Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tom0511

my S has been neglected too long

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is all about how much dynamic range you have. Film naturally have nonlinear response to light, so over expose means the film can handle much wider DR scene without clipping. (But it is nonlinear response means it has no real unlimited DR it gives impression for)
 

given enough DR in digital, you can always underexposure image and bring shadow back, in the mean time to apply nonlinear film simulation on highlight With process to have film look. 
 

Unfortunately, digital has not reach there yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John -- one thing I find myself doing more often than not is to make my own highlight shoulder in lightroom. This usually means after I find a balanced exposure level, and I often pull down the highlight slider and push the white slider back up. The has the effect of taking the majority of highlights down, while still having a true white. In effect, you are increasing the tonal separation in the highlights. This is something you kind of have to do by eye, not something that can be used as a preset. It is a good technique for increasing texture and depth to clouds or white buildings/objects without making them look too grey.

 I also tend to adjust the black and white sliders to control contrast rather than use the contrast slider...I find the separation makes it easier to dial in the correct levels. It is also often helpful to start with a more neutral profile. I tend not to like Adobe's profiles, so I stick with the embedded profile for the S (which is saturated, but lovely). For other cameras I often use the Camera Natural setting. This profile in the Panasonic S1 is fantastic, actually...I have an X100F and often use Fuji's Negative Film Standard as a starting point for those edits. Adobe also has a neutral profile that is very flat and a good starting off point if you plan to do extensive edits. There are no shortage of film look presets, but none of them were all that convincing to me. If you are interested in black and white, the one that got the closest for me was True Grain. I do not like all aspects of it, but if you set the largest film sizes and dial back the grain, turn off their characteristic curve, it can be extremely convincing.

In general, digital behaves a lot more like slide film, only with much greater dynamic range. Negative film has the attribute that ZHNL describes, but slide film is most sensitive to exposure, has the most saturated color etc, but being a transmissive positive, when on a lightbox or projected, it has a life and vibrancy to it that is nearly impossible to reproduce by any other photographic method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1, Stuart, you just saved me a response to ZNHL.

And I agree that each image is different; no fixed set of rules.  The most important tools in photography... shooting or printing; film or digital.... are between the ears.  There is no substitute for a good eye and good judgment.  Anyone can learn techniques, but the hard part is knowing when, where and to what degree to apply those techniques.  That’s why our results aren’t all the same, thankfully.

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree. In the same vein, I have learned so much by working for others...it is one thing learning the techniques to process your own photos, but when you have to work for others and execute THEIR vision, you have to develop a different way of working, which in turn makes it much easier to look at your own work objectively. A decade of working for other artists completely changed my own practice, and I would like to say that it has done so for the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to post here due to the 500kb limit, but I have an instagram where many of my images are located. @stuartrichardsonphotography

My more finished work is at my website. But here is one photo here at least. This is a composite of 3 different photos of a tree, which I took with the 006. It is the same tree photographed from three different sides, then composited together to create a sculpture. I used True Grain to provide a more realistic grain pattern, as I was blending the image in with a lot of 6x7 and 4x5 black and white film images in my book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/11/2019 at 8:27 AM, tom0511 said:

With all that GAS going on....x1d because S was too big, SL because of faster AF and zooms, S1r to have more resolution,.... I just realized that in the end the S has been the one camera which gave me overall the most satisfying results and unser interface overall (viewfinder/simple UI/file quality).

If you read to much in the internet - there is the risk to focus too much on the new toys only, and starting to believe the S is outdated. I think it is not. While I wish body and lenses were smaller, the rendering of the lenses is excellent. Compared to the new SL lenses the S lenses even have a distance scale. While for the big big printers 36MP might not be enough, for my use it is kind of a sweet compromise between 24 and 47 MP.

So what...just got it out of my shelve, put the dust away, loaded the battery, packed my messenger bag with the S007+70+24.

I cant wait to shoot my "new old" camera.

How could I neglect it for such a long time?

 

 

SAME... I'm so tired of the MP wars, I thought they would be OVER... nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2019 at 5:36 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

There is a great photo essay in the New Yorker at the moment that demonstrates how color negative film deals with these highlights. The photographer, Hashem Shakeri, photographed abandoned housing blocks in Iran. The extremely harsh light is tamed by the film...color negative can really take huge amounts of overexposure. The photos are shot high key, so the shadows are extremely open, and the images are bright, fairly flat and retain all their highlight detail. This look is popular in contemporary art photography, and it is very difficult to achieve with digital. I am not sure, but this looks like it was shot on a Mamiya 7 or 4x5...the grain is visible in some images, but it is subtle, and the depth of field and aspect ratio suggest 6x7 or 4x5. Doing this kind of work with digital is quite tricky...I suppose it is possible with a camera like the S or GFX or Phase, but you have a lot of post-processing work to recreate the look, and even then it will be somewhat of an interpretation.

Discussing digital and film we have to reverse our concepts.  In actuality, film is a negative.  So, when we hate blown highlights in a digital image, it is equal to black shadows with no detail in a negative.  This is because a negative is clear to show full black.  If we 'blow' the shadow details, then the negative has a clear patch.  If we get the shadow details, then we have outlines and tones in an otherwise clear section of the negative.

So, the highlights in film are actually black.  I have pulled several stops of detail out in highlights of a negative.  But I have also pulled out 3+ stops of shadow detail from the S007 files.  Highlights in film = Shadows in digital.

This is how we get the saying 'underexpose your digital images and overexpose your film images.'

Someone else talked about comparing the S files to film and there are some images I have with strong morning or evening light from the S007 that remind me of Kodachrome slides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is basically it. But color negative and film in general does not behave identically to digital, only as a negative. There is a bit more going on than that. Think about reciprocity for example, with digital you have more or less a linear response to light throughout the whole range of timescales. Film gets progressively less sensitive with less exposure, the degree to which is drawn in a reciprocity curve. This happens not only for really long exposures, but for very fast ones, which is not something most people compensate for, but is a factor. It is generally only for speeds over 1/1000th of a second, but for shots taken at very high speeds, like 1/8000th, it is a real factor for a number of films. The highlight behavior is similar...digital gets to a certain amount of information and clips...everything after is white. Film does not really do that as easily. It is of course possible to clip with film, but it has an inbuilt shoulder that digital does not have. The closest digital equivalent is slide film, which does indeed blow out the highlights and block up the shadows quite easily if you are not careful. But negative films have more than just a big dynamic range going for them...it is also the naturally compensating highlight curve. I am not sure what is going on chemically to allow for it, but it is there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart, you are correct - digital is linear and film has a curve response - and the response is not identical to digital.  Each has idiosyncrasies that affect the highlight and shadow output.  Film has layers with silver halide grains that are affected by light particles (charged and then developed out).  One of the interesting similarities in my view is the way photons are collected on a digital sensor.  On the shadow side, a few photons can be confused with noise which is similar to the fog or base density of film.  On the highlight side, if one cell has a lot of photons and the cell beside it has one more photon, the camera may or may not distinguish between the tones whereas the shadow side one photon may be a different shade of black or dark grey.

I think film is still ahead of digital, but by much less than in the past. I find with the S007 I can drastically underexpose and image and still pull out the tones nicely.  I.e., I can move up and down the ‘digital curve’ of the sensor.  Having shot the M8, M9, M240, the S007 files have more tones than earlier digitals.  I am a little worried about how the S3 will provide an extra stop in dynamic range.  With smaller cells (6 microns versus 4 microns) the sensor cell holds less photons, so there is less to distinguish between the highlight colors.  I’m sure it is in the tuning of the sensor, but it also means that the dynamic range is based somewhat on noise, which just doesn’t show up easily with 60+ megapixels.

Sorry for rambling...  I probably need to refresh some research on film, but would be an interesting magazine article!

Edited by Outdoorimages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy