Film Emulation

[Bill Clark]

Film is film. I only use black and white film now. I don't scan because I have an analog darkroom and digital cameras that make digital files, if that's what I desire.

Digital is digital. I use digital for color capture but I can make black and white during the process stage.

Skin tones, especially with Caucasian folks, for my eyes, still look better with film.

With digital I tend, during the process stage, slightly increase the temperature with white skinned folks. Give them a tan with photoshop!

I like film and I also like digital.

Just my thoughts and what I do.

 

[majid]

I don't understand it either, but apparently Hipster love made Instagram worth a billion.

The closest analogy would be cross-processing C-41 film in an E-6 processor.

 

[Bill Clark]

Have you tried transperancy film processd in C-41?

Smiles and fun!

 

[bmattock]

Have you tried transperancy film processd in C-41?

Smiles and fun!

Being colorblind, no. Never seen a rainbow either. Life goes on.

 

[kbg32]

Made me think that with all the advances in medicine, "emulation" modes might be offered to humans. Get your "Keith Richards", "Iggy Pop", "Madonna", etc., looks.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Have you tried transperancy film processd in C-41?

Smiles and fun!

Yeh, I've done it!



I sometimes try to make digital emulate film when I'm shooting in low light at very high ISO, usually at concerts, and the digital noise seems ugly to me. I'll try to make it look like pushed Tri-X and add some simulated grain. So, I guess the point for me is, film looks better to me in some conditions, so, in those conditions, I want to try to make digital look more like it.

 

[Oscuro]

Personally, I like film and I like digital. I don't mind that digital photos don't look like film. However I notice that many digital cameras offer film emulator modes. Some software packages offer the same. Reviewers use terms like 'filmic' and film-like, etc. I don't really find myself attracted to such things. If I want film-like attributes, then film provides that. If I shoot digital, I don't. It's like my love of vinyl records. Some have surface noise. I live with it. That doesn't mean I want to hear scratches and pops on a digital music file. But they have such things. I don't understand the attraction. How about you?

I think for some it might be a confusion of form and content. Unless form becomes the content, in which case...

I gave up film (Kodachrome - shot very little black and white) for a couple of reasons:

1. I was goaded into trying a D1 by a rep (long time user of Nikon F-bodies. At the time I was using a pair of F4s bodies) and had a watershed moment: nearly all the limitations presented by film were removed from the equation.

2. Shortly thereafter, Kodachrome faced extinction. This served only to undermine any curmudgeonly attachment to film.

 

[mfogiel]

If you can shoot film and digital, then emulating film on digital or digital on film ( through grainless film emulsions) does not make much sense (to me). There is one caveat: you CAN emulate quite effectively digital on film but you CANNOT do it effectively the other way round, simply because high resolution film has much more information, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I posted this in the film vs. digital forum and nobody really took the bait. But this guy has been working on motion picture film emulation and has some really interesting thoughts about the philosophy of doing it.

http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/

This long interview discusses it in detail:
http://www.yedlin.net/160105_edit.html

 

[bmattock]

I posted this in the film vs. digital forum and nobody really took the bait. But this guy has been working on motion picture film emulation and has some really interesting thoughts about the philosophy of doing it.

http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/

This long interview discusses it in detail:
http://www.yedlin.net/160105_edit.html

I will read this over carefully, thanks!

 

[rulnacco]

Yeah, when I want that film look I go to the nearest store and buy Reala, Portra NC, Provia 400X, Ektachrome or Kodachrome.

If you can buy four of those five films in your local store, you are a lucky man indeed--or you live in a time warp. Kodachrome hasn't been made in years, and good luck getting it processed anywhere on Earth today. And Reala, Provia 400X and Ektachrome have all been extinct for some time now, too. I'm lucky to have stocks of all those three--but they're in the freezer, as no photo store I know of, anywhere, has any fresh supplies of them. (And they go for generally steep prices on eBay, when you can find them.)

