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 » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Film scanners?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old April 22nd 17, 04:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,146
Default Film scanners?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:05:19 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-22 00:54:35 +0000, nospam said:

In article [email protected],
Savageduck wrote:


http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...-go-acros-the-
de
finitive-review

The article contains the statement that:

"The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar
analogue film-like look ... ".

I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in
the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact
that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant.

as i said elsewhere, it's his own limitation, not that of digital.

He isn't shooting film. He is shooting digital and leaving the
processing to the camera.
http://tavphotography.com/acros-vs-acros-film-vs-digital/


it's still his own limitation.

just because *he* can't do it doesn't mean it's not possible.

all he needs to do is match what's done in the camera and the results
will be identical.


Yeah. That's all he needs to do.


But it is silly to claim that the digital adjustments can't be made
outside the camera.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #162  
Old April 22nd 17, 05:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,146
Default Film scanners?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:29:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-21 23:09:27 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:37:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-21 17:37:10 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2017-04-21 17:07:21 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:16:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-21 15:21:03 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:13:49 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Since when do we need a "reason" to pursue a hobby from which we
derive pleasure? Since when is someone else's way of pursuing a hobby
not legitimate?

Not one person is arguing that film is not a legitimate pursuit. It's
the claims of the superiority of film output that we are arguing
about.

Who made that claim? I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied
that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed.

it was claimed.

This is what nospam does to a thread to create an argument where there
should not be an argument. The thread started on the subject of
scanners. Then, Russell D. posted: "Exactly what I was thinking when
I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started
shooting film again. Glad I didn't sell it."

No claim that film is superior. No claim that he can do something
with film that can't be done with digital. Just a simple statement
that he started shooting film again.

in another post, he claimed film can do things digital cannot. that is
a completely bogus claim.

once again, you are twisting things.

Liar. Talk abut twisting things, you were saying that claims were
made about film being superior long before Russell made any comment
about film vs digital in this thread.

What Russell posted late in the thread was:

"Bill, I can take shoot a roll of TriX and develop it in D-76 1:1 and
get one look and then stand develop another roll in 1:100 Rodinal for
an hour and get another look and then develop another roll in coffee
(Caffenol) for yet another look. It's fun. You cannot duplicate the
experience or the look with digital. Film has a unique look. It is not
better or worse than digital. It is just different."

He was referring to *his* experience, and that's a perfectly valid
claim.

However, each of those rolls of Tri-X is limited to its singular and
unique developing process, whereas a single digital exposure can be
processed with as many different film emulations you care to experiment
with, without loosing the experimental experience.

True, that. But is that what Russell wants to do?

I wouldn't know. He hasn't told us if he has even thought of that approach.

Shoot and process
in such a way that he has unlimited revision choices, or shoot and
process in such a way that he has to do it right the first time?

Shooting digital doesn't stop you from getting things "right the first
time", and locking into those results without any post processing.
Especially if you shoot JPEG only, and use a camera which gives you
very good SOOC options with in-camera film emulation choices. here I am
thinking selfishly of my X-T2.
http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/2017/3/19/forget-raw-and-go-acros-the-definitive-review


The

article contains the statement that:

"The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar
analogue film-like look ... ".

I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in
the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact
that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant.


What the author is saying mirrors my experience, that currently none of
the available software, including the best of all those I have which
provide film emulation; Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, On1 Photo RAW 2017,
NIK Silver Efex Pro2, and others, can quite match what Fujifilm does
in-camera. I have made side-by-side comparisons and the Fujifilm
in-camera process is quite remarkable and unmatched. However, there are
times I want something other than the choices Fujifilm offers, then I
turn to Exposure X2.


That's not what he is saying at all. The full quote is:

"The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar
analogue film-like look is for me an additional incentive to focus
on using JPEGs (on top of the already simplified and faster
workflow)!"

[And look at that apostrophe in "JPEG's"]

As I was saying above, he has made the blanket claim that it is a fact
"that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar analogue
film-like look ... ". It is not at all a fact. It may be a fact that
the author doesn't know any external RAW converter which can match
what the camera does but that does not make it a fact that no external
RAW convertor *CAN* match what the camera does. If the processor in
the camera can do it then so can a suitable external processor do it.

Many shooters with the Fujifilm X-Trans III sensor cameras such as the
X-Pro2, X-T2, X-100F, & X-T20 have chosen to shoot JPEG only and use
SOOC images by-passing an external computer.

Personally I am still of the RAW+JPEG school with my
Lightroom+Photoshop workflow, but I am open to all sorts of change, and
so far I have been impressed with the quality of unprocessed JPEGs SOOC
from both my X-E2 and my X-T2. I have little problem shareing or
otherwise using SOOC Fujifilm X-Trans images.

What nospam says is all up to him, but I have my own evidence.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #163  
Old April 22nd 17, 05:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,032
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-22 03:55:32 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:05:19 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-22 00:54:35 +0000, nospam said:

In article [email protected],
Savageduck wrote:


http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...-go-acros-the-
de
finitive-review

The article contains the statement that:

"The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar
analogue film-like look ... ".

I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in
the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact
that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant.

as i said elsewhere, it's his own limitation, not that of digital.

He isn't shooting film. He is shooting digital and leaving the
processing to the camera.
http://tavphotography.com/acros-vs-acros-film-vs-digital/

it's still his own limitation.

just because *he* can't do it doesn't mean it's not possible.

all he needs to do is match what's done in the camera and the results
will be identical.


Yeah. That's all he needs to do.


But it is silly to claim that the digital adjustments can't be made
outside the camera.


There is no claim that the digital adjustments can't be made outside
the camera. However, Fujifilm uses the X-Processor Pro and proprietary
algorithms to achieve their very good Acros rendition in-camera. You
can certainly produce similar results in Lightroom and Exposure X2 from
the RAF files, but compared with what Fujifilm is able to do digitally
simulating their own film they don't quite match up. Very close but not
quite there. The in-camera grain rendering is of a different quality to
the simulated grain produced in Lightroom, Exposure X2, Tonality Pro2,
On1 Photo RAW, or NIK Silver Efex Pro2.

As much as I have tried to match the Fujifilm Acros simulation with the
others, they remain different to the Fujifilm in-camera rendition, and
some are not even close. It has to be seen to be appreciated. As far as
any of the color variations go, I stick to my normal LR+PS workflow and
my current preferred plug-in, Exposure X2.

I know I must be sounding somewhat like a Fujimaniac these days, but I
am more and more impressed with the X-series cameras and the quality of
the Fujinon glass. More importantly I don't miss shooting a DSLR at all.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #164  
Old April 22nd 17, 05:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,032
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-22 04:09:32 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:29:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-21 23:09:27 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:37:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-21 17:37:10 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2017-04-21 17:07:21 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:16:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-21 15:21:03 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:13:49 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Since when do we need a "reason" to pursue a hobby from which we
derive pleasure? Since when is someone else's way of pursuing a hobby
not legitimate?

Not one person is arguing that film is not a legitimate pursuit. It's
the claims of the superiority of film output that we are arguing
about.

Who made that claim? I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied
that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed.

it was claimed.

This is what nospam does to a thread to create an argument where there
should not be an argument. The thread started on the subject of
scanners. Then, Russell D. posted: "Exactly what I was thinking when
I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started
shooting film again. Glad I didn't sell it."

No claim that film is superior. No claim that he can do something
with film that can't be done with digital. Just a simple statement
that he started shooting film again.

in another post, he claimed film can do things digital cannot. that is
a completely bogus claim.

once again, you are twisting things.

Liar. Talk abut twisting things, you were saying that claims were
made about film being superior long before Russell made any comment
about film vs digital in this thread.

What Russell posted late in the thread was:

"Bill, I can take shoot a roll of TriX and develop it in D-76 1:1 and
get one look and then stand develop another roll in 1:100 Rodinal for
an hour and get another look and then develop another roll in coffee
(Caffenol) for yet another look. It's fun. You cannot duplicate the
experience or the look with digital. Film has a unique look. It is not
better or worse than digital. It is just different."

He was referring to *his* experience, and that's a perfectly valid
claim.

However, each of those rolls of Tri-X is limited to its singular and
unique developing process, whereas a single digital exposure can be
processed with as many different film emulations you care to experiment
with, without loosing the experimental experience.

True, that. But is that what Russell wants to do?

I wouldn't know. He hasn't told us if he has even thought of that approach.

Shoot and process
in such a way that he has unlimited revision choices, or shoot and
process in such a way that he has to do it right the first time?

Shooting digital doesn't stop you from getting things "right the first
time", and locking into those results without any post processing.
Especially if you shoot JPEG only, and use a camera which gives you
very good SOOC options with in-camera film emulation choices. here I am
thinking selfishly of my X-T2.
http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/2017/3/19/forget-raw-and-go-acros-the-definitive-review


The

article

contains the statement that:

"The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar
analogue film-like look ... ".

