Film vs Digiatal, lets put it to the test

In article , Noons
wrote:


http://www.abwatson.com/film-vs-digital-lets-put-test/
"Have you ever heard the argument that digital just doesn¹t have the
same look as film? Well, let¹s 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 let¹s 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)?

because they want it to look worse, for some reason.

A lot easier to just grab a roll of film and go for broke!
At least, that's what I do... ))

nope. it's much easier to do it digitally.

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.

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.

not when it's done properly.

On 9/5/17 5:57 AM, Noons wrote:
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... ))


with one set of sensor filtration you can get both a portrait look and a
commercial look?

native sRGB filtration would be a video look for instance

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

On 03/09/2017 11:23, 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 ...

The article reminds me of those TV adverts of old, about analogue TVs
with extra high quality display technologies. Totally pointless, when
you would be watching the advert on a low quality analogue TV.

As the author says:

" If you’re shooting film and then digitally scanning it, I really don’t
see the point personally."

Yet he goes to great lengths and does a Film vs Digital 'comparison' by
_digitizing_ the film images. Pointless, no matter how you look at it.

The only way this comparison would work is with prints - one made
directly from film, and another made from a digital photo,
printed on paper. You compare paper print (from film) vs paper print
(from digital). Anything else is blah blah.

On 2017-09-05 14:44, 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.

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.

not when it's done properly.

Nope. Give enough magnification and you see aligned pixels instead of grain.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sep 5, 2017, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 2017-09-05 14:44, nospam 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.

not when it's done properly.

Nope. Give enough magnification and you see aligned pixels instead of grain.

Aah, a pixel peeker. Most folks look at images, not pixels.

If you have a 16x20 print why would you examine a small area of it with a
loupe, rather than appreciate the image as submitted at a normal viewing
distance?

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Carlos E.R.
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.

not when it's done properly.

Nope. Give enough magnification and you see aligned pixels instead of grain.

so what?

you obviously don't understand sampling theory, or the fact that you'll
see individual grains well before you see individual pixels.

pixel rates are more than enough to reproduce grain with perfect
accuracy, something which can be mathematically proven.

grain patterns of various films can be mathematically modeled.

that means that *any* film image can be reproduced digitally.

however, it doesn't mean anyone who attempts to do it will do a good
job.

most people do a ****ty job and then blame the technology rather than
their own incompetence (and refusal to learn).

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

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.

not when it's done properly.

Nope. Give enough magnification and you see aligned pixels instead of grain.

Aah, a pixel peeker. Most folks look at images, not pixels.

If you have a 16x20 print why would you examine a small area of it with a
loupe, rather than appreciate the image as submitted at a normal viewing
distance?

to argue. why else?

On 09/05/2017 04:57 AM, Noons wrote:
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... ))



Because one could go for broke.


Digital: I can shoot 1000 images and not spend a cent until I decide to
print one.

Film and developing it costs money...even if one has their own darkroom

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 08:44:17 -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.

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.

not when it's done properly.

You seem to have no faith in computer analysis of the images.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens