Csacwp Posted October 31, 2017 Share #1 Posted October 31, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I used to only shoot Kodachrome and miss it dearly. I'm trying to get by with digital and am currently shooting an SL with my M lenses. I use RNI presets for Capture One... I find that the Kodachrome presets are useful for getting somewhat near to the colors of the film itself, although they are nowhere near perfect. I've started to take more abstract photos, many of whichi feature out of focus or slightly out of focus subjects or elements. Is there any reason why such images would render more pleasingly on film? Technically speaking, an out of focus object is equally out of focus on film and digital, correct? So if I add in some simulated film grain using RNI, the out of focus subject should look nearly identical to how it would on film? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 Hi Csacwp, Take a look here Out of focus rendering question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted October 31, 2017 Share #2 Posted October 31, 2017 Well, of course, the film evangelists will respond that everything "renders more pleasingly on film." Others will say that simulated grain may or may not "look identical" to actual film grain - it just depends on how well the simulation algorithm is written. I've never been persuaded, myself. And simulating relatively grainless Kodachrome, it is more a question of contrast and tone curves and saturation levels and color biases than grain, anyway. The Kodachrome "looks" are easily recognizable long before grain is visible. These are different K200 simulations: https://i2.wp.com/www.lifeafterphotoshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Kodachrome-200.jpg And which Kodachrome? It was a schizophrenic emulsion - very saturated if underexposed a bit, and very pastel if exposed normally or a bit over. And K, KII, K25, K64 and K200 were all a bit (or a lot) different from each other. One Kodachrome - and another Kodachrome - and yet another Kodachrome (K200): http://www.codex99.com/photography/images/kodachrome/kodachrome_1964_lg.jpg https://i1.wp.com/www.pavelkosenko.com/lj/048/37.jpg http://www.barnum-review.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/aaaMACYS-PARADE-65th-1991-copia-2.jpg But as to the question of OOF rendering, mostly you are correct. However, film (especially multi-layer color film) has a "thickness" into which the lens image falls and gets slightly diffused, whereas digital has an infinitely thin "surface". What hits the film or sensor from the lens is identically OOF - but the final image recorded may be slightly softer or harder-edged. May or may not be enough to notice. You'll just have to experiment. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted October 31, 2017 Author Share #3 Posted October 31, 2017 You are of course correct about the different Kodachromes... I used to prefer expired Kodachrome films for the unpredictable ways they would render... stole the idea from Saul Leiter, who I believe is the master of soft focus street photography. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted November 1, 2017 Share #4 Posted November 1, 2017 Everything "renders more pleasingly on film." Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevik Posted January 2, 2018 Share #5 Posted January 2, 2018 Digital like to render nice sharp edges, I can see this being at conflict with anything that doesnt have a defined edge.Also check that your software isnt adding too much sharpening. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted January 3, 2018 Share #6 Posted January 3, 2018 Well, of course, the film evangelists will respond that everything "renders more pleasingly on film." Others will say that simulated grain may or may not "look identical" to actual film grain - it just depends on how well the simulation algorithm is written. I've never been persuaded, myself. And simulating relatively grainless Kodachrome, it is more a question of contrast and tone curves and saturation levels and color biases than grain, anyway. The Kodachrome "looks" are easily recognizable long before grain is visible. These are different K200 simulations: https://i2.wp.com/www.lifeafterphotoshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Kodachrome-200.jpg And which Kodachrome? It was a schizophrenic emulsion - very saturated if underexposed a bit, and very pastel if exposed normally or a bit over. And K, KII, K25, K64 and K200 were all a bit (or a lot) different from each other. One Kodachrome - and another Kodachrome - and yet another Kodachrome (K200): http://www.codex99.com/photography/images/kodachrome/kodachrome_1964_lg.jpg https://i1.wp.com/www.pavelkosenko.com/lj/048/37.jpg http://www.barnum-review.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/aaaMACYS-PARADE-65th-1991-copia-2.jpg But as to the question of OOF rendering, mostly you are correct. However, film (especially multi-layer color film) has a "thickness" into which the lens image falls and gets slightly diffused, whereas digital has an infinitely thin "surface". What hits the film or sensor from the lens is identically OOF - but the final image recorded may be slightly softer or harder-edged. May or may not be enough to notice. You'll just have to experiment. Hello Andy, And don't forget Kodachrome 40. A type "A" film that some people said was the same film as Kodachrome 25. But without its type "A" to Daylight mask. Best Regards, Michael Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.