Eoin Posted July 19, 2008 Share #41 Posted July 19, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) ....If you want film, buy film, work yourself through the darkroom and find a revelation in your eye... and satisfaction in your soul. But I want the convenience to shoot digital and in colour, then if I come across an image that may be improved by rendering as monochrome, I have the tools to do that and add some nostalgia as I see fit. If I were to shoot film I'm locked into the type (colour or B&W), ISO and the emulsion chararistics. It's really a lifestyle choice for me, I gave up my darkroom a long time ago, I can do it all now sitting at my workstation and print various output sizes with ease. The satisfaction is still there without the labour, chemicals, cleanup and long hours in dark places. Of course YMMV Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Hi Eoin, Take a look here Phenomenal new software for B&W processing. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rob_x2004 Posted July 19, 2008 Share #42 Posted July 19, 2008 ... of the Nik software. But $199 for a Black and white conversion is pretty steep. I believe few would argue this point!!! People are spending twenty grand plus on their camera kit / computer / printer it doesnt give them what they want then two hundred is nothing. Cheaper than the paper you will waste and cheaper than framing. So if it means getting a print on the wall... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstotler Posted July 20, 2008 Share #43 Posted July 20, 2008 If you want film, buy film, work yourself through the darkroom and find a revelation in your eye... and satisfaction in your soul. -Christian Point not missed, Christian. Totally valid. But I love staying in a digital workflow, using the Leica lenses, and still squeezing a "genuine" Tri-X look out of some of my shots (the look is what I'm after, not the process)--without having to deal with the darkroom! If the darkroom thing wasn't such a PITA I'd try it. (And I still may.) After years of complaining about digital vs. film and endless debate which is better, after pontificating the merits of digital to everyone only remotely interested, you now consider to fork out hundreds of dollars to bring film-look back to your digital instant-smoothies? YES! It's funny you mentioned cost--hit the nail on the head with that. Consider this, though (I wrote this for another thread): "Hard Costs ------ - Average cost of Tri-X Pan 400, roll of 36: $4. - Development cost per roll: $10 (for a cheap lab) + $3 shipping ($13 total). -- For me $17 from film to 4x6 prints in hand per roll of film shot. Maybe it could be a tad cheaper, but not by much if I'm sending film out. Soft Costs ----- - Add hassle to ship film off. - Add hassle if I choose to self-develop (plus equipment overhead). Nevermind that developing B&W in chemicals (and then making prints) from a bit of experience is about as exciting to me as mowing the lawn. And I'd have to buy equipment, set up a darkroom area, learn a whole new craft, etc. - Always a delay for post-processing. On the order of weeks if I'm shipping film off. - Introduce uncertainty. . . . What if the lab's processing just sucks? - Add hassle for scanning the negs or prints. - Add hassle for post-processing of scans. $300 [is] about the same cost as shooting 18 rolls of B&W film (from roll to print) with *none* of the soft costs." When I finish processing 648 shots I've broken even. (I'm over half-way there now.) But not really. If you figure a film shooting photo "keeper" rate at 1 in 5 (and not 1 for 1), I actually broke even already because I've only had to process the keepers (without shooting whole rolls of film to get them). I'd have to shoot 3,240 shots in B&W to get 648 keepers--that would cost me about $1,500 in film and processing costs. Thanks, Will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 20, 2008 Share #44 Posted July 20, 2008 the Leica lenses, and still squeezing a "genuine" Tri-X look out of some of my shots. these applications do not really get anywhere near a genuine look as the grain may be there but the density and variation is still not there. There is a major difference between a wet print and a digital print and a scanned image presents a better working base than a digital file ........... Nic and AS also have a tendency to negate some of the good work of lenses as well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrizzlie Posted July 21, 2008 Share #45 Posted July 21, 2008 Well, Eoin and Will, if you think that Starbuck's tastes like real Espresso, that your local Red Lobster can emulate the experience of a visit at Chez Panisse... For me, it is all about decelerating to a conscious process. When you can't chimp, are limited to the length, ISO, emulsion, etc. of your roll of film, you tend to think more about your picture. Over time this did not increase the number of "keepers" but