Joshua
Established
Like on the shirt sleeve and apron?
biggambi
Vivere!
I have shot a lot of reversal film over the years, and I just recently ventured into the digital domain. The thing that I miss with digital is the dimensional/depth quality that projected slides give me. But, I do not miss the rather narrow film latitude. I find that I can manage the color and the contrast to a much greater degree with digital. This is done while dealing with light that would have traditionally come at a cost in the detail. I feel also that the medium allows me to take and mix the advantages of various reversal films all on the same photograph. In stead of tying to replicate a specific reversal film's complete look, I have accepted that it is different. Both have trade offs, and both have their strengths.
I would strongly encourage you to work with each photograph and tweak them on an individual basis. I have not found a set formula. Rather, a pattern from which I tend to work through to attain the final desired result. I use Aperture, so it will not be of much use to most posters. Also, a work flow pattern is dependent on how you like to break the photograph down. But, I am sure that you can learn the same skill with any granular photo program. The key for me is to access the lowest level of controls. This allows me to manipulate things and intermix the results to the greatest degree. Just my thoughts...
I would strongly encourage you to work with each photograph and tweak them on an individual basis. I have not found a set formula. Rather, a pattern from which I tend to work through to attain the final desired result. I use Aperture, so it will not be of much use to most posters. Also, a work flow pattern is dependent on how you like to break the photograph down. But, I am sure that you can learn the same skill with any granular photo program. The key for me is to access the lowest level of controls. This allows me to manipulate things and intermix the results to the greatest degree. Just my thoughts...
Last edited:
gdi
Veteran
I agree with this - film and digital are different and that fact must be accepted. This comes up often in the forums, why shoot film when you can emulate it perfectly with software? Some even claim IR film emulation using actions.
I don't see anything special about the processing in the samples shown that don't seem very common to many other M8 files. Nothing wrong with them, but they are just a variation on the digital file and won't approach a slide film - especially in a decent size print. But then why should they have too ? Digital can stand on its own - if you want slides or traditional B&W, shoot film.
Only Kodachrome is Kodachrome!
Sam N
Well-known
If you don't want to use other people's plugins, you could:
1) Take the same photo with the same lens with digital and film
2) Scan the film and open both files in lightroom
3) Edit the digital photo until it looks just like the film photo
4) Create a preset based on your edits
5) Apply that preset to your other photos to easily make them look like that film
Let us know how it goes :-D
1) Take the same photo with the same lens with digital and film
2) Scan the film and open both files in lightroom
3) Edit the digital photo until it looks just like the film photo
4) Create a preset based on your edits
5) Apply that preset to your other photos to easily make them look like that film
Let us know how it goes :-D
K3N
Member
Consider purchasing a Fuji s3pro. Its the easiest way to get Fuji film like colours in out of camera jpegs.
peterm1
Veteran
So you're ascribing the majority of owners' photo and processing skills squarely on the M8, not on...emm...the majority of said owners' photo and processing skills
No thats not it at all. What I am saying is that the M camera owners (me included) tend to shoot the same shot over and over (or variations thereof.) Its definitely to do with the owners except perhaps that the M camera excels in certain situations - wider than normal angle lens shooting street shots etc. But not many of us are good enough to make proper use of it.
No thats not it at all. What I am saying is that the M camera owners (me included) tend to shoot the same shot over and over (or variations thereof.) Its definitely to do with the owners except perhaps that the M camera excels in certain situations - wider than normal angle lens shooting street shots etc. But not many of us are good enough to make proper use of it.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
#1 looks more like Velvia to me!
I made myself some Lightroom presets that I use to get my R-D1 (with Zeiss 28/2.8, mostly) closer to the look of slide film. I have a super-saturated one, but here's a more neutral one---for me, it isn't the saturation of Velvia and Kodachrome that's so appealing, but the particular contrast and the transitions between colors, and the edge texture.
This one is actually Velvia:
I made myself some Lightroom presets that I use to get my R-D1 (with Zeiss 28/2.8, mostly) closer to the look of slide film. I have a super-saturated one, but here's a more neutral one---for me, it isn't the saturation of Velvia and Kodachrome that's so appealing, but the particular contrast and the transitions between colors, and the edge texture.
