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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Getting that film look
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Getting that film look
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |