The Digital Look of Film - Our Films Stereotyped

RayPA

RayPA

Ignore It (It'll go away)
Local time
1:38 AM
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
4,417
I was perusing Flickr and found an image that used this DXO Film Looks software. I was just wondering if anyone uses this product.

Even more interesting than the product is the film looks page at the product website, where you can see the digital differences between film looks/types. I thnk it's funny (and sad) that they have this one generic/stereotypical Tri-X example. It seems accurate for one instance of TriX (I've gotten results that look like this), but I don't think it captures the real Tri-X look. I think the Superia 800 example is accurate.

What do you think? Are these the films you know and love?

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/filmpack/available_film_looks
 
I put this approach - trying to make something look like what it isn't - at the same level on the ridiculousness scale as vegetarian sausage (or, to take a local example, vegetarian haggis).

Vincent
 
vincentbenoit said:
I put this approach - trying to make something look like what it isn't - at the same level on the ridiculousness scale as vegetarian sausage (or, to take a local example, vegetarian haggis).

Vincent
Click to expand...


LOL! Vegetarian sausage! Perfect analogy, Vincent!


.
 
very interesting...I think I'll stick with film for the film look though ;)

Todd
 
It may not be noticeable in the online samples, but apparently the software mimics the grain as well.

Do you think that's an accurate representation of Kodachrome?


.
 
Thanks for the heads up!

Thanks for the heads up!

This was new/news to me.
I'm a guitar player who has one of those amp emulators. I guess the film emulator just about as good as that. Kinda sounds like it but nothing you could play against.

I guess the other comparison would be someone trying to double talk like Bella Lugosi, you know, like Zombo (see http://www.zombo.com or someone trying to fake a strong German accent.

In the end stereotyping is useful until it gets to the point of profiling.

The beauty of film is that it can be matched to a lens. The failure of digital cameras is that even with messing with a white point, sensors and sensitivity are always the same in the same camera. It depends on what your goals are.

If one's goal is to make art, go for biggest pallet and the greatest control.

Very few photographers know anything at all about art, so with that stereotype (and truism) I'll leave you to make your own choices. Everyone knows what they like, very few know why.
 
I've used a similar plugin from AlienSkin called Exposure. It's actually quite nice. Yes, the basic presets are somewhat stereotypical. But Exposure, at least, allows you to customize all sorts of grain characteristics and other parameters to get pretty close to any look you want.

I was working on a personal project where I wanted to some new photos to more closely match the look of some old slides and negatives I'd scanned. And from a purely utilitarian point of view some film-like grain can be a big help when you need to make an acceptable print from an undersized or soft digital image.

I do understand why some people might not like this sort of thing, and It'd definitely be silly try to pass off a processed digital image as being a film photo. But it's still kinda fun. :)
 
I think, this is just a curves/grain overlay on a digital image that :
1- does not have a sufficient amount of tonal information to work with ( not enough bit)
2- does not have the entire tonal range to work on (exposure latitude)

Therefore, it can only try to make an attempt at putting a Raquel Welch or Angelina Jollie bikini on a Kate Moss. No matter how nice the bikini, the substance is not there... ;-)
 
Exposure II just came out.

It's just another brush in your toolbox for producing a graphic look.

Woody Allen's film "Zelig" was the first to simulate the look of old film, grain and scratches on cine footage and the effects cost him millions, now you can do it for $79.

Why not? It looks like real film.

 
Alienskin exposure is pretty darn good

Its color profiles for the fuji films are spot on ... the grain structures are pretty close

The Tri-X is good ... but unfortunately their Kodachromes are not close enough

Haven't tried the new version which has added the Porta films among others
 
i use it. and like, for what it does well. it doesn't do everything well, but what product does?

fwiw, the "good" imo is the color profiles. they might not be 100% accurate, but neither is film processing.
 
RayPA said:
I was perusing Flickr and found an image that used this DXO Film Looks software. I was just wondering if anyone uses this product.

Even more interesting than the product is the film looks page at the product website, where you can see the digital differences between film looks/types. I thnk it's funny (and sad) that they have this one generic/stereotypical Tri-X example. It seems accurate for one instance of TriX (I've gotten results that look like this), but I don't think it captures the real Tri-X look. I think the Superia 800 example is accurate.

What do you think? Are these the films you know and love?

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/filmpack/available_film_looks
Click to expand...
Oh, I looked at this a couple of years ago; not satisfactory. It makes for good effects for some images, but it is *not* a film substitute.

It is a "film feel-maker", but like them people say: ain't nothing like the real thing (baby) ;)
 
This is the Velvia 50 profile

1031783003_3ddc8e6e98_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom