Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi, Ian. Do you detect a difference between the phrases "Most of which" and "All of which?" "Most" implies "not all."

However: certainly sharpening can be applied to the raw-data image the scanner captures - before it is converted to the output TIFF or whatever format you ask it to deposit onto your computer. Just as some manufacturers (Canon e.g.) have been known to sharpen their "raw" camera files. Not really any different than applying in-camera "noise reduction" to a raw or .DNG file (which Leica does for long exposures, along with virtually everyone else).

The idea that "raw" equals "unprocessed" has been antique and naive since at least 2006 (when Leica definitely "processed" M8 .DNGs in-camera to remove cyan vignetting when IR filters were used - the whole "6-bit coding" thing - before writing them to the SD card).

I don't happen to use "during-scan" sharpening myself (Photoshop's filters are more flexible and IMHO use better algorithms) - I simply pointed out it is often an option in the various scanner softwares (Vuescan offers it, so did Nikon and my long-unsupported original Epson software).

I do like to set black-point, white-point, and rough color balance (minimize "Ektar blue shadows," for example, or green-cyan highlights with most color neg film) before clicking the scan button. It means I get 16-bits of corrected data, rather than 16-bits of uncorrected data, which then has to be clipped and massaged with additional post-processing and probably ends up as about 10 bits. Why waste 6 bits of the scanner's capability (especially since it often can't achieve full use of the 16-bit "envelope" anyway)?

I mean, with a digital camera (which is all a scanner is - see Leica S1 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/Leica-S1.jsp ) - would you just accept any exposure the camera produced, and then straighten it out in post-processing - or try to get the best possible original exposure (getting the fullest tonal range available without clipping highlights or shadows) to start with?

Edited by adan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am ‎07‎.‎01‎.‎2019 um 16:33 schrieb Mark II:

Here are two colour examples: can you tell which is film and which is digital? And would it really make a difference even if you could?

(please excuse the subject matter/framing!)

For me hard to tell in this case. BUT: What does it tell us that you tried to reproduce the film look with digital postprocessing?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Limitations in art are important if our images reflect the specific limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Both and at the time I have 3 cameras loaded with films (M6 /Blad / X-Pan ) and a Leica m8.2  ready to go as well. 

I always find it fun to take a film camera into the hand. Digital or Film they are both two concepts well fitting into photography.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 7:43 AM, Mark II said:

And two crops of the two cable cars.

I found the exercise a bit sobering, but still useful given that I will be without my M7 for some time while it is under repair...

AH Barcelona!

I can tell from your crop (but not from full pic since they are too small). Film grain is not uniform everywhere. For negative film the dark areas have less grain (see bottom surface of the car). Anyway the affect is minimal and doesn't matter in normal prints. However people do like film grain and that is why PP software do provide them. I agree that digital is more flexible this way. However, digital encourages people to go overboard with processing and I am kind of getting sick of heavily processed landscapes. I have been there myself. You can call it a backlash against digital but I do tend to like my film outcome even if they have less details and are grainy.

Now color is a different beast. With digital I always struggled with sunset/sunrise sky and skin color. You can get it right but it is always struggle to me. With film I don't have to bother as long as I have the right film and plenty of light. Not to say that film is reflecting reality correctly (probably not), but it is just that I like the way I get from my Ektar and Portras.
 

Edited by jmahto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 10:33 AM, Mark II said:

Here are two colour examples: can you tell which is film and which is digital? And would it really make a difference even if you could?

(please excuse the subject matter/framing!)

Yes, which one is film and which one is from digital: 

 

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Yes, which one is film and which one is from digital: 

 

 

:)

Nothing I can't replicate with pencil and paper! :D

Seriously, I won't bother about the question. I simply like it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, tom0511 said:

For me hard to tell in this case. BUT: What does it tell us that you tried to reproduce the film look with digital postprocessing?

I have been investigating colour film for a new project that would mix 80's style shots (hence the Gold 200) with modern cell-phone images. However, with the M7 in need of a full service I wanted to understand if it was worth waiting, finding another camera, or whether I should just go ahead and shoot on digital and process as if it was film.

I am still undecided, but may end up going the digital route mainly because I do not really like the colours from the Gold 200 - and my usual colour films (Ektar and Portra) look too modern compared to actual scans of films I took in the 80's. The main reason for avoiding digital would be "authenticity", but if no one can tell then what does that mean anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark II said:

The main reason for avoiding digital would be "authenticity", but if no one can tell then what does that mean anyway?

Good question. We might have to hash-out what we mean by "authenticity" but later.

If no one can tell on a monitor or print, then the answer is itself. It does not matter. No?

Edited by pico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mark II said:

I have been investigating colour film for a new project that would mix 80's style shots (hence the Gold 200) with modern cell-phone images. However, with the M7 in need of a full service I wanted to understand if it was worth waiting, finding another camera, or whether I should just go ahead and shoot on digital and process as if it was film.

I am still undecided, but may end up going the digital route mainly because I do not really like the colours from the Gold 200 - and my usual colour films (Ektar and Portra) look too modern compared to actual scans of films I took in the 80's. The main reason for avoiding digital would be "authenticity", but if no one can tell then what does that mean anyway?

I prefer the look of Ultramax 400 (same as Gold 400? I don’t know). Nice old school color palette and just the right amount of grain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mark II said:

I have been investigating colour film for a new project that would mix 80's style shots (hence the Gold 200) with modern cell-phone images. However, with the M7 in need of a full service I wanted to understand if it was worth waiting, finding another camera, or whether I should just go ahead and shoot on digital and process as if it was film.

I am still undecided, but may end up going the digital route mainly because I do not really like the colours from the Gold 200 - and my usual colour films (Ektar and Portra) look too modern compared to actual scans of films I took in the 80's. The main reason for avoiding digital would be "authenticity", but if no one can tell then what does that mean anyway?

Current Gold 200 is iteration #8 or something. It has nothing to do with eighties. 

If you want to match eighties why not to use simple P&S or Lomo LC-A.

You can't shoot digital and process as if it was film.  This is why I use Gold 200. It is last C-41 film available off the shelf where I'm.

""No one can tell" is very personal. Some of us use film because we could feel the difference in the process :)

 

Kodak Gold 200. Non Leica RF and non Leica RF lens.

 

Edited by Ko.Fe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it - amusing - that anyone would think film type - or even film vs. digital, would somehow imply some "decade." As if a decade had a "look" photographically. I think this mostly amounts to "fantasy nostalgia" - "fantasy" because it is nostalgia from people who possibly didn't even experience those decades.

Here (over two posts) are four of my pictures, one each from the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s, and the 2000s. Let's see who can assign each one its correct decade - based on image characteristics (or anything else - one even includes a calendar). For extra credit, tell me if the "2000s" picture was film or digital. For extra-extra credit, identify the films used.

Picture W

 

Picture X

Edited by adan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - which is exactly my point.

Could have been 1980s (or 1960s), could have been last week. Could be iPhone with grain and other manipulations added (although probably not - DoF is natural-looking). It is "dated" 2018  - but that may just be the scanning date, or the posting date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, adan said:

Could be iPhone with grain and other manipulations added (although probably not - DoF is natural-looking).

Main reason why I stuck with film is because, no iPhone could do, not even Monochrome. BW film is different. I'd rather take color on digital CCD and low ISO, instead of crappy  (IMO) Fuji Film, but here is no alternative for BW film. Emulation, for sure, but still different.

Hey, are you looking via phone? Because if any picture is observed via phone or tablet, here is no point to have talks like this. I only look at pictures via desktop PC with dedicated graphic card. If I look at pictures on the phone, it is all Instagram to me. :) 

Edited by Ko.Fe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×