Telling the difference . . .

I've found that one of the dangers of using Silver Efex are those clarity sliders. Not sure if you used them or not, or to what degree you may have used them, but gently is what I found works best.

As far as skin tones/reproduction goes, I've never really had an issue with digital rendering of skin tones/textures one way or another -- it can look smooth or rough, at least in my experience. I think the post-production can often influence which way it goes.

Skin texture example:


Bob from Claunch by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

And another:


Mojo Noctilux by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

One More:


Gretchen by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Sounds like a great project you're planning -- I'd definitely shoot digital.
 
Have to say I'm surprised. Otoh it isn't the first time I'm fooled by Silver Efex. But from what you tell of the project, I wouldn't even try to do that on film!
 
Thousand, two of images per day for active situation is suitable only for surveillance documenting. If it is the purpose to do so, thousand, two needed.
Depends on number of participants. If I have event where I should have at least two usable and nice :) pictures of each participant I have no desire to use film for it. It is 90% mechanical routine and 10% creative photography.

If I want to tell the story, not register it as on-dash camera, I would not waste my energy with thousands. In fast changing situations or any situations, actions with people doing spray shoot makes it worse in terms of getting keepers to tell the story.

Three rolls per day and been active on legs, thinking by head and trusting your guts will get the story told.
 
Timmyjoe said:
Frank, I completely agree with you. The issue I'm having is that I passionately want to shoot this project with film, but logistically that is going to be very difficult. I'm envisioning shooting one to two thousand shots a day and the project will last two straight weeks. That's a lot of film and a lot of processing. So if I can come close to the essence of film with a digital camera, it will save me quite a bit of time and money.
Click to expand...

In my opinion there's not enough difference between digital and film these days to worry about. If I were you, I'd charge ahead with digital. No one but pixel peepers care about, or can even see, any difference. And I'm with Frank as well... the content will FAR outweigh any tiny differences digital vs. film might cause. Start your project and show us the results! :)
 
Spanik said:
Have to say I'm surprised. Otoh it isn't the first time I'm fooled by Silver Efex. But from what you tell of the project, I wouldn't even try to do that on film!
Click to expand...

I would have called 1st one film too - but not very well scanned film as it's far to contrasty and the skin is too grainy and ugly. Perhaps that's SFEX

The second is much nicer, but I'm not happy with the skin tones in a couple of the people - light yellow filter wanted?

Mike
 
Vince Lupo said:
I've found that one of the dangers of using Silver Efex are those clarity sliders. Not sure if you used them or not, or to what degree you may have used them, but gently is what I found works best.
Click to expand...

Really nice work Vince.

I have the first generation of Silver Efex, and I don't see any clarity sliders with it. It does have a "Structure" slider which is very easy to overuse.

Were those images shot with a regular (color) digital camera, or were those shot with the Leica M Monochrom?

Again, really nice work.

Best,
-Tim
 
Thanks - all Monochrom.

Yes the 'structure' sliders are as dangerous as the 'clarity' sliders. Just a little dab will do it, if at all.
 
Vince Lupo said:
Thanks - all Monochrom.
Click to expand...

Have you had that kind of success when converting images, say from a Leica M9 or one of the CMOS sensor cameras?

I know from when I had a Leica M8.2, converting those images to B&W and getting the image to look the way I wanted was much easier than what I am finding trying to convert these Nikon Df images.
 
Generally speaking I've had no real issues with conversions, but of course the Monochrom (both the old and the new) has its own special qualities.

Here are a few examples of 'conversions' from other cameras...

D700

Untitled by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

D700

The Lineup by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

D4:

Untitled by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

D4

Rebecca by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Olympus E-P2:

Lee by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

D700 again:

John #2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

D4 again:

Untitled by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

D4:

Untitled by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

X100T:

First X100T Photo by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

M9:

L1081010 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

M9:

L1080869 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

M9:

Salem by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

And M9 again:

Hubbells by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

I don't believe any of these shots were processed through Silver Efex - hence they've had very little 'work' done to them. I think they look okay, though admittedly the Monochrom cameras give a different 'signature', at least I think so. Probably my least favourites here are the D700's (except for the John Waters one) and the E-P2 (the E-P2 is not doing well in the highlights). The ones from the D4, X100T and M9 look better. This might also be due to the way I'm looking at these now, as they are all a few years old (the first one in the mix here is from 2010). I'm sure they'd look different if I went through them all again today.

When you 'convert' your Df images, how are you 'converting'?
 
Vince Lupo said:
When you 'convert' your Df images, how are you 'converting'?
Click to expand...

I think the Monochrom images are "punchier" and more "dramatic", very subjective terms, I know.

I'm taking the RAW images out of the Df and dumping them into Aperture 3, doing minor tweaks of exposure, little highlight/shadow adjust, then opening them through Aperture 3 with the Silver Efex Pro (1) plug-in. Doing adjustments with SEP and then sending them back to Aperture 3 and exporting as TIFF files.
 
