Film vs Digiatal, lets put it to the test

In article , philo
wrote:

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.

Yes it does. The C220 was a rather good MF camera, intended for studio
use of course and if proper pictures from it has been trumped by some
equivalent ones from an early model Digital Rebel then yes...

http://a4.img.bidorbuy.co.za/image/u...610705_1001172
24229_IMG_2077.jpg
--
teleportation kills

On 09/03/2017 09:34 PM, android wrote:

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.

Yes it does. The C220 was a rather good MF camera, intended for studio
use of course and if proper pictures from it has been trumped by some
equivalent ones from an early model Digital Rebel then yes...

http://a4.img.bidorbuy.co.za/image/u...610705_1001172
24229_IMG_2077.jpg





Sorry but what you said still does not make sense to me.

Had you said that my skill with Photoshop (for example) exceeded my
skill in the darkroom /that/ would have seemed reasonable.



At any rate, my skills with Photoshop are not that great and neither are
my darkroom skills. I had both images printed processed and
professionally and I assure you the digital image was much sharper.


It was not the case of perhaps having one shot done with the medium
format slightly out of focus. I took the best shot of the day.

In article , philo
wrote:

On 09/03/2017 09:34 PM, android wrote:

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.

Yes it does. The C220 was a rather good MF camera, intended for studio
use of course and if proper pictures from it has been trumped by some
equivalent ones from an early model Digital Rebel then yes...

http://a4.img.bidorbuy.co.za/image/u...610705_1001172
24229_IMG_2077.jpg


Sorry but what you said still does not make sense to me.

Had you said that my skill with Photoshop (for example) exceeded my
skill in the darkroom /that/ would have seemed reasonable.

At any rate, my skills with Photoshop are not that great and neither are
my darkroom skills. I had both images printed processed and
professionally and I assure you the digital image was much sharper.

It was not the case of perhaps having one shot done with the medium
format slightly out of focus. I took the best shot of the day.

Oki...
--
teleportation kills

On 9/3/17 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 ...


pretty easy for positives, just map the spectral characteristics into
the color space you want

for negative systems you need to model the intent too, whether that be a
print's spectral characteristics, the actual scene's color space, or
something else that could be as simple as an inversion

ICC supports look/feel profiles that could accommodate this, I forget
where, I think Kodak offered film look/feel for digital cameras at one time

--
dale - http://www.dalekelly.org

On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 18:50:00 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

I have never seen an emulation yet which would pass a close scrutiny.
Consider the emulation of film grain for a start.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sep 4, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 18:50:00 -0400,
wrote:

In , 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.

I have never seen an emulation yet which would pass a close scrutiny.
Consider the emulation of film grain for a start.

You should download the Alienskin Exposure X2 trial, kick the tires, and take
it for a spin, then condemn film emulation, including film grain emulation.
https://www.alienskin.com

....and for the Tri-X lovers, I think you will find this comes quite close,
and I used Tri-X quite extensively in the days I still had a wet darkroom.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wrny3pw5ktt7aob/DSC_3435-EX2.jpg
--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 18:50:00 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

I have never seen an emulation yet which would pass a close scrutiny.
Consider the emulation of film grain for a start.

I wouldn't say that emulation isn't fun. Both the DxO and Capture One
provides excellent profiles and with the latter you can cook your own...
You just don't get the same pictures with a wet or hybrid workflow as
with emulations.

I've upgraded my hard rives now and preparing myself mentally for going
through two decades of negs. Good thing that I ain't a pro!

Well, my apartment is going to go through an overhaul soon and that
might hold it of for another year but my arms are getting better so I
guess that I'll have to take some pics with the "M" instead if that's
the case. The 1D2 is still way to have to have off the tripod but that
will change! :-))
--
teleportation kills

On Mon, 04 Sep 2017 18:55:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Sep 4, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 18:50:00 -0400,
wrote:

In , 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.

I have never seen an emulation yet which would pass a close scrutiny.
Consider the emulation of film grain for a start.

You should download the Alienskin Exposure X2 trial, kick the tires, and take
it for a spin, then condemn film emulation, including film grain emulation.
https://www.alienskin.com

...and for the Tri-X lovers, I think you will find this comes quite close,
and I used Tri-X quite extensively in the days I still had a wet darkroom.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wrny3pw5ktt7aob/DSC_3435-EX2.jpg

They are (better than) fine for casual examination but a close
scrutiny would show that the images were not created with film. This
was the point I was trying to make to nospam: that as android said to
nospam "You can emulate all that you want and I do that myself at
times but it ain't the same..." and it is generally possible to tell
the difference.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 3/09/2017 7:23 @wiz, 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 ...



Why on Earth would anyone want to modify digital images into "film" look
(Whatever that means)?
A lot easier to just grab a roll of film and go for broke!
At least, that's what I do... ))

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.

I have never seen an emulation yet which would pass a close scrutiny.

well that settles that. if you haven't seen it, it must not exist
anywhere.

oh, and thank you for all your hard work in evaluating every single
possible method and implementation in the world. that must have taken a
lot of time.

Consider the emulation of film grain for a start.

what about it? you've already decided.