I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in
the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact
that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant.


What the author is saying mirrors my experience, that currently none of
the available software, including the best of all those I have which
provide film emulation; Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, On1 Photo RAW 2017,
NIK Silver Efex Pro2, and others, can quite match what Fujifilm does
in-camera. I have made side-by-side comparisons and the Fujifilm
in-camera process is quite remarkable and unmatched. However, there are
times I want something other than the choices Fujifilm offers, then I
turn to Exposure X2.


That's not what he is saying at all. The full quote is:

"The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar
analogue film-like look is for me an additional incentive to focus
on using JPEG´s (on top of the already simplified and faster
workflow)!"

[And look at that apostrophe in "JPEG's"]

As I was saying above, he has made the blanket claim that it is a fact
"that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar analogue
film-like look ... ". It is not at all a fact. It may be a fact that
the author doesn't know any external RAW converter which can match
what the camera does but that does not make it a fact that no external
RAW convertor *CAN* match what the camera does. If the processor in
the camera can do it then so can a suitable external processor do it.


I must be reading things with clouded vision.

The only issue where I agree that the in-camera process is better than
external post processing, is the singular one of the Acros film
simulation. However, with X-trans RAF files all is not well with Adobe
renderings. As far as any RAW (RAF) processing goes the X-Trans sensor
has had issues with Lightroom/ACR where it can produce unnatural
artifacts which are not very grain-like, especially when sharpening is
applied. This is well documented for several years and can be
frustrating at times.
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1493324

Other RAW processing software such as Iridient, Luminar, Affinity
Photo, Exposure X2, and On1 Photo RAW 2017 all do a better job than
LR/ACR. There is talk of Adobe and Fujifilm working toward a solution,
and I hope it comes soon. Until then many Fuji X-shooters are
by-passing the LR/ACR RAF process using tools such as Iridient
transformer. Many are content to use the very good quality SOOC JPEG's.
http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2017/3/tips-for-using-iridient-x-transformer


Many

shooters with the Fujifilm X-Trans III sensor cameras such as the
X-Pro2, X-T2, X-100F, & X-T20 have chosen to shoot JPEG only and use
SOOC images by-passing an external computer.

Personally I am still of the RAW+JPEG school with my
Lightroom+Photoshop workflow, but I am open to all sorts of change, and
so far I have been impressed with the quality of unprocessed JPEGs SOOC
from both my X-E2 and my X-T2. I have little problem shareing or
otherwise using SOOC Fujifilm X-Trans images.

What nospam says is all up to him, but I have my own evidence.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #165  
Old April 22nd 17, 06:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,032
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-22 04:37:46 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 21:23:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

As much as I have tried to match the Fujifilm Acros simulation with the
others, they remain different to the Fujifilm in-camera rendition, and
some are not even close. It has to be seen to be appreciated.


You seem to be saying Fujifilm Acros is superior and the look cannot
be replicated.


I am not saying that it is "superior" it is a rendering of a B&W film
simulation that they do particularly well in-camera. If I was trying
for a Tri-X, or an Ilford HP5, or T-MAX P3200, or Kodak Panatomic-X,
all of which I have done, I would go immediately to Lightroom and my
Exposure X2 plug-in.

Yet, we have been informed that the only reason that a
look cannot be replicated is lack of skill by the user. We know this
to be true because nospam has told us.


Do you doubt him?

Are you implying that anyone who uses a dslr is doomed to mediocrity?


I have never implied any such thing. If Nikon hadn't dragged their
heels I would probably be shooting a D500 right now. The thing is, I
jumped ship and I am thoroughly enamored of the Fujifilm cameras and
what they have to offer, regardless of some of their quirks.

....and who knows? There might still be a D500 in my future, though I
couldn't really justify it now. Perhaps if I have a substantial
windfall.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #166  
Old April 23rd 17, 12:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,146
Default Film scanners?

rOn Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:26:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-22 08:21:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

I wouldn't argue with any of that but this guy is saying that it must
be done in the camera or not at all.


Agreed.
That is a silly position to take, particularly since most shooters are
looking for more than SOOC Acros simulations. I am.

My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a
processor outside the camera can do it
equally well.


One would think that, and I have been trying to do that ever since the
Fuji PR machine hyped the Acros in-camera simulation with the release
of the X-Pro2, with the X-Trans III sensor and the new X-Processor Pro.
My X-E2 does not have said processor, so I was only able to work with
the in-camera Acros simulation once I got my X-T2. Up until then I got
some pretty good results using Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, and NIK
Silver Efex Pro.

