A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Getting that film look



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 20th 05, 12:19 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Getting that film look

In article .com,
says...
wrote:

says...

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).

Which studies? I have been recording these amps for 30 years and they
sound different and many people "can" tell the difference in double blind
studies.


Filtering issues aside, you can only tell if you drive the amp into
non-linearity.


Depends on the study. Some mastering cats are really freaky when it comes
to these studies and have blown apart some of the tests.

http://milbert.com/tstxt.htm

"Engineers and musicians have long debated the question of tube
sound versus transistor sound. Previous attempts to measure this
difference have always assumed linear operation of the test amplifier.
This conventional method of frequency response, distortion and noise
measurement has shown that no significant difference exists."

And how could it? But of course, if you are the sort who likes to
over-drive your amplifiers, then hey, the more power to ya. Or at
least to the inputs of your amplifiers.


Yep, and some like to overdrive their amps for playback while mixing and
mastering. Go figure. Playback of audio asside, most good musicians are
so dymanic in their playing that at some point they are going to over-
drive the input of the amp, even on a very soft piece of music, even for
only a few notes in the piece. This would make one amp or the other
produce a different sound and most of them will pick tubes for guitar or
B3 and solid state for bass. Of course Dimebag loved solid state for
guitar.
  #22  
Old December 20th 05, 12:23 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Getting that film look

Scott W wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote:

Scott W wrote:

O.K., avoiding the great debate (for the moment).

Just, all your pictures have an American flag in them: Is it an article
of the Patriot Act that all photos need to have a US flag in them?

I've lived in seven different countries and, AFAIK, I have no pictures
of flags.

Oh well, de gustibus...



It's not me, it is where I live. I did not even notice the flags in
the photos, show how much the flag flies around here. When I was in
Canada taking photos I did notice I ended up with a fair number of
photos with the Canadian flay in them.


One of those cultural differences.

I live in Germany, where public buildings fly the flag more often at
half mast (tsunamis, earthquakes & other disasters and loss of life)
than normally (national holidays).

The only place over here where I noticed a significant amount of
flag-waving was Denmark (I haven't actually lived in the US for a long
time).

Ö.K., back to the great film-digital debate...
: )
  #23  
Old December 20th 05, 12:24 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Getting that film look


"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


  #25  
Old December 20th 05, 12:57 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Getting that film look

In article ,
says...
I prefer trannies for playback and for bass but not for guitar or keys.
See, it is nice when we have a choice.


Of course. A choice is what it is all about. It does not have to be a
reasoned choice that is based on facts.


However, it is often based on fact.


In a capitalistic democracy, we
vote with our credit cards.


So, stop it.


Tube amplifiers clip differently than sold state amplifiers and thus have a
different spectral dispersion of harmonic distortion amplitudes. It's
mostly a bunch of nit-picking and cannot be detected in double-blind
listening tests.


It again depends on the test and the listeners. Try it with top mastering
pros.



Monster cables are another example of urban legends. They are an example of
a success story based on BS! Gotta love them for what they have
accomplished with sheer psychology and almost zero engineering expertise.


True.


Some just want to believe in the tooth fairy and some of us don't really
care, but have a hard time to always stay quiet.

Sorry to offend posters here ... I just simply disagree. Science is self
correcting and BS is self feeding.



You sound like an engineering student. Not sure what your background is
but get back to me after 30 years of practical application woking with
some of the worlds top audio engineers in design, mixing, mastering and
replication. There are a few things you might change your mind on.
  #26  
Old December 20th 05, 01:06 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Getting that film look

Chris Loffredo wrote:

I live in Germany, where public buildings fly the flag more often at
half mast (tsunamis, earthquakes & other disasters and loss of life)
than normally (national holidays).


Here in politically-correct England, flying the national flag is
sometimes seen as racist and provocative.
  #27  
Old December 20th 05, 01:06 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Getting that film look

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

  #28  
Old December 20th 05, 01:22 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Getting that film look

wrote:

Filtering issues aside, you can only tell if you drive the amp into
non-linearity.