Maybe we should, then, be just a bit forgiving of people who love that film look and would like to have it still, when those particular films aren't being made any more, anywhere.

I'd still love to get the look of Ektachrome--E100G was fantastic--but once my last few rolls run out, digital is going to be the *only* way to try to get it. Unless I want to pay extortionate prices for expired film.

 

[anerjee]

There are several aspects to film emulation: Color response, highlight and shadow tonality, grain.

I do sometimes use the Color response from VSCO as a starting point, as it looks better to my eyes. I avoid things like fading or tinting of highlights/shadows as well as artificial grain.

The end result does not even remotely look filmic, but just something I like.

Personally, I like film and I like digital. I don't mind that digital photos don't look like film.

However I notice that many digital cameras offer film emulator modes. Some software packages offer the same. Reviewers use terms like 'filmic' and film-like, etc.

I don't really find myself attracted to such things. If I want film-like attributes, then film provides that. If I shoot digital, I don't.

It's like my love of vinyl records. Some have surface noise. I live with it. That doesn't mean I want to hear scratches and pops on a digital music file. But they have such things. I don't understand the attraction.

How about you?

 

[shawn]

For fun, I ran an image through almost 30 different film emulations in DXO FilmPack 5. I turned off grain but left the rendering at 100% in all of them. No other FP processing applied.

https://flic.kr/s/aHsksuPNq9

IMO there is no 'right' or 'best' one. Just opinions on the look of each.

Shawn

 

[bmattock]

For fun, I ran an image through almost 30 different film emulations in DXO FilmPack 5. I turned off grain but left the rendering at 100% in all of them. No other FP processing applied.

https://flic.kr/s/aHsksuPNq9

IMO there is no 'right' or 'best' one. Just opinions on the look of each.

Shawn

I liked this one:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/39387871@N06/23940730884/in/album-72157663292221960/

 

[bmattock]

http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...013/09/dxo-film-pack-and-salgados-method.html

Fascinating!

 

[Trius]

I have no issue with anyone using any method they feel they need to create a file or print that fulfills their vision/result. The negative/original file is the score, the print/file file for online viewing is the performance. Pretty simple.

 

[35photo]

This is coming from a long time film shooter, I was all against emulation because it wasn't very good at all until I discovered VSCO. VSCO is the best I've seen and I use it exclusively as a starting point and a tweak mostly bringing the contrast down and bringing the shadows up as I tend to underexpose.. For color I mostly use Fuji Velvia 100, Kodak E100G, Portra 160 and for B&W Fuji Neonpan 400 is awesome tones are really great as well as TriX.. I barely shoot much film these days its just that good

There are several aspects to film emulation: Color response, highlight and shadow tonality, grain.

I do sometimes use the Color response from VSCO as a starting point, as it looks better to my eyes. I avoid things like fading or tinting of highlights/shadows as well as artificial grain.

The end result does not even remotely look filmic, but just something I like.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I feel as though "emulation" is kind of a dirty word, but what it really means is, "I process my digital images to achieve the effects that please me, some of which are inspired by film photography." Think of the way synthesizers were developed and marketed initially to imitate acoustic instruments, and then eventually became valued for their own inherent sonic qualities. "Film emulation" is a legitimate vector for stylistic experimentation, regardless of whether it "achieves" its intended "aim."

 

[bmattock]

I have no issue with anyone using any method they feel they need to create a file or print that fulfills their vision/result. The negative/original file is the score, the print/file file for online viewing is the performance. Pretty simple.

I don't have an issue with it either. Just didn't want to do it myself. Live and let live, all that jazz.

 

[bmattock]

I feel as though "emulation" is kind of a dirty word, but what it really means is, "I process my digital images to achieve the effects that please me, some of which are inspired by film photography." Think of the way synthesizers were developed and marketed initially to imitate acoustic instruments, and then eventually became valued for their own inherent sonic qualities. "Film emulation" is a legitimate vector for stylistic experimentation, regardless of whether it "achieves" its intended "aim."

Ok, I get that. Hmmm.