Tri-x vs D40/Making digital look like film

cambolt

cambolt

Green Spotted Nose Turtle
Local time
6:44 AM
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
312
Now for a nice little test. I have taken 4 identically exposed shots from my balcony. 2 are from a Nikon D40 and 18-55mm kit lens, shot in RAW. The other 2 are from a Pentax Spotmatic and Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50/1.8, on Tri-x developed in ID-11 1+1 for 9:45 minutes, scanned in a Epson 3170 at 3200dpi.
The first (darker) photos were exposed at 1/250 sec at F/11, ISO 400
The second set was exposed at 1/30 sec, f/11, ISO 400.
I suppose it would be more of a legitimate test if the photos were wet prints, but that's not possible for me.

Digital (dark):

DSC_2506.JPG by d40monster, on Flickr

Film (dark):

File0048.JPG by d40monster, on Flickr

Digital (lighter):

DSC_2508.JPG by d40monster, on Flickr

Film (lighter):

File0049.JPG by d40monster, on Flickr

And now to see if I can make the digital conversions look like the film!
You should be able to download the pictures off flickr if you want to try yourself, be sure to post the results here!
 
The idea of making digital look like film is a phase or artistic period of development that all photographers go through when they encounter digital photography. I wrote a white paper on the topic shortly after I got my D100 camera. It is a fun exercise, however one that is doomed from the start.

Digital and film are two different media - they react differently to light, and make pictures which are unique to the process in subtle ways. The best way to make something look like film is to use film (and as you stated, make wet prints from the negatives) and the best way to make digital is to use digital.

And of course the two media are compatible on many levels, so there is a wide array of hybrid techniques available, each of which brings it's own strengths.

While I applaud your experimentation, I don't foresee something coming out of it that will have a major impact on anyone else's work. This IS a good way for an individual artist to explore the limits of their chosen media.
 
Personally you are better off making digital B&W to look as good as you can rather than trying to make it look like a particular film. There are things you can do when converting to B&W that would be very difficult if not impossible shooting B&W film. Often if you want the look of a certain film then go out and shoot that film.

That's not to say that trying to make a digital file look like film is a waste of time. There is a lot to be learned. Having B&W film images as reference can certainly help you to improve your B&W conversions as it gives you something to aim for.

Here is something I did a while ago for my own curiosity .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photogsjm/sets/72157623776289660/
Hope you find it somehow useful.
 
Stuart,

Just finished shooting for my current photo essay for a book and believe me, I have tried to use the D40 images shot last Fall but they are sooooo much different than TriX as to be totally useless. The BW conversions for the D40 images are "plastic-y" and the tones are awful when compared to the TriX images.:eek: That said, I use the D40 for amazing results but totally different tasks. Mostly color although some BW conversions work just fine for what I do. But, when placed side-by-side in a documentary that took months of shooting, well, it is obvious that TriX will out-TriX the D40 results every time. Which is a good thing.

If you like good color and detail, go for the D40. BW conversions for great detail, the D40 can do. But, TriX produces an entirely different image. Even Ilford 100 images are so totally different from the D40 conversions, that it underscores what I said above.
 
Last edited:
I quite agree with you Dave, you can do nice B&W conversions from digital files but they won't look quite like film. That's why I feel it is better to concentrate on producing the best B&W conversion rather than trying to imitate a certain film.

For the OP it took both the digital files and made one image from them to get both shadow and highlight detail. It may not be quite the same as your trix image but it looks quite good on its own.
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 5945254192_143a4a19ec_b.jpg
    5945254192_143a4a19ec_b.jpg
    65.1 KB · Views: 0
Trying to mix the digital conversions and the TriX images was an exercise in frustration in editing.

The best thing to do is take each rig and find it's strengths and work with those to produce what you want. As an example:


D40 conversion - Grandson #2:

attachment.php
 
Nice shot there Dave.
I pulled this one out of my D80.
U3357I1309294093.SEQ.0.jpg

I am quite pleased with it but film would have looked quite different.
This one is Fuji Acros.
U3357I1308246609.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Chris101 said:
The idea of making digital look like film is a phase or artistic period of development that all photographers go through when they encounter digital photography.
Click to expand...

Dear Chris,

Not ALL photographers, any more than I try to make digital look like Kodachrome or Velvia.

I've made a very few B+W conversions, when I've realized that I really should have shot the picture on B+W film in the first place, but I doubt it's as many as five. I've also shot IR digital B+W, but that's another story (and still doesn't look like film).

Likewise, in colour, I welcome the ability to vary saturation, contrast, colour balance, etc., in digital, but I know I can't make digital look exactly like any given film so I don't really try. Yes, I sometimes make pics that look a bit like Autochromes, but generally, I want the colour to suit my taste, not the taste of a particular film manufacturer, still less the accidental colour characteristics of his products. I want 'Hickschrome', not Fujichrome, Kodachrome, Agfachrome, Ektachrome, Ferrania, Orwo...

Cheers,

R.
 
Hi Roger!

I am pretty much in agreement with you. While most photographers check out making digital fill the film mold, nearly all come to the conclusion that it doesn't fit. I did a few more than five, but then I was actively experimenting with it, back in the early 2000's.

By 2004, I had come to the conclusion that film could not be easily (or at all) duplicated by digital manipulation. Certain aspects could make digital look more film-like, but indeed, nothing simulates film like film.

I'm not really qualified to talk about color subtleties as I am deuteranopic.
 
Dear Chris,

Deuteranopichrome! Probably $200 a roll on the 'must have the least obtainable film ever' forums. Perhaps you can get Lucky to coat it for you.

BW400CN looks like Tri-X, FP4 and HP5 all rolled into one next to the truly awful Konica film, which was called, as I recall, VX400. 'Muddy' and 'dull' would have been outrageous flattery.

Cheers,

R.
 
Great green notch in that D'chrome though!

responsegraph.gif


The triangles are the accepted brightness, the circles are my observations of the brightness, and the Xs are my deviation from standard color vision, according to one experiment I did.
 
Last edited:
I also play guitar and there is the analog amplifier (tube amp) vs. digital amp (solid state) argument over which sounds better, similar to the argument of which look is better from cameras. For amps, some digital amps are called "modeling amps", which can be set to simulate the wide range of sounds from classic tube and solid state amps.

Do any digital cameras claim they can "model" the look of different films or is this irrelevant as this would be done to the extent possible in post-processing ? Might be an interesting marketing twist for digital manufacturers.

Sorry for my ignorance of digital; I have stuck to film and darkroom prints.
 
mwoenv said:
I also play guitar and there is the analog amplifier (tube amp) vs. digital amp (solid state) argument over which sounds better, similar to the argument of which look is better from cameras. For amps, some digital amps are called "modeling amps", which can be set to simulate the wide range of sounds from classic tube and solid state amps.

Do any digital cameras claim they can "model" the look of different films or is this irrelevant as this would be done to the extent possible in post-processing ? Might be an interesting marketing twist for digital manufacturers.

Sorry for my ignorance of digital; I have stuck to film and darkroom prints.
Click to expand...
Yes there are, fuji X100 has some film presets. Also lightroom and photoshop have some I think.
I've always thought that digital B&W looks a little like Neopan, you know, huge mid tones etc.
 
I am happy with digital and film, i am trying to make digital to look like the film and also trying to make film to look like digital so then i can have both closer to each other, but many times i just like the digital as it is and film as it is, and honestly speaking, i prefer film as B&W and prefer digital as color.

I have all the formats except digital P&S and 35mm film, so i can see all the results from almost all the formats and can compare and see, but i don't force myself to make digital look like film because of others curiosities.
 
mwoenv said:
I also play guitar and there is the analog amplifier (tube amp) vs. digital amp (solid state) argument over which sounds better, similar to the argument of which look is better from cameras. For amps, some digital amps are called "modeling amps", which can be set to simulate the wide range of sounds from classic tube and solid state amps.
Click to expand...

actually that's a rather interesting comparison.

you know it's funny but guitar players revel in imperfection. mainly, the clipping of the signal that is called drive, distortion, gain, or in the case of my kind of amp volume.

Im a huge fan of the super/twin reverb, but even that clean of an amp isnt really clean compare to a jazz chorus or other solid state amp.

I dont like modeling amps. I do own a little marshall el84 which I quite like.

Stuart your D80 shot is nice but that acros shot is something else. If you told me you were lying and switched the two, I would ask for your PS actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom