Homemade method of simulating FILM with Leica M9 - Testers & feedback welcome!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Umm.. Doesn’t the word “simulating” mean that one is mimicking by using a completely different process? You are confusing this with ”copying “

The same with “ mathematical conversion“ This means that you are altering one mathematical function to another one which is different from the original expression but produces a similar end result. 
BTW slide film responds the same way that digital does. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[FarbSpieler]

23 hours ago, jaapv said:

Umm.. Doesn’t the word “simulating” mean that one is mimicking by using a completely different process? You are confusing this with ”copying “

You’re right that “simulation” implies mimicking a process rather than reproducing it outright. My concern isn’t with the term itself but with how it’s applied here.

The original post describes this approach as “based on simulating the chemical process,” which suggests simulating complex photochemical interactions using software.

If the actual method involves just applying LUTs and gamma rather than replicating or modelling these chemical interactions, it would be clearer to describe it as an "emulation of the results", rather than a simulation of the chemical process itself. This distinction isn’t just semantic—it’s critical for maintaining integrity and setting accurate expectations.

[jaapv]

I don’t know how the process works, but I could imagine creating curves. 

[250swb]

I think the language has already been messed around to the extent there is no going back but there are subtleties to both simulate and emulate.

But back in-the-day when this thread started all the commercial and free software that was available to do a similar job as I recall used the word emulate. So a potential owner could emulate going to the shops for a software package and when decided simulate somebody with better things to do than look at 'ERROR' messages.

[camalogica]

On 12/14/2024 at 1:14 PM, FarbSpieler said:

How does his method account for these differences in the fundamental capture processes?

Well, it's a "simulation/emulation" of chemical process depending on estimated light incoming into the camera for one pixel. (and film spectrum response for that wavelength).

In the end it's not very different from a LUT, but the process of obtaining that LUT is a total new approach.

In my free time I'm working in a "kinda slider customization" GUI to make it easier to use for everyone.

I'm triying to make it compatible with OSX, but since it doesn't support latests OpenGL natively (apple dropped OpenGL support long ago) it's taking a little bit longer than expected.

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!

Will let you know whenever I have something "usable" so the community can profit out of this 🙂

Kind regards!

Edited December 19, 2024 by camalogica

[camalogica]

Another example:

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!

[FarbSpieler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/19/2024 at 12:46 PM, camalogica said:

"simulation/emulation" of chemical process depending on estimated light incoming into the camera for one pixel. (and film spectrum response for that wavelength)

Thank you for the clarification! 
But isn't it fancy wording for "applying a LUT and gamma"? Or is it something else?

On 12/19/2024 at 12:46 PM, camalogica said:

In the end it's not very different from a LUT, but the process of obtaining that LUT is a total new approach.

The sliders in the screenshot look pretty standard to me, they are just WB, contrast and gamma. I might be wrong, but nothing hints at "simulating the chemical process." 

I am just wondering, how this approach is different from what RNI does in their All Films 5, or what DXO was trying to do earlier?

[camalogica]

On 12/22/2024 at 12:52 PM, FarbSpieler said:

The sliders in the screenshot look pretty standard to me, they are just WB, contrast and gamma. I might be wrong, but nothing hints at "simulating the chemical process." 

The process is:

Calibrated camera + chemical simulation => simulated film negative

Then, the sliders are for "developing" this simulated negative.

"simulating the chemical process". is done in the first step of the process.

The biggest drawback of all of this approach is the calibration of the camera, so it only works for one camera (the one calibrated).

 

On 12/22/2024 at 12:52 PM, FarbSpieler said:

I am just wondering, how this approach is different from what RNI does in their All Films 5, or what DXO was trying to do earlier?

It has nothing to do.

This is a totally different approach.

What I'm trying to do with the sliders GUI is to make it MUCH easier to use, so it's not a console program, for average user.

I hope the following image explains it a bit more.

LEFT SIDE PHOTOS (top to bottom): Original DNG, "chemical simulation" applied, negative + sliders

RIGHT SIDE PHOTOS (top to bottom): Same photo, made with film, same lens and equivalent camera scanned. Then the photo with negative + same sliders applied as in the left side.

 

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!

Kind regards

[FarbSpieler]

On 1/9/2025 at 10:04 AM, camalogica said:

Calibrated camera + chemical simulation => simulated film negative

Strangely, you're evading answering the same question again and again.
What is this mysterious "chemical simulation"?
Is it "applying a LUT" or something else? 
 

On 1/9/2025 at 10:04 AM, camalogica said:

This is a totally different approach

So how is it "totally" different from other film emulations that all use camera profiles, LUTs and gamma curves?
 

On 1/9/2025 at 10:04 AM, camalogica said:

What I'm trying to do with the sliders GUI is to make it MUCH easier to use

Much easier than RNI or DXO? How so?
Both work in one click, both have GUI and sliders.
I might be missing something but I still don't get it 🤔

[camalogica]

On 1/11/2025 at 12:07 PM, FarbSpieler said:

Strangely, you're evading answering the same question again and again.
What is this mysterious "chemical simulation"?

I already answered a few post ago. Sorry if you missed it or just didn't understanded it.

Well, it's a "simulation/emulation" of chemical process depending on estimated light incoming into the camera for one pixel. (and film spectrum response for that wavelength).

Not entering into technical details of how it's done because it's not my goal here. But, believe it or not, it's a simulation of simplified chemical reaction happening in film when interacting with a certain spectrum of light, at pixel level.

 

On 1/11/2025 at 12:07 PM, FarbSpieler said:

Much easier than RNI or DXO? How so?
Both work in one click, both have GUI and sliders.
I might be missing something but I still don't get it 🤔

Much easier to use than the console application I released a few years back. I never tried to compare my approach to RNI or DXO because they work totally different.

BTW: This is free to use and I'm only looking for people to test it, and to share results/experiences.

Don't know what are you looking for here apart from trolling.

If you like it feel free to use it and share your experiences, if not, nobody (of course not me) is pushing you to use it / share your thoughts about the results.

Keep trolling if you want, I really don't care that much.

Kind regards.

Edited January 12 by camalogica

[250swb]

On 1/9/2025 at 10:04 AM, camalogica said:

The process is:

Calibrated camera + chemical simulation => simulated film negative

 

 

But that is what the Nik Suite, (now known as the Nik Collection via DxO) was doing since it was free software from Google all the way back in 2009. They scanned different film stocks, made presets users could choose, and allowed easy adjustment of them using the technology they'd previously developed for Nikon. Now DxO have taken it over it's no longer free, but Silver Efex (B&W) and Color Efex (colour) are still being developed as is the entirety of the rest of the software package.  

[camalogica]

9 hours ago, 250swb said:

But that is what the Nik Suite, (now known as the Nik Collection via DxO) was doing since it was free software from Google all the way back in 2009. 

Not really.

I used all of this film emulation programs in the past and the approach is totally different.

They are not taking into account any kind of spectrum response.

They are just doing some kind of ICC profile for each camera and film stock. Which gives acceptable results, but not exactly the same as film.

My approach is not perfect, because there are some differences with real film. But it's the closest I've been able to be to real film.

Probably with DXO you are able to reach something close to film with tweaking the curves.

With my approach the output of the program is quite close to a real film scan for the same photo done under the same conditions. As seen in the photo above.

Then tweaking can be done. Just like in any program like DXO or similar.

Regards.

Edited January 13 by camalogica

[FarbSpieler]

On 1/12/2025 at 8:54 PM, 250swb said:

But that is what the Nik Suite, (now known as the Nik Collection via DxO) was doing since it was free software from Google all the way back in 2009. They scanned different film stocks, made presets users could choose, and allowed easy adjustment of them using the technology they'd previously developed for Nikon. Now DxO have taken it over it's no longer free, but Silver Efex (B&W) and Color Efex (colour) are still being developed as is the entirety of the rest of the software package.  

From what I can see, this seems closer to what RNI is doing with their All Films 5 pack. That said, the author’s use of gobbledygook like “simulating the chemical process” [which means applying a LUT] and “film spectrum response” [not an actual term in film photography, just some BS] doesn’t really help their case.

DXO used to handle this more like classic Lightroom presets, tweaking the DXO RAW engine’s sliders and curves to create film-like looks. RNI, on the other hand, does something you can’t do with Lr RAW engine alone. They actually scan real film, build a profile using their own software, and then stick that profile between Lr's RAW conversion and adjustments. The result is a real film look [well, as real as you can get with the limited data from the sensor], yet profiled to your camera.

[250swb]

16 minutes ago, FarbSpieler said:

From what I can see, this seems closer to what RNI is doing with their All Films 5 pack. That said, the author’s use of gobbledygook like “simulating the chemical process” [which means applying a LUT] and “film spectrum response” [not an actual term in film photography, just some BS] doesn’t really help their case.

DXO used to handle this more like classic Lightroom presets, tweaking the DXO RAW engine’s sliders and curves to create film-like looks. RNI, on the other hand, does something you can’t do with Lr RAW engine alone. They actually scan real film, build a profile using their own software, and then stick that profile between Lr's RAW conversion and adjustments. The result is a real film look [well, as real as you can get with the limited data from the sensor], yet profiled to your camera.

The Nik Collection or Nik Suite (as was) is not a DxO original product. They bought it in house from Nik who had originally created the editing software for Nikon’s scanner software, and then created standalone editing software that Google took onboard and offered for free. But the presets were from scanned negatives and pre-date by far this home made solution. The difficulty with any preset emulation is the variety of the input images that do not match the ‘profile’ of the preset, so like an image that is already more more saturated than Kodachrome, or already contrasty and grainy than a 3200 ISO film, etc. 

And this is where presets fall down, they still need editing, and even more so they require the user to know what characteristics the film preset is supposed to look like. So basically if the user doesn’t have a knowledge of film already the preset could get lucky and nail the input images, or make a travesty of them and fool the user that the horrible mess is what Kodachrome or Velvia should look like.

[camalogica]

8 hours ago, FarbSpieler said:

“film spectrum response” [not an actual term in film photography, just some BS]

For example:

HP5 specs file.

Spectral response to tungsten light.

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!

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1903/product/691/&ved=2ahUKEwjHx6HJ-IqLAxVqcKQEHf_MFq8QFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Qlr7EVW9LBNz8LT_KBQhh

[snitsig]

I'm really interested in your smart litte program. I've tried to get it running on my M1 MacBook Pro, but unfortunately I'm failing. As I'm still a bit new to MacOS, the reason could likely be me 😉 

(instead of *user* I put in my username):

User@MacBookPro ~ % /Users/*user*Downloads/m9tofilm/m9tofilm_osx_arm64 -i "/Users/*user*/Downloads/m9tofilm/Bild"

zsh: segmentation fault  /Users/*user*/Downloads/m9tofilm/m9tofilm_osx_arm64 -i

 

Would be super nice if you could give me an advise 🙏

[lebanese blonde]

I d haven‘t read the whole thread but your examples are looking very good!

Gonna bookmark this thread and read it later because it looks very interesting