DxO filmpack

[j j]

I read this and had to smile.

"My second impression is to once again confirm how truly poor film based imaging is / was compared to todays' digital capture."

I really do not care what recording medium people use. All film. All digital. All photography. All record nice images. All fine by me.

But to process a digital file using software that attempts to emulate the look of film, find it unappealing and declare that film is poor when film is entirely missing from the process... that is amusing.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/dxo_film_pack.shtml

 

[Robin Harrison]

"My second impression is to once again confirm how truly poor film based imaging is / was compared to todays' digital capture."

I know, isn't it lamentable. And just witness how the market agrees - all those vintage prints made from film negatives now rendered worthless, while inkjet prints from clean digital files dominate. If anyone has any Kertesz, Cartier-Bresson or Adams prints they want to donate to me I'll replace them with some nice clean digital imaging.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Over thirty years ago, a fellow member of my fencing club was a food technologist. I asked him why so many 'artificial' foods were so awful. He replied (from memory, paraphrased),

"You can often make something very nearly as good as the original -- good enough that 90% of people won't care about the difference -- for maybe half the price of the original. Then, someone else works out to make something that is only fractionally inferior to the first-generation copy, for maybe 10% less again. Then there's a third-generation copy, nearly as good as the second-generation copy. By the third, fourth, or fifth generation, it's a lot cheaper -- but it doesn't bear much resemblance to the original.

Cheers,

R.

 

[nightfly]

I have to say that really is not up to Luminous Landscapes usual standards. It's basically a hatchet job with very little detail that amounts to not much more than "I don't like it".

It would have been helpful at least if the reviewer posted some of his post processed images vs. some of the DXO images at full size so that the reader could compare.

I tend to find digital images look overly brittle and plasticy so some post processing is usually necessary to get it to where I want it and often film emulators do a nice job, not necessarily of emulating a specific film but of getting a more pleasing image.

I read this and had to smile.

"My second impression is to once again confirm how truly poor film based imaging is / was compared to todays' digital capture."

I really do not care what recording medium people use. All film. All digital. All photography. All record nice images. All fine by me.

But to process a digital file using software that attempts to emulate the look of film, find it unappealing and declare that film is poor when film is entirely missing from the process... that is amusing.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/dxo_film_pack.shtml

 

[claacct]

All these film plug-ins are for those who want quick post-processing, otherwise everything can be done in photoshop.

Photoshop is the only digital software that could be considered a work of art in itself.

 

[jsrockit]

But to process a digital file using software that attempts to emulate the look of film, find it unappealing and declare that film is poor when film is entirely missing from the process... that is amusing.

Yeah, it's as if the entire photographic history of great film images never existed.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I just don't get the need to try and make digital look like film. If you like the look of film you use film and conversely if you like the look of digital you use that. Pretty much as simple as that. As for the food analogy, film is not the "original" light sensitive medium for photography either.

I think the reviewer made it abundantly clear that he did not miss working with film. I would not expect him to review a process designed to mimic film in a positive manner. If you do not like the original in the first place you surely will not like the artificial version either.

It is amusing that anyone would expect any other outcome of the review.

Bob

 

[nightfly]

I just don't see the point of having someone who doesn't like or miss film review a product intended for people who do.

Doesn't really do much of a service to the readers of Luminous Landscape. I'm pre-disposed to not like DSLRs but I probably wouldn't be reviewing one for an enthusiast website.

The question isn't really the validity of the product itself but how well it does what it's intended to do.

If you're looking for a sports car, you probably aren't going to get into details about how many cup holders the mini van you are reviewing has which might be of great interest to those who are looking for one.

 

[Ted Witcher]

I, actually, will never understand why some purist people give a **** whether other people use "emulators," or fail to understand why emulators exist or what the benefits of shooting digital might be. But that's just me. I shoot film and I shoot digital with various "emulation" recipes.

 

[dogbunny]

I worked in an Italian restaurant that was getting popular--too popular--and they had to attempt outsourcing their tomato sauce. The buckets of the new sauce looked funny, smelled funny, felt funny--but the owners carried on about how this sauce was exactly the same as the old sauce. I asked them why it was staining the cooks hands orange and why it smelled one way when cold and another way when hot. They told me again that it was the same and I should stop mentioning it.

I couldn't understand why someone would say something is the same when it clearly wasn't, and everyone was telling me I was the wierdo. Then a month later they went back to making the sauce the way they did before.

I really don't care if you use an emulator or not, but it only works for me if I can't see that it's been emulated. Until then, it's just smelly, sauce that ain't quite right.

 

[Manuphoto]

I use DxO FilmPack and, honestly, it's a great little program. Works well, is very close to the film it emulates.

I'm not a hardcore film lover, but I like the possibilities film rendering offers, it gives me ideas. It's just as simple as that. I don't use it on every frame, but it can be both useful and fun. Where's the harm?

Some want a better cohesion with their film photographs. Others, like me, just want to find different ways to create images.

 

[semilog]

I just don't get the need to try and make digital look like film.

Agreed, with a caveat. Ideally I want my digital and film work to be visually compatible. They don't have to look the same, but tif I put a film and digital picture next to one another, ideally I'll want the juxtaposition to not be too jarring.

 

[Ted Witcher]

Agreed, with a caveat. Ideally I want my digital and film work to be visually compatible. They don't have to look the same, but tif I put a film and digital picture next to one another, ideally I'll want the juxtaposition to not be too jarring.

I don't get why some people don't seem to get it.
edit: I was responding to the quote from Nikon Bob.