Do you get suspicious if things seem too easy (Silver EFEX Pro 2)

[Benjamin Marks]

After wrestling with B&W conversions of digital files for years, I have finally worked around to trying Silver EFEX Pro 2. In no time flat, my files have the look that I have been searching for for years: And just so you know what my boring recipe was in the days of film: 400 speed film (Tri-X, 400 Delta or Neopan) developed in Xtol, printed full frame in a filed-out carrier to 9x12 on 11x14 Ilford Multigrade and toned slightly in selenium. Cliche? Perhaps, but after years of experimenting, it just "got" me in a look-no-further sort of way.

Now an hour after sitting down with Silver EFEX Pro 2, I am putting out images that look very, very close on screen to what my ideal "look" was 10 years ago, even down to the filed-out-"negative" carrier sort of boarder. Oddly, I find myself suspicious of how easy this seems. Also suspicious of a key-line around an image that suggests a negative carrier when one cannot possibly be there. What is this? The memory of an affectation? Digital refusing to be itself? Denial? All three probably.

Anyone else have that reaction when a piece of software or other technical set-up suddenly seems like "the answer"? It is like part of my brain doesn't believe it can be excellent if it is easy . . .

 

[daninjc]

Actually you make it sound great.

It makes me wonder why the film look adds so much to BW images - to the point where you need to recreate it down to the tiniest details. Maybe it's just completely ingrained in the perception of what a BW photograph should look like, by decades of film photography.

I wonder if in the future this will change - if a new aesthetic paradigm will emerge, based specifically on digital technology.

 

[Steve M.]

I think the key words here are " I am putting out images that look very, very close on screen.....". The prints may not look like your screen.

 

[robert blu]

Since a few years I use the hybrid workflow(starting with delta 100/400), and recently sometime even a digital camera. It took me a long time to be able to reproduce in PS the wet darkroom techniques. And it took me long time before being able to make the digital print as I desired (profiles, settings, papers etc). Having said this I understand what the OP says, I have same feeling. But I can live with it when I see the print on the table...
robert

 

[seakayaker1]

Anyone else have that reaction when a piece of software or other technical set-up suddenly seems like "the answer"? It is like part of my brain doesn't believe it can be excellent if it is easy . . .

nostalgia maybe . . . . .


hand tools to power tools

slide ruler to computer

hand written to printing press


Progress for the masses . . . . . and it is easier to achieve excellence and in the future it will most likely get easier still!


. . . . . no worries though, we will always have the Ad men to tell us what's looks the best!

 

[Gerry M]

I think the key words here are " I am putting out images that look very, very close on screen.....". The prints may not look like your screen.

I am seriously considering SEP 2 and would like to hear of results of prints from this software. Particularly from the scanned neg to digital printer output. Also, how does this process (SEP) compare to analog printing as a finished product?
Gerry

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Well, you are both right, I think. I was in NYC late last week and caught the Elliot Erwit "best of" show at the International Center for Photography on 43rd street. These are great pictures for anyone who likes that 1940-1960 style of Life reportage. Highly recommended from my point of view. The pictures are immense: 20x30 at least -- quite amazing when you think what the printer was able to get out of those tiny little 35mm negatives. But the point, for this thread, is that that style of picture definitely taught me how to see photographically, and that Magnum-1950's/60-'s style was what, for years I wanted to produce.

As for the translation to prints, we will have to see. The Epson 2400 does pretty well with my Huey-adjusted monitor. But the proof will be in the prints. More on that later.

Ben

 

[mani]

Yeah and the best thing is that absolutely anyone can make their pictures look totally identical to yours with a few mouse-clicks and a programmatically generated algorithm. Awesome!

Only drawback as far as I can see is that a digital sensor capture doesn't actually look like real film in any way whatsoever - so the starting-point is so far off that the end product is only a 'plastic'-looking imitation.
But hey - these days no-one can really tell the difference, so who cares?

 

[back alley]

Yeah and the best thing is that absolutely anyone can make their pictures look totally identical to yours with a few mouse-clicks and a programmatically generated algorithm. Awesome!

Only drawback as far as I can see is that a digital sensor capture doesn't actually look like real film in any way whatsoever - so the starting-point is so far off that the end product is only a 'plastic'-looking imitation.
But hey - these days no-one can really tell the difference, so who cares?

what crap...

 

[back alley]

life is hard...

take easy when it comes along...

 

[robert blu]

It is easy today to make a photo. It's not so difficult to make an acceptable print. But to make a real good photo and a real good print is very difficult. Both, analog or digital.
robert

 

[back alley]

is it the gear or is it the photographer?

if it's the gear then we are all lost in a sea of software, plastic gears and clean glass.

 

[ampguy]

sounds great!

sounds great!

I want to try this SW when I get a chance.

That said, I have noticed that most of the images from SEFP2 seem to display a smoothness or softness like flowing water and lower contrast.

I've not seen SEFEXP2 used for say standard high contrast Tri-X street photos.

But perhaps it's built into the tutorial or the easiest access preset?

Kind of like how photoshop users initially put out hdr-ish photos (not here, but flickr, etc.).

