kxl
Social Documentary
Do you shoot with a color film sim and then use the RAW image for B&W conversion? Which film sim?
OR
Do you shoot with a B&W film sim and then use the RAW image for color conversion? Which film sim?
With either option, any specific reason why?
Just curious.
-Keith
OR
Do you shoot with a B&W film sim and then use the RAW image for color conversion? Which film sim?
With either option, any specific reason why?
Just curious.
-Keith
Bill Clark
Veteran
Help me.
What is sim?
What is sim?
kxl
Social Documentary
Film simulation - Fuji cameras have user-selectable film simulation modes for out of camera jpeg images:
Color - Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, ProNeg Std, ProNeg High
B&W - Monochrome, Acros, Sepia - plus Red/Yellow/Green filter choices.
I used to favor Acros and then work with the RAW file to produce a color image, but lately I've been favoring one of the color sims and then using SilverEfex to work with the RAW file to create a B&W image.
Color - Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, ProNeg Std, ProNeg High
B&W - Monochrome, Acros, Sepia - plus Red/Yellow/Green filter choices.
I used to favor Acros and then work with the RAW file to produce a color image, but lately I've been favoring one of the color sims and then using SilverEfex to work with the RAW file to create a B&W image.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
None of the above.
I work only with raw files (unless the originals are JPEG or otherwise). I have several pathologically weird but quite different B&W presets (that I created myself) designed to give me an insight as to how to process a particular exposure to B&W. I usually find that one of them establishes a decent starting point and work from there.
I could care less what "film" my results look like. I care that my photos look the way I want them to, that's all.
I work only with raw files (unless the originals are JPEG or otherwise). I have several pathologically weird but quite different B&W presets (that I created myself) designed to give me an insight as to how to process a particular exposure to B&W. I usually find that one of them establishes a decent starting point and work from there.
I could care less what "film" my results look like. I care that my photos look the way I want them to, that's all.
Greg Maslak
Well-known
Personally, I don’t bother with the RAWs. I just use jpegs with a profile saved in the “q” menu based around colour sims Provia and proNeg standard and monochrome/yellow for B&W. I chose the setting beforehand and stay with it for a time. I edit the jpegs in Apple Photo. It’s very basic without any layers but with a surprising amount of control over tone, colour and contrast and best of all it’s free.
kxl
Social Documentary
I could care less what "film" my results look like. I care that my photos look the way I want them to, that's all.
Those two statements are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I couldn't care less about what "film" my results look like either, but sometimes those film sims give me photos that look the way that I want them to.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
markjwyatt
Well-known
I shoot RAW+ whatever jpeg I feel will be close to what I am after (usually Standard for color, sometimes Velvia. For B&W Acros usually Y or R filter). I generally process the RAW file.
Need a third poll option: desired jpeg and RAW for color or B&W.
Need a third poll option: desired jpeg and RAW for color or B&W.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Sorry, no film simulation with digital.
Black & white I still use film. Currently using Ilford FP4 Plus with my Leica M3. I still develop my film but very little printing in my darkroom. Still make a contact sheet for each roll of 36 using an 8x10. I get 6 rows with 6 negatives per row on each 8x10.
Some digital mostly all with my iPhone.
Black & white I still use film. Currently using Ilford FP4 Plus with my Leica M3. I still develop my film but very little printing in my darkroom. Still make a contact sheet for each roll of 36 using an 8x10. I get 6 rows with 6 negatives per row on each 8x10.
Some digital mostly all with my iPhone.
peterm1
Veteran
The best camera I ever owned that had preset image types was the old Panasonic L1 from a decade or more back. This camera did not claim that its filters were emulating different specifically named film types, and the best inbuilt filters were its ones for black and white. I recall being able to shoot with the dynamic black and white setting and get lovely monochrome images with good tonal separation straight from the camera.
These days I do not do that as I have not owned any cameras with which I am happy to do this. And besides I find it preferable to shoot in RAW only as it gives much better outcomes in the final images. But I will often play around with the look of an image so as to more or less emulate analogue film, but never in-camera - always in post processing these days.
Nik Color Efex Pro 4 (which may still be available for free download on the web - it was for about 2 years) is a plugin that has many individual filters. One set of filters is listed under the heading Film Efex: Modern. Under this heading are about 30 or more specific film types the filters purport to emulate. For example: Kodachrome 64, Kodak Gold 100, Fujichrome Sensia 100 etc. They certainly "tweak" the image "look' somewhat, but whether they truly emulate these film types accurately, I cannot say as it is 20 years since I shot film regularly. (Also bear in mind it is my experience that the way a plugin filter interacts with different images can result in vastly different looks for different images even with the same setting being used).
Another software plugin that works (and to my mind works far better than the above) is Nik Analog Efex. This set of filters is designed specifically to allow the user to emulate an analogue look as its name suggests. But it takes considerable practice and skill as it is not a "click and forget" filter designed to give the look of specific film types. It is all down to the skill of the user. Also the default values in the software are way over the top and HORRID and must be toned down after you first open the image in the plugin. For new users I suggest finding some instructions online how to combine different filters in the plugin as it is not intuitive to use.
