints. That is when I care most. To me, all the above images are "digital" since I am viewing them on my screen 🙂
Nice shots! But I am less interested in comparisons from low-res jpegs on my monitor as I would be 11x14 prints. That is when I care most. To me, all the above images are "digital" since I am viewing them on my screen 🙂
The XP1 is still a great camera. You'll love it! Like so many others have mentioned, between VSCO and Silver Efex, you'll be able to emulate film pretty easily. May not be perfect, but it's still really good.
For example, here are two sets of photos. One digital, the other film. Not exactly apples to apples comparisons, but I'd say pretty close. Can you guess which is film and which is digital? (thought I had better examples, but can't find them right now)
A
B
A
B
Similar threads