So the question is if SEFP2 does other kinds of BW film types, other than the many types I already have access to in-camera, and in Picasa.

After wrestling with B&W conversions of digital files for years, I have finally worked around to trying Silver EFEX Pro 2. In no time flat, my files have the look that I have been searching for for years: And just so you know what my boring recipe was in the days of film: 400 speed film (Tri-X, 400 Delta or Neopan) developed in Xtol, printed full frame in a filed-out carrier to 9x12 on 11x14 Ilford Multigrade and toned slightly in selenium. Cliche? Perhaps, but after years of experimenting, it just "got" me in a look-no-further sort of way.

Now an hour after sitting down with Silver EFEX Pro 2, I am putting out images that look very, very close on screen to what my ideal "look" was 10 years ago, even down to the filed-out-"negative" carrier sort of boarder. Oddly, I find myself suspicious of how easy this seems. Also suspicious of a key-line around an image that suggests a negative carrier when one cannot possibly be there. What is this? The memory of an affectation? Digital refusing to be itself? Denial? All three probably.

Anyone else have that reaction when a piece of software or other technical set-up suddenly seems like "the answer"? It is like part of my brain doesn't believe it can be excellent if it is easy . . .

 

[Bob Michaels]

.................................. Anyone else have that reaction when a piece of software or other technical set-up suddenly seems like "the answer"? It is like part of my brain doesn't believe it can be excellent if it is easy . . .

I went through years of experimenting along with others to make a good b&w digital print. We used 3rd party inksets, special profiles, and the convoluted Jon Cone approach with file conversions. Making a good b&w print was a real craft that few possessed. Then Epson introduced the 2400 and it became automatic. Anyone could do it. We just accepted it and moved on.

Are these steps any more significant than being able to simply buy film or dry coated glass plates instead of coating your own wet plates in the field? They are all just another step.

Eventually we realize that it is not mastering some technical aspect of photography that really matters. It is personal vision to create meaningful images.

Some day we will be able to look at a scene, blink, tug on an earlobe and a perfect print will automatically emerge from the printer. And there still will be those who make great photos and the rest of the masses.

 

[tbarker13]

I love SEP 1. Haven't yet gotten the upgrade, but probably will soon.
I love the B&W conversions done with this program.
In the end, however, this program won't make a bad photograph into a good one. It's still the photographer who supplies the magic. These tools - lenses, developing tricks, chemicals, software - just let us offer different presentations of our images.

 

[hxpham]

Anyone else have that reaction when a piece of software or other technical set-up suddenly seems like "the answer"? It is like part of my brain doesn't believe it can be excellent if it is easy . . .

I think that's the ultimate goal, when you have mastered your technique/tone and you can fully concentrate on the other aspects of photography 🙂

 

[kzphoto]

Anyone have a good primer for working with SEFX 2? I have used the demo but my filues usually seem flat...

 

[jbielikowski]

something like a month ago i downloaded trial version of SEP 2... and I prefer free B&W Conversion its simpler, with 6? film presets, grain, toning and color filters. For everything else I use curves.

 

[250swb]

So the question is if SEFP2 does other kinds of BW film types, other than the many types I already have access to in-camera, and in Picasa.

Any you like to imagine, create your own presets, there are enough variables to modify an already existing 'film preset', or in the main processing functions used on their own. The existing presets, such as Tri-X still need work done with them because SEP2 has no control over the tonal range and contrast of the image you input. So it guesses a starting point, which may or may not be too contrasty for example, so alter the contrast, the micro contrast, the white sensitivity or the black sensitivity etc. The list is long if you want to nail something exactly and save those settings as your perfect film, or your perfect Tri-X. With Tri-X alone you could create five versions for five different paper grades. With Pan-X maybe you could alter the basic preset to mimic different developers, it is endless what can be done.


Steve

 

[FalseDigital]

Well said! I agree, it's not the technicalities that matter but the photos we take that have meaning.

What's funny to me is that a lot of people on this forum hate the "Oh that's a really nice camera, it must take good pictures" comment we've all heard at least once. It offends them and they're annoyed that the camera was given credit for the shot they took. HOWEVER then we have the same people comparing gear and making judgements on the images based upon technicalities instead of what's being portrayed. Kinda funny to me.

I believe it doesn't matter how we get to the final product, be it digital, film, photoshop, or darkroom. What matters is that the final image has worth. Regardless of technology it's the images we shoot that have impact. Technology can't making a boring photo interesting.

I went through years of experimenting along with others to make a good b&w digital print. We used 3rd party inksets, special profiles, and the convoluted Jon Cone approach with file conversions. Making a good b&w print was a real craft that few possessed. Then Epson introduced the 2400 and it became automatic. Anyone could do it. We just accepted it and moved on.

Are these steps any more significant than being able to simply buy film or dry coated glass plates instead of coating your own wet plates in the field? They are all just another step.

Eventually we realize that it is not mastering some technical aspect of photography that really matters. It is personal vision to create meaningful images.

Some day we will be able to look at a scene, blink, tug on an earlobe and a perfect print will automatically emerge from the printer. And there still will be those who make great photos and the rest of the masses.