tri-x look

[kevin m]

Digital or Tri-X

Bleeding highlights; flat, lifeless skin. I'll go with digital.

 

[kevin m]

Pretty sure. 😉

 

[gavinlg]

I'm with Kevin - definitely digital.

 

[nobbylon]

thanx for the replies, I should have known a lot of people would just say shoot tri-x! As I said, I already do but want to choose a program that will convert!!!! doh!!! thanks for the program hints chaps, I'm going to take a look at exposure 2. j

 

[gavinlg]

thanx for the replies, I should have known a lot of people would just say shoot tri-x! As I said, I already do but want to choose a program that will convert!!!! doh!!! thanks for the program hints chaps, I'm going to take a look at exposure 2. j

Exposure 2 is definitely the best bet.

 

[gavinlg]

double post.

 

[varjag]

My son's toy keyboard has a mode for grand piano sound. It costs just $20 and occupies much less space 🙂

Really, if we consider say Tri-X at EI 200 in Rodinal or Tri-X at EI 1600 in Microphen these are two distinct looks. Sometimes they can be recreated in software, often they can't: *a lot* depends on source digital capture. A lot of fiddling is involved too. An additional complication is that in most cases you can't compare your result to same image from real Tri-X, so there's a lot of speculation and subjectivity involved.

 

[kevin m]

The technology is definitely getting better. I tried an Alien Skin demo and came away impressed. But it doesn't always work. A lot seems to depend upon the original image, which I guess is no surprise. Under some circumstances, well-shot, well post-processed digital capture can look very close to B&W film, but lattitude and tonality is still a big hurdle. And that's comparing 35mm to DSLR output. In terms of tonality, I don't think there's any contest when comparing B&W medium format film to DSLR output.

 

[pphuang]

Informed guess - the second one is D2X.

(I cheated but already had a hint as the first has a bit of a black line on the bottom that appears to be from a scan. Hard to distinguish them on image characteristics.)

Yes, image #1 is tri-x, and image #2 is a converted digital file. Its OK that you cheated a little - just proves a point, I think 😀

Digital or Tri-X

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...2&ppuser=14855

I would also guess digital on this image.

The technology is definitely getting better. I tried an Alien Skin demo and came away impressed. But it doesn't always work. A lot seems to depend upon the original image, which I guess is no surprise. Under some circumstances, well-shot, well post-processed digital capture can look very close to B&W film, but lattitude and tonality is still a big hurdle. And that's comparing 35mm to DSLR output. In terms of tonality, I don't think there's any contest when comparing B&W medium format film to DSLR output.

Yes, I have also found that the results can be less convincing in certain types of conditions. And yes, sometimes its easy to get good results, but sometimes it can takes a lot of tweaking, which is why I still prefer shooting the real thing. In the end, though, does it matter? There are many different brands of B&W films to choose from, each with their own unique signatures. And you can also alter the look of a particular brand of film by using different chemicals and processing techniques, as mentioned by Eugene. Digital is just another "film" with its advantages and limitations, but the results can be just as satisfying...or just as frustrating 😉

 

[kevin m]

Yes, I have also found that the results can be less convincing in certain types of conditions.

I think contrasty daylight is one situation where I'd grab a film camera every time, B&W or color. If I need a color shot in low light levels, digital is the way to go. 🙂

 

[RFOBD]

It is evident you don't speak italian, haha ;-)

haha...yes it is.

 

[charjohncarter]

Previously, I posted some plugins for converting color digital images and scanned color images to B&W. I even have some PS channel mixer setting for mimicking different films. I have worked with this digital to black and white for way too many hours. My conclusion is you will fool some of the people sometimes but......well you know the rest. The problem is I can't fool myself. My TriX negatives scanned and sent to the same printer as my digital camera files are different. The TriX is just better. But even better is to compare a silver print from TriX and one from a digital conversion; TriX by a mile.

 

[shadowfox]

Yes, image #1 is tri-x, and image #2 is a converted digital file. Its OK that you cheated a little - just proves a point, I think 😀

I would also guess digital on this image.

Yes, I have also found that the results can be less convincing in certain types of conditions. And yes, sometimes its easy to get good results, but sometimes it can takes a lot of tweaking, which is why I still prefer shooting the real thing. In the end, though, does it matter? There are many different brands of B&W films to choose from, each with their own unique signatures. And you can also alter the look of a particular brand of film by using different chemicals and processing techniques, as mentioned by Eugene. Digital is just another "film" with its advantages and limitations, but the results can be just as satisfying...or just as frustrating 😉

I am glad to read your conclusion, there's no way for anyone to consistently be able to emulate any film under any lighting condition for every subject/situation.

I think it's more of where you're comfortable with, if you're ok with digital post-processing, playing around with software like Exposure is cool, but if you have a darkroom and prefer working that way, no reason to switch from the real thing.

 

[kuzano]

Here comes Picasa at you again...

Here comes Picasa at you again...

I lauded Picasa a few days ago. Well one of the effects is a one button grain effect. Keep pushing the button ... more grain. Free