Depends on the study. Some mastering cats are really freaky when it comes
to these studies and have blown apart some of the tests.


This is beyond "study": if the systems have the same transfer
function, and are operating linearly, they will sound identical to the
same observer. No amount of post-modern psychobabble will change this
core fact of reality. Heckers, Bob Carver is famous for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver

Yep, and some like to overdrive their amps for playback while mixing and
mastering. Go figure. Playback of audio asside, most good musicians are
so dymanic in their playing that at some point they are going to over-
drive the input of the amp, even on a very soft piece of music, even for
only a few notes in the piece. This would make one amp or the other
produce a different sound and most of them will pick tubes for guitar or
B3 and solid state for bass. Of course Dimebag loved solid state for
guitar.


We need to make a careful distinction between the producers of a sound
("musicians") and the listener ("audience"). Musicians, by and large,
don't care where the sounds come from, as long as they are interesting.
If scraping a tuned string does the trick, horray! If over-driving a
tube amp does it, who cares? If Matthew Herbert can extract a dance
ditty from a can of Coke, who is anyone to argue with him about it?
Even if the engineers want to play musician and mangle the sounds prior
to the bits hitting the CD: that is their perogative.

But in terms of reproduction in some audience member's living room or
car, tubes are a complete non-starter. One does not need to placate
kooky audiophile delusions with hard earned money.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

  #29  
Old December 20th 05, 01:33 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Getting that film look

In article . com,
says...
wrote:

Filtering issues aside, you can only tell if you drive the amp into
non-linearity.


Depends on the study. Some mastering cats are really freaky when it comes
to these studies and have blown apart some of the tests.


This is beyond "study": if the systems have the same transfer
function, and are operating linearly, they will sound identical to the
same observer. No amount of post-modern psychobabble will change this
core fact of reality. Heckers, Bob Carver is famous for this:


The point is the amps are "not" used in the same way. This is where the
differce in sound that can be heard is made and used. Sorry if that point
was not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver

Yep, and some like to overdrive their amps for playback while mixing and
mastering. Go figure. Playback of audio asside, most good musicians are
so dymanic in their playing that at some point they are going to over-
drive the input of the amp, even on a very soft piece of music, even for
only a few notes in the piece. This would make one amp or the other
produce a different sound and most of them will pick tubes for guitar or
B3 and solid state for bass. Of course Dimebag loved solid state for
guitar.


We need to make a careful distinction between the producers of a sound
("musicians") and the listener ("audience"). Musicians, by and large,
don't care where the sounds come from, as long as they are interesting.
If scraping a tuned string does the trick, horray! If over-driving a
tube amp does it, who cares? If Matthew Herbert can extract a dance
ditty from a can of Coke, who is anyone to argue with him about it?
Even if the engineers want to play musician and mangle the sounds prior
to the bits hitting the CD: that is their perogative.

But in terms of reproduction in some audience member's living room or
car, tubes are a complete non-starter. One does not need to placate
kooky audiophile delusions with hard earned money.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf


Hey, I agree with most of what you are saying. I did state that I like
solid state amps for playback but for good old guitar playing, no way. As
stated above the point "is" to use them differently. This is why one has
not replaced the other.
  #30  
Old December 20th 05, 01:37 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Getting that film look

It is a matter of personal preference. I agreed with you that image could be
simulated to film look with manipulation. But the conservatives will prefer
the old while the contemporaries will pursue new tech. It is just a matter
of different taste and not better. Usually people accept their preference as
better. I used film for 25 years and I had made good prints from slides and
negatives but I still like digital after the switch in 1998. Just be happy
and have good knowledge in your preferred medium to avoid mistakes. I used
to prove to those film's buffs by comparison of both media but still can't
convince the hard nut to crack.

"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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Predictions - longevity of MF film Medium Format Photography Equipment 124 January 12th 06 03:17 AM
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital Bill Hilton Photographing Nature 15 December 8th 05 12:03 AM
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital Bill Hilton Digital Photography 1 November 28th 05 08:44 PM
What film? Art Reitsch Large Format Photography Equipment 5 November 10th 05 01:14 PM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.