The Camera profiles in LR are camera specific, so Acros was not
available for the X-E2 in LR. It is for the X-T2, so I have only been
able to make that comparison over the last 10 days. The best of the
third party emulations has been Exposure X2. However, when compared
with the X-T2 SOOC rendering, there is a palpable difference which I
have not been able to match, and even though I say so myself, I am not
totally incapable when it comes to working with the software available
to me. While the differences are subtle, I have yet to manage a tweak
in any software to match the X-T2 SOOC in-camera Acros.

I am sure that nospam, and perhaps even you could show me just how to
do it, but I don't see you buying an X-series camera anytime soon, and
I don't anticipate nospam showing us any results.


I don't have to know how to do it to know that it is possible.

All it needs is the right programming.


...and that might well be where the difference lies since Fujifilm is
using a proprietary processor and proprietary algorithm. It is one of
their films after all.


So the only reason that it isn't being done outside the camera is that
nobody knows the algorithm. I am willing to bet that long before
either the hardware or the software of the XT-2 was finalised Fuji was
running simulations on some kind of external computer. If I am correct
that alone would falsify the original statement to which I have taken
exception.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #167  
Old April 23rd 17, 03:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,030
Default Film scanners?

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:26:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-22 08:21:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

I wouldn't argue with any of that but this guy is saying that it must
be done in the camera or not at all.


Agreed.
That is a silly position to take, particularly since most shooters are
looking for more than SOOC Acros simulations. I am.

My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a
processor outside the camera can do it
equally well.


One would think that, and I have been trying to do that ever since the
Fuji PR machine hyped the Acros in-camera simulation with the release
of the X-Pro2, with the X-Trans III sensor and the new X-Processor Pro.
My X-E2 does not have said processor, so I was only able to work with
the in-camera Acros simulation once I got my X-T2. Up until then I got
some pretty good results using Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, and NIK
Silver Efex Pro.

The Camera profiles in LR are camera specific, so Acros was not
available for the X-E2 in LR. It is for the X-T2, so I have only been
able to make that comparison over the last 10 days. The best of the
third party emulations has been Exposure X2. However, when compared
with the X-T2 SOOC rendering, there is a palpable difference which I
have not been able to match, and even though I say so myself, I am not
totally incapable when it comes to working with the software available
to me. While the differences are subtle, I have yet to manage a tweak
in any software to match the X-T2 SOOC in-camera Acros.

I am sure that nospam, and perhaps even you could show me just how to
do it, but I don't see you buying an X-series camera anytime soon, and
I don't anticipate nospam showing us any results.

All it needs is the right programming.


...and that might well be where the difference lies since Fujifilm is
using a proprietary processor and proprietary algorithm. It is one of
their films after all.


Yes, but... I'm not arguing about this, but does the in camera
emulation give you the results you like more than the others, or is it
really more accurate? If you believe it's more accurate, what is there
left to base that on? I have to assume you are not doing side by side
comparisons, and are working from memory. Even if you have more or
less recent film prints, they would be samples, and not the final word
on what those film prints all looked like.
  #168  
Old April 23rd 17, 03:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,030
Default Film scanners?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:14:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:


If you take two
identical photos under perfect conditions, one with top 35 mm film,
and the other with a good FF DSLR, the prints should be of equal
quality before any processing is done. I don't think anyone would
argue with that.


i would.

if the same photographer takes two photos of the same subject, same
lighting, same lens, same exposure, etc., one with a film camera and
one with an full frame digital slr, the digital camera will always be
able to produce a higher quality result.


My first reaction to this was that I needed to nudge the goalposts a
bit, but the I really don't have enough experience with both - or
either of the methods. But I will say that by "perfect conditions", I
meant a subject that would not challenge the limits (lighting, DR,
etc.) of either medium in any way. There are some objective measures
of IQ (color accuracy and so on) that I'm inclined to believe neither
medium would surpass the other in any substantial way. But again, I'm
merely inclined to believe that.

Regardless, film sucks. I gave up on getting the colors right in my
prints. All I got from my efforts was a giant headache. In LR, I can
just bump those sliders along until it looks right. And that
eyedropper thingy is even better...

And not one of my digital files has faded, so there.
  #169  
Old April 23rd 17, 04:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,237
Default Film scanners?

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

that I will stack up against an
equivalent digital print- not a screen image, but an actual
print-on-paper, framed and hanging on the wall.

you will lose.

