Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

A film 'look' in the near future?

colint544
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Nowhereman

Guest Nowhereman

Posted
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Can it emulate M9 for any other digital camera? If it can, I will give it a try!...

I haven't tried the Cobalt-Image software but the way it works is that you buy a DNG Basic Pack for your camera, say the M10, with which you then run any of the Digital or Film Emulation Packs, which are purchased separately. The DNG Basic Pack has four profiles: STANDARD, NEUTRAL, FLAT, and REPRO.

Among the Digital Packs is the CCD Fever Pack, whose output has the following emulations:

Fuji S5 PRO jpg
Leica M8 jpg
Leica M9 JPG
Leica M9 DNG
Pentax 645D jpg
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Edited by Nowhereman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

ianman
ianman

I think we can get pretty close. But until we have some sort of sensor that can mimic the randomness and structure (meaning distribution and particle size) of silver halide (on every shoot  ) it will

Ouroboros
Ouroboros

A few years ago the washed-out pastel look that Portra 400 can produce (it can also be as punchy and vibrant as Ektar) became very popular with many wedding photographers and a plethora of 'film pack'

Pyrogallol
Pyrogallol

Simple, if you want film look, use film.

Posted Images

Einst_Stein

Einst_Stein

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

I haven't tried the Cobalt-Image software but the way it works is that you buy a DNG Basic Pack for your camera, say the M10, with which you then run any of the Digital or Film Emulation Packs, which are purchased separately. The DNG Basic Pack has four profiles: STANDARD, NEUTRAL, FLAT, and REPRO.

Among the Digital Packs is the CCD Fever Pack, whose output has the following emulations:

Fuji S5 PRO jpg
Leica M8 jpg
Leica M9 JPG
Leica M9 DNG
Pentax 645D jpg
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

I got Leica and Hasselblad mainly for their color science and optical performance. 

You mean it can make any digital camera becomes Leica M9 in IQ?   Superb! Even Leica can't do it!

Hurry, show us some proof!

Edited by Einst_Stein
Link to post
Share on other sites
pippy

pippy

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, ianman said:

...It might be interesting for you to post originals...

...but, in order to be posted here, the orginal film image / print would, itself, need to be digitised..........

:)

Philip.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
benqui

benqui

Posted
Posted

A very interesting discussion! Using film is always a matter of the heart and not the brain. But like many here in the forum, I use the best out of two worlds. If you have a beautiful light, the Portra 400 is really a stunner, it is by far my most beloved color film for portraits. If you use a vintage Leica like the M3 and an old Summilux, it is a joy to use. But of course none of the photos is „better“ as my digital photos, but I feel better. I only print b/w photos at home but not so often as I would like to do. But I never print my Portra photos at home. 

But sometimes you need faster results, and then I use a digital camera. It was a 240 M-P and now a M10-D. It also helps to slow down. Since I love the Portra look, I tried to find it for my digital photos and to be honest, it works very good.

Just an example from an analog and digital shooting, same light conditions, almost similar pose. You don‘t have to make a guess.

The first one is an original Portra 400, the second one is „digital Portra“. Also if you maybe see the slight differences, I like both. 

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!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
benqui

benqui

Posted
Posted (edited)

And the second: for sure you could do some fine tuning to make it even better

As a result I can live in both worlds and just decide according to my needs and mood.

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!

Edited by benqui
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Einst_Stein

Einst_Stein

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, benqui said:

And the second: for sure you could do some fine tuning to make it even better

As a result I can live in both worlds and just decide according to my needs and mood.

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!

To me, the most obvious difference is the skin tone, but it could be due to the difference in the white balance. The first ("film portra") has much whiter clothes, and so the skin tone. 

This is where I find claiming certain "film look" is meaningless since you have to choose the proper negative profile that is largely scanner (and other post processing steps) dependent. Simply grey card reference and simple white balance is far from enough. Using multi-color reference is necessary (but I hate the process). I also find the digital file is usually easier to match the color pallet than the film. I think it's because the film's linearity is far less controllable than the digital. 

Even so, there is another factor, the print paper dependency. For a specific color negative, the final variation is just too wide. Everything else equal, to judge across color negatives I can tell one film is more contrasty or more saturated or finer grain than another, that's all.

It turns out the uncontrollability is what gives the fun. I would stop trying to match one color negatives to another, not to mention to match the digital, or vice versa. (Remember the old claim, saying you can match any two B&W negatives by properly tuning the response curve? huh? )  

If anyone claims he can match his any digital camera to, say, Leica M9, LOL! 

Edited by Einst_Stein
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nowhereman

Guest Nowhereman

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I got Leica and Hasselblad mainly for their color science and optical performance. You mean it can make any digital camera becomes Leica M9 in IQ?   Superb! Even Leica can't do it!
Hurry, show us some proof!

Save your sarcasm and have a look at the links I posted my post #163, which have emulation examples, including that of the M9. As I said, I haven't tried the Cobalt-Image profiles but am just trying to find out if they are indeed better than other such software. 
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Einst_Stein

Einst_Stein

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

Save your sarcasm and have a look at the links I posted my post #163, which have emulation examples, including that of the M9. As I said, I haven't tried the Cobalt-Image profiles but am just trying to find out if they are indeed better than other such software. 
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook 

Try it! Show us the results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ianman

ianman

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, pippy said:

...but, in order to be posted here, the orginal film image / print would, itself, need to be digitised..........

:)

Philip.

 

Yes of course but tbh it's only the digital one made to look like film that I was interested in looking at. I know that my old tech M9 CCD leaves unmistakable digital signs, and I was interested in seeing if the lastest higher res, higher DR manage to remove them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ianman

ianman

Posted
Posted (edited)

Like I wrote, I'm not interested in "film-like flaws", but the digital flaws.

1 hour ago, ianman said:

my old tech M9 CCD leaves unmistakable digital signs, and I was interested in seeing if the lastest higher res, higher DR manage to remove them.

 

Edited by ianman
Link to post
Share on other sites
atournas

atournas

Posted
Posted (edited)

The posts in this thread have been quite interesting.

For me who eventually, after a turbulent period about which medium to shoot with, settled for both, there is more than films and sensors to decide on. For instance, it is the distinctive approach to photography with film cameras, from exposure to composition to finalising the image. It is, also,  the more intimate relationship with the fully mechanical cameras with a long tradition behind.

To the younger photographers here, such factors may sound a bit idiosyncratic, and they are! But I can't help it.

By the way, the light in the photograph in the opening post is magnificent! 

Paul

Edited by atournas
Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted
On 5/30/2021 at 12:36 PM, ianman said:

Like I wrote, I'm not interested in "film-like flaws", but the digital flaws.

 

Yes, I understand that. But.. both film and digital have flaws. As we have 100 years of film behind us, we are trained  to accept, even appreciate them.

As for digital - a couple of decades so they still grate. In future the esthetic appreciation will surely shift. On the other hand, digital is moving to no (perceptible) flaws at all. Whether that is preferable, I seriously doubt. As an example, I prefer my Monochrom M9 over the newer, perfected, iterations of the camera. if truth be told, I prefer it over film.😱

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
evikne

evikne

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, jaapv said:

On the other hand, digital is moving to no (perceptible) flaws at all. Whether that is preferable, I seriously doubt. As an example, I prefer my Monochrom M9 over the newer, perfected, iterations of the camera. if truth be told, I prefer it over film.😱

I hope that in the future there will be a new type of sensors with a more appealing expression than today's CMOS. Something less "digital". We will probably not see a new sensor with appealing "flaws", like the CCD, but I think if something gets even better, it will probably also look more "analog". 

I see something similar with lenses. Older lenses, from the Mandler era and before, look less digital because of their natural flaws. But I also think that when lenses get really good, like the 50 and 35 APO, they also look less harsh than "ordinary" lenses.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
ianman

ianman

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Yes, I understand that

With respect I don't think you do. I was only responding to @Stevens offer to post the unmodified images, and in particular I am interested in seeing the digital one. For the sole purpose, as mentioned previously, to look for the "unmistakable digital signs, and I was interested in seeing if the lastest higher res, higher DR manage to remove them." That's it. I'm not really interested in getting into the futile better debate as that is, has always been and always will be dependant on our individual tastes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Steven said:

It's been a week that everybody is praising the M9 sensor on here. I need to see it with my own eyes. 

 

Actually  was quite surprised. My M9 had lain dormant for a while, and when I started using it again I really appreciated its rendering. 

  • Like 5
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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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