reduced the amount of spam I threw at anyone persuaded to flip through my "shots" on a screen or cheap postcard-size prints. In return I found myself more in control of the creative process, created better pictures and presented meaningful results very selectively as a hand-crafted piece. My audience was very thankful and much more impressed than by a 100+ digital slide show. At any rate, I am not against digital at all. I definitely respect your very personal ways and opinions. I'm only a bit amazed by the "wash me but don't get me wet" attitude of trying to emulate film on digital. Please don't take this as an offense. Take a close look at vieri's examples and compare them to Will's brilliantly presented results with the software packs. It's not film - it's digital with a grain-like filter. Campbells can-soup served as a gourmet dish... That's the way I see it, Christian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paga Posted July 21, 2008 Share #46 Posted July 21, 2008 I have a silly question : if one has already paid up to get CS3, what is it that these add-ins bring that could not be done with CS3 directly? As some of the posts above mention it is a lot of money spent on things that an amateur probably needs rarely while with a bit of time it is possible (I think) to do it all from CS3 (which is quite an investment itself by the way). Just wondering, thanks for reading. Paga Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcsang Posted July 21, 2008 Share #47 Posted July 21, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have a silly question : if one has already paid up to get CS3, what is it that these add-ins bring that could not be done with CS3 directly? As some of the posts above mention it is a lot of money spent on things that an amateur probably needs rarely while with a bit of time it is possible (I think) to do it all from CS3 (which is quite an investment itself by the way). Just wondering, thanks for reading. Paga I think these plug ins (no matter which one you "choose" - I did a default comparison in the Digital Forum) only make it "easier" for the end user to create a "similar look" (it will never be the same imho) to a particular film. It can be done in CS3, but it takes a great deal of time playing with various settings such as gausian blur, noise, curves, channel mixer, levels etc. and then you'd have to record the steps into a new action. Of course, you'd have to leave spots in the action to allow for adjustment of the curves, levels, blur, and noise etc. You would also have to be able to emulate, as closely as possible, the look of that particular film. That alone is tough, imho, because you're then introducing a bunch of other variables that are not standardized. Different developers, development times, developer concentrations (i.e. Rodinal 1:100 vs 1:25), not to mention the type of print you'd be looking at (toner/no toner, matte/glossy etc.) all can impact the "look" of a particular film in the final product. Of course, one could also just scan the film into the computer and then see if one could get close using the various settings just mentioned in photoshop but then you introduce variables relating to the scanning of film So.. if you are an amateur, I would concur, it's a lot of coin to shell out when it is possible (although I think a bit more difficult) to match the vast array of B&W films available within CS3. Cheers, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 21, 2008 Share #48 Posted July 21, 2008 {snipped}Take a close look at vieri's examples and compare them to Will's brilliantly presented results with the software packs. It's not film - it's digital with a grain-like filter. Campbells can-soup served as a gourmet dish...{snipped} You only start getting useful or aesthetically pleasing printed output from digital, IMO, when you take the plugins off "autopilot" which is not always possible due to time constraints for jobs. Same goes for film. Grain is interesting in some cases, and not in others. Overall tonality is more important to me, since I don't manipulate noise for effect like some do (and have with film too). But to me, most of the time, "scanned film" looks like junk on-screen to me. Vieri's examples, as wonderful as I'm sure they are, don't look like a print for all kinds of reasons. And your gourmet analogies are great (and I know an espresso from "Charbucks"), except that you assume film is the "real" thing and digital post processing is ersatz--as if film didn't get post processed to make a print Junk soupy mass-developed film for a deadline looks like soupy mass-developed film, and the 1 hour "auto" prints are equally ho-hum. If you spent the time with digital that you do with film, you might be pleasantly surprised But it's true that film forces you to slow down. Me? I don't take pictures any differently with an M8 than I do with an M3, except that I don't worry about colour