Getting that film look

In article , Paul Rubin
says...
"William Graham" writes:
I play a $1500 professional horn, even though I know that
there are plenty of $500 horns that sound just as good,

I dunno about horns, but when I hear someone hitting a drum, it sounds
like someone hitting a drum, you know, ka-thwap, not much more to say
about it. When my dad (a former professional drummer) hears someone
hitting a drum, he can tell you what kind of drum it is, what exact
spot on the drum was hit, and what the angle of the stick was when it
hit the drum. So, some things that aren't noticable to most of us,
can be discerned by people with enough practice.

Ta Da!!!! It is that often the people who control the tests are the same
ones who won't (or more likely can't) tell the difference. Some people
just don't want to know. They will often fight to the death on both sides
and show the results of test after test and meanwhile in everyday
practical applications the differences are used to great advantage of
those willing to use them. Maybe I should go out and take some pics. Been
in here way too long.

William Graham wrote:
the amps in a way that will produce the usable diffence.

Well, as someone who believes wholeheartedly in the placebo effect, and
thinks that this world is 90% or better just BS, let me say this. Just
because a double blind test shows that there really is no discernable
difference in the sound, (or photo) that doesn't mean that the psychological
difference isn't worth exploiting. In my own case, I am just as susceptible
to the placebo effect as anyone else is. Even if I know that logically there
is probably no difference, I am still suckered in by the hype, just like
everyone else. I play a $1500 professional horn, even though I know that
there are plenty of $500 horns that sound just as good, and my car runs much
better after an oil change just as everyone else's car does. IOW, knowing
about a disease doesn't make one immune from it.....

I am not so much worried about you having a $1500 horn, what would make
me worry is if you have had it cryogenically cooled.

Scott

On $DATE , Scott W wrote:

snip
For me I like the digital look, perhaps because it is not what I
am use to, but I can see where other might like the film look
more.


Aren't you really saying you like the look of a scanned digital
image over the look of a photographed digital image?

--
Regards,
Fred.
(Please remove FFFf from my email address to reply, if by email)

Fred Williams wrote:
On $DATE , Scott W wrote:

snip
For me I like the digital look, perhaps because it is not what I
am use to, but I can see where other might like the film look
more.


Aren't you really saying you like the look of a scanned digital
image over the look of a photographed digital image?


No I liked the look of the digital image from the camera over the
either the scanned film image or the processed digital photo. Just to
be clear this is the one I like.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746256

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
ps.com...
William Graham wrote:
the amps in a way that will produce the usable diffence.

Well, as someone who believes wholeheartedly in the placebo effect, and
thinks that this world is 90% or better just BS, let me say this. Just
because a double blind test shows that there really is no discernable
difference in the sound, (or photo) that doesn't mean that the
psychological
difference isn't worth exploiting. In my own case, I am just as
susceptible
to the placebo effect as anyone else is. Even if I know that logically
there
is probably no difference, I am still suckered in by the hype, just like
everyone else. I play a $1500 professional horn, even though I know that
there are plenty of $500 horns that sound just as good, and my car runs
much
better after an oil change just as everyone else's car does. IOW, knowing
about a disease doesn't make one immune from it.....

I am not so much worried about you having a $1500 horn, what would make
me worry is if you have had it cryogenically cooled.

Scott

Ha! - Having taken a good course in metallurgy way back in engineering
school, I know better than that....As a matter of fact, I have spent way too
much time trying to convince other trumpet players of the stupidity of
that....But you know, the ones that have had it done, will still swear by
it....The placebo effect is very strong......

William Graham wrote:

Ha! - Having taken a good course in metallurgy way back in engineering
school, I know better than that....As a matter of fact, I have spent way too
much time trying to convince other trumpet players of the stupidity of
that....But you know, the ones that have had it done, will still swear by
it....The placebo effect is very strong......

I know flute players who align their flute with the magnetic pole
swearing the flute sound better then they do. Of course the flutes are
silver and so there is no effect at all but they still claim to hear a
huge difference.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
ups.com...

William Graham wrote:

Ha! - Having taken a good course in metallurgy way back in engineering
school, I know better than that....As a matter of fact, I have spent way
too
much time trying to convince other trumpet players of the stupidity of
that....But you know, the ones that have had it done, will still swear by
it....The placebo effect is very strong......

I know flute players who align their flute with the magnetic pole
swearing the flute sound better then they do. Of course the flutes are
silver and so there is no effect at all but they still claim to hear a
huge difference.

Scott

Yes....And sadly, because I am not an expert trumpet player, I have no way
to convince these people of the error of their ways, and, I guess there is
little reason to try anyway....If their playing sounds better to them, then
they might as well believe it.
But the stupidity of it all still annoys me. The other day, there was an
"expert" in astrology on the radio. He has a new book out. This is all well
and good, and I could care less about it. But he had the audacity to say
that the reason it's warmer in the Summertime is because the Earth is
closest to the Sun then. And, what makes it worse, is that the talk show
host wasn't bright enough to correct him....

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
There have been a lot of people who say they just don't like the look
of digital photos, that they look flat or like plastic. There are
some people who will not care, they just don't like the idea of
digital. But for those people who might want to use a ditial camera
and get at least some of the look of film this might be valuable to
look at. Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I
would love to hear them.

Digital cameras try to get the most accurate capture of a scene that
they can. Whereas a digital capture might be very accurate it will not
be to everybody's taste. Film, particularly slide film, boosts the
contrast of a scene, this also makes the colors more vivid.

This is a scan of one of my Kodachrome slides that shows the kind of
look you get from Kodachrome.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746257

This is what is more typical out of a digital camera
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746256

So if I want to get a more film like look what can I do?
What I have done in this next image is to make a copy of background
layer and then boost the contrast of the copy way up, I then mix 50% of
each layer to get this photo
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746255
To my eye this now looks much closer to a kodachrome scan then the
original photo does.

It is important to note that a scan of a slide does not just have more
saturated colors, this is what I get if I just boost the saturation of
the digital photo.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746254
To my eye that is just ugly

So why start with a digital file that just needs to be adjusted when
you could shoot film? For some shooting film would be the right thing
to do. But for others the advantages of shooting digital would come
into play and doing some adjustments to the photo would not be a big
deal.

My point in all of this is that a digital photo starts out life as a
fairly neutral thing, we then can make of it what we wish. I should
also point out that most digital cameras allow a boost of contrast in
the camera setting, I don't like to shoot this way but if someone
really did not want to adjust photos afterwards this is an option.

The other options is to adjust the look of the photo when converting
from raw, this has limits but you can get a wide range of looks and
once you have the first file converted you can use the same setting for
the rest of the photos.

For me I like the digital look, perhaps because it is not what I am use
to, but I can see where other might like the film look more.

Scott


I don't care for the Kodachrome shot. It looks almost faded (poor greens).
It seems as if the white side of the house lit brightly by the sun caused
underexposure for the rest of the scene making the sky a nice deep blue, but
the foliage goes muddy. The digital shot is much more colorful and natural
to me. It would have helped to see a same subject comparison.
John

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:16:05 -0500, "Charles Schuler"
wrote:


I have heard these kinds of comments and often find that they are sort of an
urban legend similar to some who insist tube amplifiers sound better than
solid-state amplifiers. Double-blind tests always do them in (they can't
consistently identify the type of amplifier).

Some photography folks are truly informed and prefer film, but they are not
always the ones making these kinds of comments.

As you pointed out, digital manipulation can produce various effects.



You know that old rule that says a usenet post is dead once Hitler is
mentioned? They need the SAME rule for @#$$@# bringing up
high-end audio.
-Rich

William Graham wrote:

Yes....And sadly, because I am not an expert trumpet player, I have no way
to convince these people of the error of their ways, and, I guess there is
little reason to try anyway....If their playing sounds better to them, then
they might as well believe it.
But the stupidity of it all still annoys me. The other day, there was an
"expert" in astrology on the radio. He has a new book out. This is all well
and good, and I could care less about it. But he had the audacity to say
that the reason it's warmer in the Summertime is because the Earth is
closest to the Sun then. And, what makes it worse, is that the talk show
host wasn't bright enough to correct him....

If it gets warmer in the summertime were you are then you live way to
far from the equator.

Scott