This one is actually Velvia:
Axel
singleshooter
jackal2513
richbroadbent
answer:
1. learn how to use photoshop
2. see above
those people that say that it cant be done don't know what they're talking about
sorry but a digital file is a series of pixels and a scanned slide is a series of pixels and you can make them look like eachother even if that means going over the picture pixel by pixel with a 1 pixel brush (but I am NOT suggesting you do that !)
I am not just talking about changing colour selectively, black and white points and gamma gradients.... making a velvia look will also involve changing the structure of the image so that will invariably mean resizing the image down then resizing it up again as M8 files are far far too sharp compared to scanned film. So you need to introduce a smoother and slightly fuzzy filmic rendition to teh image and the way to start to do with is to actually drop some of the reoslution then actually reinstate the picture size. Also, you will need grain and very very carefully controlled gamma curves for separate colours because tones in velvia can become very very flat. Its quite possible that certain colour channels will be need to be blurred than others as well.
Photoshop is a very very powerful piece of software but unless you've used it professionally you probably won't know what its truly capable of in the right hand. I've worked with matte painters who have created entire shots in the star wars films in photoshop, people who have created whole totally photoreal images in it from scratch, i.e. from nothing or changed images in a way that you simply would not believe possible. I've also been involved in plenty of feature films where the harshest, sharpest CGI elements have been worked seamlessley into a panavision film plate. Making a single image look like velvia is relatively very very simple.
1. learn how to use photoshop
2. see above
those people that say that it cant be done don't know what they're talking about
sorry but a digital file is a series of pixels and a scanned slide is a series of pixels and you can make them look like eachother even if that means going over the picture pixel by pixel with a 1 pixel brush (but I am NOT suggesting you do that !)
I am not just talking about changing colour selectively, black and white points and gamma gradients.... making a velvia look will also involve changing the structure of the image so that will invariably mean resizing the image down then resizing it up again as M8 files are far far too sharp compared to scanned film. So you need to introduce a smoother and slightly fuzzy filmic rendition to teh image and the way to start to do with is to actually drop some of the reoslution then actually reinstate the picture size. Also, you will need grain and very very carefully controlled gamma curves for separate colours because tones in velvia can become very very flat. Its quite possible that certain colour channels will be need to be blurred than others as well.
Photoshop is a very very powerful piece of software but unless you've used it professionally you probably won't know what its truly capable of in the right hand. I've worked with matte painters who have created entire shots in the star wars films in photoshop, people who have created whole totally photoreal images in it from scratch, i.e. from nothing or changed images in a way that you simply would not believe possible. I've also been involved in plenty of feature films where the harshest, sharpest CGI elements have been worked seamlessley into a panavision film plate. Making a single image look like velvia is relatively very very simple.
gdi
Veteran
Of course there's a big difference between working with a full file and real transparency, but I'll try...
I think the first is Kodachrome (though I'm hesitant to say that because it looks like it came from a Kodak ad, so its seems too obvious), and I think the second is digital and third is possibly Kodachrome...
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Yes, the first is Kodachrome. My point was that online (like jackal pointed out above) it's all a digital sampling we see. The issue is how faithful to film or slide your scan is, and how proficient you are not only at using Photoshop, but if you have that eye and feel to make reasonably good digital files look like film or "slide".
What Kodak ad is it that you're thinking about, I'm curious.
I took that shot with expired Kodachrome 64 film, and unfortunately it was underexposed (I learned since then that expired slides are far more sensitive to underexposure than expired film); shot with a Leica M6 and 50m Summicron + ND filter (so I could shoot wide open)
gdi
Veteran
Of course what Jackal says makes sense - given the PS skills and effort a slide/film look can be achieved (especially by Hollywood effects gurus!). And yes, getting a faithful slide scan can be a challenge - and they never equal what you see projected for several reasons. But I was trying to say that I believe we get to the point where embracing digital for its many benefits and shooting film when we want that original look is the more practical approach. But the beauty of digital is that everyone can choose the look they want, learn PS (or hire a Pro
), and go for it.And I said your shot looked like an Kodak ad, due to what I see as a "classic Kodachrome look" - I had no particular advertisement in mind. The colorful subject, the intense saturation, and even the underexposure (a lot of people still use -1/2 or so with it) contribute to that in my mind.
Jim Evidon
Jim
Why on earth do you want the M8 to emulate any film color? The standard color response on the M8 if shot -1/3 to -2/3 EV is the best on the digital market. As a matter of fact, there is even a site which tells Nikon owners how to emulate M8 color response using Lightroom. And Nikon is no slouch. My images from the M8 are so good in color response, I do minimal correction in CS3 once I have converted from RAW.
But if you insist, then buy a copy of DXO Film Pack. It's only $99 and will convert your images into a number of film simulations including Velvia and will give you simulated grain as well, if you want it. You can even use grain of one film with the color or B&W of another film, plus it has some B&W toning choices. I used it to convert to B&W before I upgraded to CS3 which also does a good B&W conversion.
Jim Evidon
But if you insist, then buy a copy of DXO Film Pack. It's only $99 and will convert your images into a number of film simulations including Velvia and will give you simulated grain as well, if you want it. You can even use grain of one film with the color or B&W of another film, plus it has some B&W toning choices. I used it to convert to B&W before I upgraded to CS3 which also does a good B&W conversion.
Jim Evidon
rwchisholm
Established
I use photoshop and the Alienskin Exposure plugin for my film emulations. As with any digital file, work flow is important. Mine is:
1) Open in ACR, white balance adjust, tweek exposure, set sharpening to 0, open file in photoshop.
2) If file is flat, duplicate layers, change to LAB color, adjust curves (I usually use auto for the Lightness, and make A and B curves steeper, with the center point through the middle).
3) If I want to sharpen in LAB, duplicate the layer and use unsharp mask on the Lightness channel.
4) Back to RGB
5) Blend layers to suit, then flatten.
6) If any more sharpening is needed, I usually use the Others->High pass at that time.
7) Now I go into Alienskin Exposure and enjoy the enourmous amount to film/grain emulations offered until I find a few that suit my image. I usually do both color and B&W.
That's it, usually a nice photo --Rob
1) Open in ACR, white balance adjust, tweek exposure, set sharpening to 0, open file in photoshop.
2) If file is flat, duplicate layers, change to LAB color, adjust curves (I usually use auto for the Lightness, and make A and B curves steeper, with the center point through the middle).
3) If I want to sharpen in LAB, duplicate the layer and use unsharp mask on the Lightness channel.
4) Back to RGB
5) Blend layers to suit, then flatten.
6) If any more sharpening is needed, I usually use the Others->High pass at that time.
7) Now I go into Alienskin Exposure and enjoy the enourmous amount to film/grain emulations offered until I find a few that suit my image. I usually do both color and B&W.
That's it, usually a nice photo --Rob
Attachments
Bob Ross
Well-known
Hi Rob,
I hope the original looks better than the small size one that you posted. To me the tones in the waves look posterized. I'm not sure if you were going for the tranny look, but if so, I would have expected more shadows due to the narrow exposure latitude. The other thing that I would expect to see is that color depth increases as tones go into the shadows. To do that a tonal mask made from a B&W of the image is used when adjusting saturation, so that saturation increases into the shadows. The tranny look is elusive due to our memories of projected slide from our own projector or the prints we made from the various processes. I made Cibachrome prints from slides and delt with the contrast gremlin, that is so easy to fix in digital PP. I don't tend to use canned plug-ins, prefrring to work each image. No doubt a habit left over from film days ;-)
Bob
Note on the image: When I looked at the picture closer, I found the woman's missing left foot and ankle an odd distraction.
I hope the original looks better than the small size one that you posted. To me the tones in the waves look posterized. I'm not sure if you were going for the tranny look, but if so, I would have expected more shadows due to the narrow exposure latitude. The other thing that I would expect to see is that color depth increases as tones go into the shadows. To do that a tonal mask made from a B&W of the image is used when adjusting saturation, so that saturation increases into the shadows. The tranny look is elusive due to our memories of projected slide from our own projector or the prints we made from the various processes. I made Cibachrome prints from slides and delt with the contrast gremlin, that is so easy to fix in digital PP. I don't tend to use canned plug-ins, prefrring to work each image. No doubt a habit left over from film days ;-)
Bob
Note on the image: When I looked at the picture closer, I found the woman's missing left foot and ankle an odd distraction.