Fake Film
- Thread starter Peter^
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 89
- Views 9K
tomalophicon
Well-known
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
The best camera is one that still works!
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
Veteran
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
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.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
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
Well-known
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.
"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.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
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
Well-known
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.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
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^
Well-known
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.
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
digital to analog convert
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
flasher extraordinaire
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?
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.
Last edited:
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.
Ektachrome.
In 1982, you definitely got more "Pixels" using Ekatachrome with a film camera than you did with a Digital camera.
cosmonaut
Well-known
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.
user237428934
User deletion pending
The text you cited is somehow stupid I think. That comes from someone who is from a world of heavy body and face retouche. We only talk about colour and contrast here. And of course we buy and use some others ideas today. If you use Adobe you use Adobes ideas of CaNiLeica-Colors. If you use Aperture, you use Apples ideas of colors. If you use JPG then you use the manufacturers idea of colors. The same when you buy and use a preset. You use someone else's ideas.
furcafe
Veteran
I don't think the text is "stupid" @ all, though you may disagree w/his opinion about the level of "expertise" in available software (the article is from 3 years ago) it seems that you are agreeing w/his basic point, which is that when you buy a software preset or plug-in, you are paying for someone else's ideas, just like when you bought film (where the differences in mere "colour and contrast" can be huge). That point may be obvious to you & me, but is apparently lost to many who consider film to be somehow more "authentic" than digital; it's not, it's just another media.
Last edited:
Paying for someone else's idea is usually cheaper than paying for your own ideas and having someone else implement them as a new sensor, or film. If you are just writing software to implement your idea, takes time and effort.
Been there, done that.
Been there, done that.
Mikey_Rotten
Established
Couldn't agree more
Teuthida
Well-known
agreed. Just read it. Very thought provoking.