I love the look of old Kodachrome images from the 1950s and 1960s (especially those produced by Saul Leiter who was a master of this medium) and the following image is one which, to my way of thinking, more or less captures the colors and tonality of Kodachrome using Nik Analog Efex - though I can't say I was specifically looking for a Kodachrome look when I first processed this image - I was just experimenting. I also can't claim it to be perfect but its about the closest I have achieved in terms of a pseudo Kodachrome look. And finally, I can't say it's possible to get this result with every image as the outcome is also highly dependent on the original image being manipulated as I noted above. It certainly helps if there are reds and yellows in the image as Kodachrome renders these beautifully and this look can be emulated somewhat with the software if already
Street Shots - Cinematic by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
And maybe these have a little of the Kodachrome "character" too. Though I would say I was not specifically looking to emulate Kodachrome with these either - its just that they have a little of that look to my eye.
Cafe Study 15 - Reworked and Reimagined by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Cocolat by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Street Shots - Las Tre Amigas by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Reflections by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Lunch Time Rush by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
These days I do not do that as I have not owned any cameras with which I am happy to do this. And besides I find it preferable to shoot in RAW only as it gives much better outcomes in the final images. But I will often play around with the look of an image so as to more or less emulate analogue film, but never in-camera - always in post processing these days.
Nik Color Efex Pro 4 (which may still be available for free download on the web - it was for about 2 years) is a plugin that has many individual filters. One set of filters is listed under the heading Film Efex: Modern. Under this heading are about 30 or more specific film types the filters purport to emulate. For example: Kodachrome 64, Kodak Gold 100, Fujichrome Sensia 100 etc. They certainly "tweak" the image "look' somewhat, but whether they truly emulate these film types accurately, I cannot say as it is 20 years since I shot film regularly. (Also bear in mind it is my experience that the way a plugin filter interacts with different images can result in vastly different looks for different images even with the same setting being used).
Another software plugin that works (and to my mind works far better than the above) is Nik Analog Efex. This set of filters is designed specifically to allow the user to emulate an analogue look as its name suggests. But it takes considerable practice and skill as it is not a "click and forget" filter designed to give the look of specific film types. It is all down to the skill of the user. Also the default values in the software are way over the top and HORRID and must be toned down after you first open the image in the plugin. For new users I suggest finding some instructions online how to combine different filters in the plugin as it is not intuitive to use.
I love the look of old Kodachrome images from the 1950s and 1960s (especially those produced by Saul Leiter who was a master of this medium) and the following image is one which, to my way of thinking, more or less captures the colors and tonality of Kodachrome using Nik Analog Efex - though I can't say I was specifically looking for a Kodachrome look when I first processed this image - I was just experimenting. I also can't claim it to be perfect but its about the closest I have achieved in terms of a pseudo Kodachrome look. And finally, I can't say it's possible to get this result with every image as the outcome is also highly dependent on the original image being manipulated as I noted above. It certainly helps if there are reds and yellows in the image as Kodachrome renders these beautifully and this look can be emulated somewhat with the software if already
Street Shots - Cinematic by Life in Shadows, on FlickrAnd maybe these have a little of the Kodachrome "character" too. Though I would say I was not specifically looking to emulate Kodachrome with these either - its just that they have a little of that look to my eye.
Cafe Study 15 - Reworked and Reimagined by Life in Shadows, on FlickrCocolat by Life in Shadows, on FlickrStreet Shots - Las Tre Amigas by Life in Shadows, on FlickrReflections by Life in Shadows, on FlickrLunch Time Rush by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
michaelwj
----------------
I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't bother with raw. I have in the past, and my photos weren't any better, I just spent too much time trying to fix a bad photo when I should either have shot it right or deleted it. I really can't be arsed anymore.
I shoot Classic Chrome when I'm in a colour mood (usually family shots), and Arcos (usually + yellow) when I'm in a black and white mood (usually "doing photography"). I make some contrast changes (usually with the tone curve) in post if required and that's it.
I typically look for different things when shooting either colour of black and white, so I very rarely find myself wanting to convert a colour photo to black and white. The times in the past when I was tempted to were really just time when I was trying to save a bad photo.
So in answer to the OP's question, If I was to add raw in, then I would change the film simulation as I changed my mood, switching between black and white and colour as I felt like it. So my answer would be both (colour and black and white film simulations), and neither (I don't convert between black and white after the fact).
I shoot Classic Chrome when I'm in a colour mood (usually family shots), and Arcos (usually + yellow) when I'm in a black and white mood (usually "doing photography"). I make some contrast changes (usually with the tone curve) in post if required and that's it.
I typically look for different things when shooting either colour of black and white, so I very rarely find myself wanting to convert a colour photo to black and white. The times in the past when I was tempted to were really just time when I was trying to save a bad photo.
So in answer to the OP's question, If I was to add raw in, then I would change the film simulation as I changed my mood, switching between black and white and colour as I felt like it. So my answer would be both (colour and black and white film simulations), and neither (I don't convert between black and white after the fact).
Bill Clark
Veteran
Michael,
Perhaps you already know this, but all digital files start out RAW. Some have the on board camera computer process the RAW files into jpegs. So all a person ends up with are jpegs not knowing how they became jpegs and probably don’t care.
Years ago, when digital was an infant, capacity was restrained, hence the jpeg standard was adopted sobas the small card size/capacity could accommodate smaller jpeg files. Some of my old cf cards are a whopping 540k!
I equate camera made jpeg files like polaroid film. The camera does the processing with little room to manipulate on a computer with photoshop. RAW files are like undeveloped film. With film it was in the analog darkroom with RAW it’s a computer with software like ACR or Bridge which works in conjunction with Photoshop.
The on camera processing is getting pretty darn good. I’m using my iPhone and iPad more and more now.
Maybe I’m just repeating what you already know and for that I apologize.
Perhaps you already know this, but all digital files start out RAW. Some have the on board camera computer process the RAW files into jpegs. So all a person ends up with are jpegs not knowing how they became jpegs and probably don’t care.
Years ago, when digital was an infant, capacity was restrained, hence the jpeg standard was adopted sobas the small card size/capacity could accommodate smaller jpeg files. Some of my old cf cards are a whopping 540k!
I equate camera made jpeg files like polaroid film. The camera does the processing with little room to manipulate on a computer with photoshop. RAW files are like undeveloped film. With film it was in the analog darkroom with RAW it’s a computer with software like ACR or Bridge which works in conjunction with Photoshop.
The on camera processing is getting pretty darn good. I’m using my iPhone and iPad more and more now.
Maybe I’m just repeating what you already know and for that I apologize.
michaelwj
----------------
Hi Bill,
Yes, am well and truly aware of all that.
A jpeg (in my experience) is more like a negative, there is still heaps of leeway to adjust contrast and exposure. Just like a negative if you push it too far it shows it’s limits and the colour profile is pretty much set.
A raw image is like having no film at all. You are free to make any decisions you want, there is no colours profile set. There is no film available that gives you as many post shot options as a raw file.
I find the raw decisions too distracting, I prefer the limitations.
Yes, am well and truly aware of all that.
A jpeg (in my experience) is more like a negative, there is still heaps of leeway to adjust contrast and exposure. Just like a negative if you push it too far it shows it’s limits and the colour profile is pretty much set.
A raw image is like having no film at all. You are free to make any decisions you want, there is no colours profile set. There is no film available that gives you as many post shot options as a raw file.
I find the raw decisions too distracting, I prefer the limitations.
willie_901
Veteran
Neither.
I only use raw files from my FUJIFLM X cameras. I start with either Classic Chrome, ProNeg Std, ProNeg High using LR Classic CC. For how I use exposure, ProNeg Std seems to save some time later on. When I'm done editing (selecting keepers) I render the keeper images individually. The result is usually quite different from any of the FUJIFILM film simulation default.
For B&W I start with Acros and use a similar workflow. Occasionally I use the pre-DxO version of NIK Silver Efex Pro 2 for B&W rendering.
When I send images to the print lab, I revisit the rendering and make changes as needed. Occasionally I start over.
I only use raw files from my FUJIFLM X cameras. I start with either Classic Chrome, ProNeg Std, ProNeg High using LR Classic CC. For how I use exposure, ProNeg Std seems to save some time later on. When I'm done editing (selecting keepers) I render the keeper images individually. The result is usually quite different from any of the FUJIFILM film simulation default.
For B&W I start with Acros and use a similar workflow. Occasionally I use the pre-DxO version of NIK Silver Efex Pro 2 for B&W rendering.
When I send images to the print lab, I revisit the rendering and make changes as needed. Occasionally I start over.
Dogman
Veteran
I'm always set on B&W (AKA: Monochrome), no filters. I always shoot Raw, never JPEG. After choosing those that I might want to print, I run them through Iridient X-Transformer.
I then convert the Raw files to B&W in Lightroom. If I decide to go with color, I use Adobe Standard. I never use Fuji's color film simulations. All processing then done in Lightroom.
I then convert the Raw files to B&W in Lightroom. If I decide to go with color, I use Adobe Standard. I never use Fuji's color film simulations. All processing then done in Lightroom.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Those two statements are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I couldn't care less about what "film" my results look like either, but sometimes those film sims give me photos that look the way that I want them to.
I find they just make it more work to figure out what I want. I know what I want, I have defined it and use it.
ktmrider
Well-known
Am traveling this fall with an MP240 and X100F. The jpegs out of the X100F are so good I may leave the MP240 at home. I honestly hate sitting at a computer doing photoshop. I really like the Velvia, ClassicChrome and Arcos simulations from the X100F.
For those who want a black and white look, TriX is still made.
For those who want a black and white look, TriX is still made.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
ckuwajima
Celso
I shoot only RAW, therefore no film simulation while shooting. Eventually apply film simulation in Lightroom while processing the RAW files.
jpressman
Well-known
All jpg for me, usually Classic Chrome with some minor color tweaks. Sometimes Acros, but usually it's color. Lightroom gives me as much post processing as I need.