Getting that film look

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

This would be much more valuable if you showed the same scene.


Scott W wrote:
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

UC wrote:
This would be much more valuable if you showed the same scene.

True, but then I don't shoot Kodachrome anymore.
I am sure that I have not duplicated the exact look of Kodachrome, or
any other slide film, but I believe it is much closer to the look of a
slide then the photo right out of the camera. The grass in particular
look much more like a slide scan in the processed image, at least to
my eye.

Scott

Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I would love to
hear them.

Use film ?

"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

Joseph Kewfi wrote:
Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I would love to
hear them.

Use film ?

This is one options, but not for me. It takes me less time to adjust
the digital photo then it does to photoshop out the dust on a slide,
much less the scratches on a negative.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote:
Joseph Kewfi wrote:
Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I would love to
hear them.

Use film ?

This is one options, but not for me. It takes me less time to adjust
the digital photo then it does to photoshop out the dust on a slide,
much less the scratches on a negative.

Sheesh, get a new scanner. It's been an age since you could even buy a
scanner that didn't have ICE.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Scott W" wrote:
Joseph Kewfi wrote:
Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I would love to
hear them.

Use film ?

This is one options, but not for me. It takes me less time to adjust
the digital photo then it does to photoshop out the dust on a slide,
much less the scratches on a negative.

Sheesh, get a new scanner. It's been an age since you could even buy a
scanner that didn't have ICE.

I have thought about it, but even with ICE it takes me a long time to
get the colors close to what I want when scanning film. With Vuescan
this has gotten easier but I still end up adjusting a lot of setting.

One problem is that if I were to get a new scanner I would really like
it to handle MF, not much to choose from there and the cost is way
high. I am waiting to see what else come out.

Scott

David J. Littleboy wrote:

"Scott W" wrote:

Joseph Kewfi wrote:

Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I would love to

hear them.

Use film ?

This is one options, but not for me. It takes me less time to adjust
the digital photo then it does to photoshop out the dust on a slide,
much less the scratches on a negative.


Sheesh, get a new scanner. It's been an age since you could even buy a
scanner that didn't have ICE.

Or be more careful with the slides and negatives.

Photography is a craft. Whining that "it takes to much time" to get the look
you want is a confession that you don't have the commitment to do good
photography. Get a point an shoot and take your photos or memory card to the
Wal-Mart. Easy. Just don't expect much and you be having lots of free time.

Doug

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
Joseph Kewfi wrote:
Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I would love to
hear them.

Use film ?

This is one options, but not for me. It takes me less time to adjust
the digital photo then it does to photoshop out the dust on a slide,
much less the scratches on a negative.

Scott

Doug Robbins wrote:
Photography is a craft. Whining that "it takes to much time" to get the look
you want is a confession that you don't have the commitment to do good
photography. Get a point an shoot and take your photos or memory card to the
Wal-Mart. Easy. Just don't expect much and you be having lots of free time.

Doug
Well I believe you are right in part, the people who complain that they
don't want to spend time on each photo will likely not get as good
photos. But it is the some of the film people who are making this
complaint and using it in part as the reason they do not want to use
digital cameras. Digital or film I will adjust the photos that I am
getting printed larger then 4 x 6 and even a fair number of the 4 x 6
photos get adjusted.

From what I read a large number of film users just want to drop their
film off at the lab and then pick up the prints. I can do better then
this by scanning the negatives and sending in a digital file, it takes
more time but I get a better print then if I just sent the film in.

Scott