Show me. I'm in southwest IN, near I64 & I69. Bring some of your 20x24
enlargements and we'll put them next to mine.


completely meaningless comparison.

the proper comparison is to have everything matched except for the
variable you wish to test, which in this case is film/digital.

that means the same photographer shooting the same subject in the same
lighting with the same camera settings using similar equipment (same
format size, same lenses if possible, etc.), one being film and the
other digital.

it does *not* mean different photographers shooting different subjects
under different lighting conditions with different cameras, lenses and
settings.

OK, we can do that test if you want. Last weekend of June meet me on
PA74 at the top of the Tuscarora Mountain in south central Pennsylvania.
Bring a 24X telephoto and a very good tripod. I'll be using a Canon
1200mm f/11 on a Sanford & Davis tripod.
From there we can go down to the Juniata River and shoot on the Canal
walk. A wide angle would be good, 35mm or 28mm.
Finished comparisons will be based on wall-sized enlargements 16"x20" or
larger. Prints from negatives will be optically printed.


*whoooooooooooooooooosh*
  #170  
Old April 23rd 17, 04:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,032
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-23 02:43:30 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:26:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-22 08:21:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

I wouldn't argue with any of that but this guy is saying that it must
be done in the camera or not at all.


Agreed.
That is a silly position to take, particularly since most shooters are
looking for more than SOOC Acros simulations. I am.

My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a
processor outside the camera can do it
equally well.


One would think that, and I have been trying to do that ever since the
Fuji PR machine hyped the Acros in-camera simulation with the release
of the X-Pro2, with the X-Trans III sensor and the new X-Processor Pro.
My X-E2 does not have said processor, so I was only able to work with
the in-camera Acros simulation once I got my X-T2. Up until then I got
some pretty good results using Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, and NIK
Silver Efex Pro.

The Camera profiles in LR are camera specific, so Acros was not
available for the X-E2 in LR. It is for the X-T2, so I have only been
able to make that comparison over the last 10 days. The best of the
third party emulations has been Exposure X2. However, when compared
with the X-T2 SOOC rendering, there is a palpable difference which I
have not been able to match, and even though I say so myself, I am not
totally incapable when it comes to working with the software available
to me. While the differences are subtle, I have yet to manage a tweak
in any software to match the X-T2 SOOC in-camera Acros.

I am sure that nospam, and perhaps even you could show me just how to
do it, but I don't see you buying an X-series camera anytime soon, and
I don't anticipate nospam showing us any results.

All it needs is the right programming.


...and that might well be where the difference lies since Fujifilm is
using a proprietary processor and proprietary algorithm. It is one of
their films after all.


Yes, but... I'm not arguing about this, but does the in camera
emulation give you the results you like more than the others, or is it
really more accurate? If you believe it's more accurate, what is there
left to base that on? I have to assume you are not doing side by side
comparisons, and are working from memory. Even if you have more or
less recent film prints, they would be samples, and not the final word
on what those film prints all looked like.


Actually I can make side-by-side comparisons for the various digital
images. It has nothing to do with accuracy, and this for me is only
with regard to the in-camera Acros simulation. As far as comparing with
prints from actual Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros film goes, I have never
used it. Back in B&W film days I was a Tri-X shooter.

When it comes to making the digital comparison there is a quality and
character to the SOOC image in tone and grain (and you can set three
levels of grain which is reactive to the camera's exposure settings) a
quality which is not present in the third party simulations. As I have
said, I can get pretty close with Exposure X2, but it is not quite
there.

I can understand that logic and common sense says that if Acros can be
simulated by one processor, it should be a simple matter to replicate
that with third party software on an external computer. I own and use
most of the software capable of the task, and quiite simply I have not
been able to match the job done in-camera.

I would eventually like somebody in this group, other than the usual
opinionators who don't use the Fujifilm cameras, or appropriate
software, to see for themselves, and report back, to be able to voice
their opinion. I am probably flogging a dead horse here since I don't
believe there is another owner of an X-Pro2, X-T2, X-T20, or X100F in
this group yet.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




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
film scanners James[_3_] In The Darkroom 0 October 8th 09 08:37 AM
Film Scanners Stephen[_2_] Digital Photography 1 July 10th 09 07:56 PM
Film scanners anyone? Ted Gibson Digital Photography 15 January 8th 08 03:31 AM
Film Scanners Gel Digital Photography 20 February 21st 05 12:25 AM
M/F film scanners - again? Rod Medium Format Photography Equipment 17 May 31st 04 04:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.