Film vs Digiatal, lets put it to the test

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

On 2017-09-03 05:23, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.abwatson.com/film-vs-digital-lets-put-test/


You can always make digital look like some kind of film to some degree
approaching 100% w/o ever getting there.

OTOH, once above some point approaching 100% there are few people (if
any) in the world able to tell the difference.

I would assume that some even do particular modeling using differing
patterns, colours and light to generate models or LUT's to do so.

I'm sure you could get close in emulating a target, but the workflow for
getting the original would be so different that an independent capture
would very rarely look similar if it were a digital rather than a
chemical. Pending on the level of discrepancies you allow for, of course.
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

You can emulate all that you want and I do that myself at times but it
ain't the same...

then your emulation is not that good.

I just posted an answer to that, sort of...
--
teleportation kills

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

http://www.abwatson.com/film-vs-digital-lets-put-test/

You can always make digital look like some kind of film to some degree
approaching 100% w/o ever getting there.

it can be 100%, but most people stop when it's close enough that they
can't see a difference.

OTOH, once above some point approaching 100% there are few people (if
any) in the world able to tell the difference.

if people can't tell the difference, then it can be considered to be
100% even if it's mathematically slightly less.

I would assume that some even do particular modeling using differing
patterns, colours and light to generate models or LUT's to do so.

some might, but i doubt very many do.

On 9/3/2017 11:31 AM, android wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

[---]

They are two different mediums, and those who can't tell the differences
between them would be unqualified as judges anyway. Why not just give it
a rest?

You just wanna kill this NG dead! :-ppp

My bet is on 67 comments to the original post. 8-P

--
best regards,

Neil

Neil:
My bet is on 67 comments to the original post. 8-P

Killing this thread NOW.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 09/03/2017 08:25 AM, android wrote:
In article , philo
wrote:

On 09/03/2017 04:23 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.abwatson.com/film-vs-digital-lets-put-test/

"Have you ever heard the argument that digital just doesn’t have the
same look as film? Well, let’s put that argument to rest. I Have
pain stickily made my own Lightroom preset that I believe is 96%
the same as my favourite film Kodak Tri-X 400. Now, this preset is
custom made for my camera specifically. So let’s dive a little
deeper into how I accomplished this preset and put all those
subjective arguments to rest.

Plus much more including pictures ...




Although I recently took a few of my film cameras out of retirement just
for the experience of shooting a few rolls...

About ten years ago I performed a test.



I went on a photo shoot on an ideal light day and took my medium format
Mamiya-Sekor C220 and my Canon Rebel EOS.


Even though I have now replaced the Rebel with a better camera, it beat
the medium format.

I think that there must be some imperfections in your digitizing
workflow...



So because the digital image was better than the analog...there "must be
imperfections in my digitizing workflow"

Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 12:03:04 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

You can emulate all that you want and I do that myself at times but it
ain't the same...

then your emulation is not that good.

It is never that good.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You can emulate all that you want and I do that myself at times but it
ain't the same...

then your emulation is not that good.

It is never that good.

false.

On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:29:07 -0400, Neil
wrote:

On 9/3/2017 5:23 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.abwatson.com/film-vs-digital-lets-put-test/

"Have you ever heard the argument that digital just doesn’t have the
same look as film? Well, let’s put that argument to rest. I Have
pain stickily made my own Lightroom preset that I believe is 96%
the same as my favourite film Kodak Tri-X 400. Now, this preset is
custom made for my camera specifically. So let’s dive a little
deeper into how I accomplished this preset and put all those
subjective arguments to rest.

Plus much more including pictures ...

They are two different mediums, and those who can't tell the differences
between them would be unqualified as judges anyway. Why not just give it
a rest?

The article is not about telling the difference. It's about digital
emulating film and some people are interested in that. I'm not much
interested and, apparently neither are you, but that is no reason why
I shouldn't post an article for others.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sep 3, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:29:07 -0400,
wrote:

On 9/3/2017 5:23 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.abwatson.com/film-vs-digital-lets-put-test/

"Have you ever heard the argument that digital just doesn’t have the
same look as film? Well, let’s put that argument to rest. I Have
pain stickily made my own Lightroom preset that I believe is 96%
the same as my favourite film Kodak Tri-X 400. Now, this preset is
custom made for my camera specifically. So let’s dive a little
deeper into how I accomplished this preset and put all those
subjective arguments to rest.

Plus much more including pictures ...
They are two different mediums, and those who can't tell the differences
between them would be unqualified as judges anyway. Why not just give it
a rest?

The article is not about telling the difference. It's about digital
emulating film and some people are interested in that. I'm not much
interested and, apparently neither are you, but that is no reason why
I shouldn't post an article for others.

Just for the Hell of it, here are two different Tri-X 400, and a Neopan 100
emulation shots done with Exposure X2:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9e97ru0igt13ytd/DSCF5753-EX2.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9f597zxie0c6byu/DSCF5425-EX2.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sv0ygjpyfsdvhwp/DSC_3427-EX2.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck