You know that plasticky, digital look...?

T

Ted Witcher

Established
Local time
10:46 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
128
Location
Los Angeles, CA
View My Gallery
If you know what I'm talking about keep going. There's that flat, uninspiring look that digital shots have before processing, right? I'm a film guy, but I started fooling around with digital files to bring up my comfort level for that day when I hear The Great Sucking Sound and film is no more.

I've been playing with the top emulators recently: Silver Efex, Color Efex, Exposure 2, and even TrueGrain. To my surprise, I've found that I can get a damn convincing B/W version out of all of them. I don't think that the emulating of a given stock is necessarily spot-on (and they all even do the same given stock differently), but you do come up with something that is cool and you can work it from there. And the grain engines are pretty good as well. TrueGrain, in particular, really specializes in this.

But I've not had the same success with color emulators. Just can't get those pictures to not look digital. Anybody else experience this?
 
My take on it: If you're shooting RAW (and everyone shooting digital should be, no excuses), you're ending up with (appropriately) raw data - all the information in all the channels picked up by the sensor. That's not something that happens with film because of the various sensitivity curves, color response, etc. They all have specific character. Raw data doesn't. As such, if you want a specific look with digital files, you need to make the necessary adjustments to end up with it. If you want to mimic film, there are some good emulators out there, but if you want more fine controls or don't want to be buying emulator after emulator until you find one that does what you want, it's probably best to learn full use of the tools available in programs like Adobe Camera Raw.
 
I find the same with BW files, I can get reasonably nice digital BW output using silver effex and just contrast adjustments.
For color, I've come to the conclusion that digital is just different to film. It can be better, but sometimes feels a bit dull in comparison.

However, if you want more filmy color photos, do the following:
- Make a higher ISO your base ISO - for instance instead of shooting at iso100 shoot all the time at iso400 or 640. This depends a lot on your camera. With a pentax k10d or a nikon d200 I'd be shooting around iso 320-400. More if you want more grain. With a Canon 5d I'd be shooting around iso400-1000. The whole reason why digital looks so plastic and boring is because it's so grainless that it loses perceived texture.

- Make sure you add a decent bit of clarity or definition adjustment as this is localized contrast and sharpness - brings out more texture in details and flats.

- Make sure you expose for the highlights, not the middle ground. One of the other reasons why digital sometimes looks... well... digital, is because the highlight roll-off is very sudden and severe as opposed to negative films gentle rolloff. Digital has heaps of shadow range so use it and expose for the highs in the scene.

- Lastly, develop your RAW files in Capture One 4. I'm not kidding when I say this, for some reason Capture Ones RAW conversion with my 5d makes it look so much more film-like, and it has to do with fine details and textures. Adobe raw converters smooth out fine textures and details to try and achieve low overall noise, Capture One doesn't. The files come out looking a LOT more crispy and detailed.
 
True, Capture One is also an excellent conversion tool, though I personally prefer Camera Raw as I process everything into 16 bit RGB .psd files. Never had any issue with fine textures/details re: the software attempting to reduce noise. Possibly a matter of specific settings?
 
See, I thought that, too, about the fact that digital is "grainless" that makes it look plasticky. But I prefer grainless film images, too, in many cases -- I'll often shoot with 100-speed B/W stock for a fat negative. So it's not there. Is it the lenses, then? I've seen digital files with L-series lenses that still look different. I'm not encouraging a debate as to which is better, merely acknowledging that they are different, and I'm trying to figure out why and which parameter might contain that difference (and thus how to manipulate the image).

I guess I have no real point to make, other than to express than I am surprised that I can fool myself with B/W and can't with color. I figured it'd be the other way around. Which means digital does have it's place, at least for that.
 
I find it amusing that people will spend hundreds of dollars (or other currency) on software to replicate the look of film.
 
What if one already has the software on hand for doing other, non-film-replication things with digital files? 🙂 I suppose that doesn't really apply to the emulators and other plugins to that effect, though...
 
ZeissFan said:
I find it amusing that people will spend hundreds of dollars (or other currency) on software to replicate the look of film.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you find it amusing. I would prefer to shoot on film, but I've found the cost of doing that rising, and eventually film will go the way of the do-do bird anyway. Digital has advantages as well: my last photo trip to Europe required me to lug 35 rolls of film through three countries and my paranoia about X-rays made me hand-check them all at security. Total pain in the ass. Plus instant ISO changes, color and B/W are not an issue at capture, etc. The problem is, I like the way film looks, so my post is about trying to get one (and its advantages) to look like the other. As I said, I can do it in B/W but not in color.
 
an aside here...

an aside here...

an aside here...i occasionally encounter b&w images from digital cameras with the tonality i associate with film based images. i am surprised at the tonality and like they way they appear (unless they are what i'd call over post processed - i'm not very familiar with the whole of digital photography, so please bear with my lack of technical knowledge.

my point/query before i drift any further...is the application of these "emulators" the reason for certain B&W digital images looking so much like a film based image? or is it the application or combination of other post production processes? i have a feeling it's more complicated than o expect.

thanks
 
smiling gecko said:
an aside here...i occasionally encounter b&w images from digital cameras with the tonality i associate with film based images. i am surprised at the tonality and like they way they appear (unless they are what i'd call over post processed - i'm not very familiar with the whole of digital photography, so please bear with my lack of technical knowledge.

my point/query before i drift any further...is the application of these "emulators" the reason for certain B&W digital images looking so much like a film based image? or is it the application or combination of other post production processes? i have a feeling it's more complicated than o expect.

thanks
Click to expand...

Probably both, but I'd guess that high-end fashion shooters probably have their Photoshop act down pretty good. Me, I need some help... hence the starting point of the emulation.
 
ZeissFan said:
I find it amusing that people will spend hundreds of dollars (or other currency) on software to replicate the look of film.
Click to expand...

If a particular aesthetic is the ultimate objective, what difference does it make what capture device is used? It makes a lot of sense when the cost of the software is less than the cost of buying one shoot's worth of film and then paying for processing and proofing.

Before digital, people spent hundreds and thousands of dollars to get rid of all the signatures of film. Grain, latitude limitations, color shifts.... Was that amusing? I was not amused. I was frustrated....

I think it's only the 'caught in between' generation that has to worry about emulators and such. The people growing up with digital, who have never shot film, will only have digital images and their inherent properties to rely on for their standards. Grain will be as foreign to them as grainlessness/noise is to 'us.'
 
OK, let me be less diplomatic. I think it's idiotic to spend hundreds of dollars (or your currency) on software to replicate the look of film when you can simply buy film and get it straight out of the can from the start.
 
I stopped at Walgreen this morning to pick up some film for a shoot this afternoon. Their flyer said 4 roll packs of Kodak Gold 200 24 exp. were $6.99 instead of $9.99. Such a deal! What they had were five roll boxes, pay for four rolls and get a free roll. Five 24 exposure rolls for $6.99 ain't bad. I walked out with a BIG mess of film!
 
ZeissFan said:
OK, let me be less diplomatic. I think it's idiotic to spend hundreds of dollars (or your currency) on software to replicate the look of film when you can simply buy film and get it straight out of the can from the start.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it is not practical, or it is impossible to shoot film even though one might prefer that option. You don't know anyone else's circumstances. What you consider idiotic might simply be for someone else part of the process of creating a very specific type of image; for self-gratification or to please a client. So why must you be so judgmental? No one is forcing you to spend your money on this.
 
I guess there are times when it's not practical or it's impossible to shoot film although we managed quite nicely for a few years when that was the only option. We used to get along quite nicely without electricity.
 
I see no problem with film emulators. It's just another darkroom technique for achieving a certain effect.

I often wonder why I like film, too. And it's true, it isn't just grain. I think it has something to do with the transitions from dark to light. I should do an informal study of this someday, but this is a big part, for me, of what differentiates one film from another. I mean, both Velvia and Ektar are highly saturated films, but they look completely different...and it isn't just what colors are saturated. It's how light and shadow interact, somehow.

When film emulators start reproducing this kind of thing, that will be really cool. I'm pretty impressed with TrueGrain, actually...if I'm ever seriously flush, I might pick up a copy.
 
911 changed a lot re airport security and thats a pain. I did a trip to India with 125 rolls of 120 film. No problem, but patience and a cool temper was definitely required. I will keep shooting film, but being honest, if I could get the exact same look from digital I would not be able to hang on to film as hard. A FF digital RF with the LCD off would work 😉 Yeah, right.

Salgado switched to canon DSLRs and has his work processed to look just like film.. so I read. I would love to see it.
 
ZeissFan said:
OK, let me be less diplomatic. I think it's idiotic to spend hundreds of dollars (or your currency) on software to replicate the look of film when you can simply buy film and get it straight out of the can from the start.
Click to expand...

I'm sure.

However, I can't 'get it out of the can' - I need to develop, then scan or print the images and then mess with dodging, burning with different contrast papers and filters... and all that in an attic that is either too hot or too cold.

It does seem rather odd that you would have the time to have an opinion on what other people choose to do...

Or have I happened upon a troll? 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

x-ray
So you want a digital Rollei?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
7K
shawn
S
The lives of others
Metered or unmetered?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Pioneer
Pioneer
T
Film versus Digital, and vice versa
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Tim Murphy
T
B
BW Digital Image Creation -- Do you use "Grayscale" after B&W conversion?
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
AndyCapp
A
lxforrest
A DIY retro digital camera project - Blog #3 Prototype V -1
Replies
3
Views
382
lxforrest
lxforrest
Back
Top Bottom