Jump to content

Software makes the difference


NZDavid

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What a difference software makes! A few examples below. Of course, there are so many variables, including in-camera adjustment for contrast and saturation, as well as screen calibration.

 

For purity and clean unadulterated images I still like slide film, but scanning adds new variables. Even so, film, still seems to have its own character. Why? What makes it look different?

 

This scene was just to test the camera, so the midday light -- typically extremely contrasty anyway -- is not the best. First one is DNG straight out of the camera, saved as a JPG in Graphic Converter.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I then imported to Lightroom, clicked on Auto tone and changed color balance to daylight.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Next one is JPG from the camera, saved in Graphic Converter, no adjustments.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boosted saturation and contrast in Graphic Converter.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Different time of year, but just as a contrast, here's a film one (E100).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a "film" look you can crank up the white balance on the DNG and then desaturate about 25%. Add about 25% contrast and you will have a very close resemblance to your film image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not exactly the same, but I'll try again in the daytime.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, not sure if this really is any closer to your film example..I added a bit of magenta to the highlights....

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a little, thanks Dan. Main difference seems to be more contrast and saturation for sure, but there's also another factor at work somehow, not quite sure how to define it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I'm not much good at really advance digital manipulation and I think you would have to be a whiz to get really close...The dye layers in the film each add their own tonality.

 

I have been pretty impressed with how good digital black and white looks however. The new LFI has the 35mm pov winners images and some of those look BETTER than film...

 

Best wishes

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest badbob
Agreed. I'm not much good at really advance digital manipulation and I think you would have to be a whiz to get really close...The dye layers in the film each add their own tonality.

I have been pretty impressed with how good digital black and white looks however. The new LFI has the 35mm pov winners images and some of those look BETTER than film...

Best wishes

Dan

 

Ken Rockwell has an article on his site explaining how digital would require about 175 megapixels to replicate everything in a good 35 mm slide. Then again, a 175 mp digital image would look more impressive on average (I think) than a 35 mm slide, but still, the article does bring up some interesting points about color film qualities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of the variance is due to software compared with the photographer using that software. It is amazing the variations I can achieve just within the raw converter. I haven't spent time comparing different converters, but find that Lightroom 2 gives me enormous scope even before finishing a picture in Photoshop CS4.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest badbob
The difference between a comedian and an idiot is that a comedian knows better...

 

If a person is smart, they can read Rockwell and figure it out for themself. The specifics for the 175 mp claim are stated in detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...