Try this and see what happens (hopefully you have PhotoShop): Bring the RAW image into PhotoShop/Camera RAW, suck all the colour out of the image (completely desaturate the image, yet leave it RGB), bring your contrast down - maybe to 0 or even into the negatives (like -10) Put your highlight 'recovery' to 100, blacks maybe to 2 or 3. That will make the shot really flat, but then you can adjust both sets of curves to suit. Pull back on the highlight recovery if you need to (and the 'fill light' if you feel it's necessary), then open the image in PhotoShop. Make whatever other adjustments you deem fit, then save as a TIFF. If you want to do any further stuff to tweak it even more, then open it up in Silver Efex.

This may possibly be more steps than you want, but once you have uniform settings that will work more or less across the board for your images, you can save all those settings as a Preset, then just bring all the images into PhotoShop RAW, select all, apply the Preset, and hopefully that will work for you.

Can't hurt to try!
 
Tim, here is a quick example using that above described method. Took about 5 minutes. Not sure if it's a 'look' that will work for you, but can't hurt to try.
The colour photo still needs work (I just went through it quickly), and the black and white version has only gone through the method as stated above (no Silver Efex).

Shot with the D4:


Colour Test2016 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


BW Test2016 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

And here's the black and white version with a bit of Silver Efex Pro 2 added:


BW Test2016 #2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Since you say that you'll have much more time for the personal aspect of this project, maybe it might not be so bad to go through steps such as these to achieve the 'look' you're after (I'm assuming you're not going to be doing this to a huge number of images?).
 
Vince, It's a good process, Thanks. What I've found, again completely subjective, is that when I do conversions from my digital cameras with CMOS sensors, the images come across too "flat" for my liking, too much "neutral grey". Compared to the images from the Leica M8.2 CCD sensor (and I can only assume, from the original Monochrom), I just think the CCD captured images create B&W files that are more in line with my vision of B&W.
 
When I've compared prints from my 'old' Monochrom and my 'new' Monochrom, I've personally not seen any real difference that would make me pick out which was which (I'm not a particular believer in the 'magic' of CCD, versus the CMOS). The only difference that I have found is that the 'base' ISO images from the 'new' Monochrom can tend to be cleaner, and there is better detail in the shadows and highlights, but here again, that can all be adjusted to a degree in post-production. And this is under personal detailed scrutiny, and looking for things that only I would likely see. I actually just sent off a series of 11"x16" prints to a gallery in Albuquerque (some were from the 'old' Monochrom, some from the 'new' Monochrom, and one from the M9), and while I could see the difference between the M9 and the others (if the M9 lost it anywhere, it was in the highlights and higher ISO's), I couldn't really see a discernible difference between the Monochrom images. And I don't think that viewers in a gallery are going to necessarily be picking out the differences (unless I am underestimating the viewer, which is always possible!). Only possible way I could think you could spot the differences would be if you had three examples of the same image, done with the three different cameras. Would make for a pretty boring exhibit, I'd say :)

But as you say, it's all completely subjective, and the fact that we know our own work better than anyone may affect our perceptions.
 
mfogiel said:
The digital has a tendency to raise microcontrast on the skin, so if the person in the picture has no make up and is no longer in the teens, you get this kind of effect:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/itzick/26389402402/in/pool-portraitsbw/

On the other hand, if you shoot a traditional cubic crystal film, particularly in MF and with a lens that has lower resolution ( e.g. when you shoot wide open), you are more likely to get this kind of result:https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixel...K4A-4SYXAJ-f1FSav-4SUJ8P-cg2vy7-aRmxy2-DY1UXm
Click to expand...
LOL!
So film looks much better hm? decided:D


sorry can't really contribute - the 1st pic out of focus areas look too smooth for old film but i could be mislead due to the small size imo.
 
Pherdinand said:
sorry can't really contribute - the 1st pic out of focus areas look too smooth for old film but i could be mislead due to the small size imo.
Click to expand...

Funny you say that, the one thing about the first picture that screamed digital to me was the smoothness of the way the back of the bus rendered.
 
Timmyjoe said:
Vince, It's a good process, Thanks. What I've found, again completely subjective, is that when I do conversions from my digital cameras with CMOS sensors, the images come across too "flat" for my liking, too much "neutral grey". Compared to the images from the Leica M8.2 CCD sensor (and I can only assume, from the original Monochrom), I just think the CCD captured images create B&W files that are more in line with my vision of B&W.
Click to expand...

I think, and my recent experience with my Xpro2 supports this, that the key difference is that the ccd sensors in the M8,9 and M have lower dynamic range than the cmos sensors they are compared with. Consequently, the initial file contrast is higher and they look punchier 'out of camera'.

Provided there is sufficient DR to accommodate what you want to keep from the scene they can be equalised in print, but there is (materially, less exposure flexibility with the lower DR sensors than higher and, sometimes, more obvious noise.

I think that Vince's reply supports this view also.

Another point is htat the colour cameras tend to have much lower exposure in the blue and red channel than the green, so noise becomes an issue much more quickly in shadow recovery. The highlight issues are just about the overall lack of DR and the consequent lack of headroom.

Mike
 
Hey Vince,

Been slammed lately and just got around to trying the process you suggested. A good starting point. Will keep exploring.

Here's the image as I processed it originally:
B&W-Image1.jpg


And here I took the original RAW image and worked it thru the process you described (no Silver Efex Pro added):
B&W-Vince.jpg


Best,
-Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom