Simulating film using my Q3 43

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But don't forget 'grain'. One of the things characteristic of film is not just that grain is present but it serves a useful function of giving the eye something to key on in areas of minimally detailed tone like skies etc. and so avoiding those bland areas typical of digital files. Also you can represent acutance, or diffusion (the edge sharpness or lack of it around detail) with the Clarity slider in ACR, also called 'Structure' in other software, but it's not to be overdone.

[Pelu2010]

If you really want to go nuts you can scan plain film and add the grain to digital images. 
this looks very different to all digital grain. 

[PeterHatt]

I add grain in Photoshop.

Create a new layer fill with 50% grey.  filter add noise ( vary amount & size ) filter gusssian blurr ( set amount to needs ). You then have really fine control with the layer opacity slider

[pgk]

On 2/1/2025 at 9:42 AM, erl said:

I am genuinely curious as to why digital shooters try to emulate film instead of shooting it.

So am I and not only that, but I am also intrigued that the intent is to emulate something which if simply described in all-encompassing terms 'film' is actually referring to a medum with an extraordinary range of characteristics. Also, if you are trying to emulate 'film' as it was shot with older lenses, then there is also the complex interplay between lens and film characteristics which are also highly variable. I've shot both and I much prefer digital and whilst its relatively easy to mimic the results which may be possible using some films, doing so is far from the same as actually using film even if apparently superficially similar. For a real filmic look its probably a great deal easier to shoot film even if it means processing and scanning it.

[BWColor]

On 2/1/2025 at 1:04 PM, evikne said:

There are many reasons why some people choose to shoot digitally, even if they like the look of film, and I thought this was already thoroughly discussed here on the forum. Personally, I can't afford to buy and develop film, and I prefer the convenience of a digital workflow. But if I could afford it, I'd definitely buy an analog camera and give it a try.

BTW, here's a thread for digital shooters who like to experiment with film looks:

I’ve been of the same mind.  I shot my M6TTL with Portra 160 for the first time in a decade.  Wow.. everything is so expensive.  I nixed the idea of using film..and I had hundreds of rolls of expired frozen film…. I was looking for a camera to take on a three week vacation to South Korea.  So, I purchased a Leica M11 Monochrom and added a few lenses to the dozen in my safe.. along with four unused film cameras.  Then I thought about color, so I purchased a Hasselblad X2D and 25, 38 and 90mm XCD f/2.5 lenses.  The Q3 came out and I thought that looked great, but decided to buy an A7CR and four small lenses.. and repurchased a sold 35mm GM.  Now, the film isn’t looking so expensive.  I too don’t understand buying digital only to want it to look like film.  I understand that many go this route.  I’m careful not to search up the meaning of the word “idiot”.

Edited April 8 by BWColor
ing