Stuart John
Well-known
The first shot I posted is digital it is on page 1 of this thread the second shot on page 2 is film Neopan 400.
MichaelW
Established
He ran out of shoe boxes.
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
This forum is for photo 'software' ... good that you could drop in to give us the usual 'use real film' sermon that we've come to expect in these threads!
Try not to slam the door on your way out ... thanks!
Sorry Keith, hadn't seen that :angel:
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.
Stuart John
Well-known
Here is DXO Film Pack Neopan 1600.
Looks quite nice not sure how close it is to the real film though.
Looks quite nice not sure how close it is to the real film though.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I downloaded the trial also. The color film versions are sort of meh so far.. but The B+W versions are actually looking pretty promising. Especially at EUR45 :O I'll order some prints over the weekend to see how she really goes. All that said Yes film will always be the best film look option. But what if you need another option? It sure is nice to see these products fill that need. Suggesting otherwise is silly.
The B+W versions are actually looking pretty promising. Especially at EUR45 :O I'll order some prints over the weekend to see how she really goes. All that said Yes film will always be the best film look option. But what if you need another option? It sure is nice to see these products fill that need. Suggesting otherwise is silly.
Stuart John
Well-known
Yep I like the B&W conversions best. I don't know how realistic they are but it does provide a convenient way to covert to B&W and add some grain at the same time. I have notice that the TmaX 100 setting is grainier than FP4 and from my experience Tmax100 has much finer grain so I'm not convinced that the simulations are that accurate.
The software is easy to use and I will likely purchase the cheaper essentials version.
The software is easy to use and I will likely purchase the cheaper essentials version.
The Meaness
Well-known
Wow. This whole thing is great. Thank you.
I would really love to see some side by sides of film and digital images using silver efex, alien skin, dxo, whatever. Can anyone show the same subject taken with each?
sanmich
Veteran
I wonder how it works on scanned Tri-X
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
OK, I'll try and do a mini-review...kinda busy at work today, but tomorrow I hope!
f16sunshine
Moderator
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/36366328@N04/sets/72157627553116045/
Original tmax 400 shat at 100 developed in tmax developer and scanned with V700
Tmax400 DXO filter with default settings
Neopan 1600 Intensity 40% Grain 75%
APX 25 Default settings
Lomo Redscale (yes color neg film emulation) Intensity 46% Grain 6%
The set is here and I left full size files if you want to look at them.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36366328@N04/sets/72157627553116045/
Original tmax 400 shat at 100 developed in tmax developer and scanned with V700
Tmax400 DXO filter with default settings
Neopan 1600 Intensity 40% Grain 75%
APX 25 Default settings
Lomo Redscale (yes color neg film emulation) Intensity 46% Grain 6%
Gary Briggs
mamiyaDude
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.
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.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
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
Well-known
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
This one is real Fuji Neopan in Rodinal.
This one is D80 converted to B&W with DXO film pack Neopan 1600
The Meaness
Well-known
Thanks Andy and Stuart. I'd love to see more!
f16sunshine
Moderator
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/36366328@N04/sets/72157627553116045/
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
Again full size images are in the flikr set:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36366328@N04/sets/72157627553116045/
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
Moderator
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).
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
Well-known
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.
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
Veteran
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
Moderator
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.
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
Veteran
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?