film balance in mixed light or gelling lights That's the way I see it, using--and loving--both digital and film YMMV Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrizzlie Posted July 21, 2008 Share #49 Posted July 21, 2008 ...But to me, most of the time, "scanned film" looks like junk on-screen to me. ... On screen you are right - look at them printed nicely. That's the only thing that counts for me. ... except that you assume film is the "real" thing and digital post processing is ersatz--as if film didn't get post processed to make a print ... Never meant to say that - I just wanted to point to the fact, that film looks like film and digital with film simulator software looks like digital with film simulator software. ...If you spent the time with digital that you do with film, you might be pleasantly surprised ... I spent and still spend propably as much time with digital as I do with film. Depends on what I want to get. Digital has undisputable strenghts and some weaknesses - just as film has others. I am just amazed about the attempt to digitally revert smooth images to get a "film look". The result of this attempt is what I refer to be fast food vs. gourmet. /Christian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted July 21, 2008 Share #50 Posted July 21, 2008 Hate to throw a pebble in the pool but why should European users be expected to pay over 30% more for the Silverfx software than US users? (US price $199, EU price E199=$314). I suspect fulfilment is still from the US and even if you are argue in VAT it should only be 17.5% more not nearly double that. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 21, 2008 Share #51 Posted July 21, 2008 {snipped}I am just amazed about the attempt to digitally revert smooth images to get a "film look". The result of this attempt is what I refer to be fast food vs. gourmet. That's cool Christian, but a lot of us use "grain software" for the simple reason that it makes the final print actually "print" more convincingly with more subtle visual accuity. Really It also changes the tonality of the output to something that approaches output from film, which is often the goal. Nothing wrong with that. People do the exact same thing with film when they push process or develop with different developers for different grain The fact that grain structures and amounts are more easily (though not necessarily more quickly) controlled digitally is irrelevant, IMO. But the whole "film is gourmet--digital is fast food" analogy is really flawed to me... The point, to me, is not, IOW, to match the look of film per se for me but to get back to the standard curves, tones etc.. that 100+ years of film development made the baseline for imagistic / photographic art. Those in turn came from chemistry and colour chemistry (BW has colour response characteristics) and painting practice, from the way we see things and from different interpretations of the subject (and different films obviously print and display completely differently too). So when I make a BW image, I'm more concerned, for example, that skin tones aren't too light (which they very, very often are from digital because a straight desaturation is too influenced by the red channel and over-magenta, compared with film, all too often). So when I make a final print, within a normal photographic tradition, it has to look, in terms of tone and impact, as good as any other "normal" image-making process, which means it has some way to dodge and burn, to change image qualities exactly the same way I'd do in the darkroom. Not to make it "look like film" in terms of tonality, attention to printed values, and, with colour, in terms of skin tones (for me) is a disservice for me and my customers--unless of course you were using the digial medium / mixed-media, like Imants does, for more expressive artistic purposes. Another way of saying this is to me it's the print that matters, not the process of getting there. And in fact, as I've said, the capture process isn't that different for me (and here is where Leica excels with the DMR and M8), and truly, the post-process is equally arduous with digital as it with film; though I get to walk more in a darkroom (yay); on the other hand I don't have to worry as much about dust and the dog can sit with me when I print So it's just not gourmet vs fast food. That doesn't wash for me. Maybe a better cooking analogy would be well, film is someone who likes to cook with cast iron over a coal fire and digital is someone who likes to cook with gas and stainless steel. Both can give you exceptional results--and you want to arrive at the same dish: comparing one souffle to another produced differently is just fine--but the technology and techniques are truly different. So with the end-goal of souffle in mind, I like to know what post-process do most justice to the dish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcmrc Posted July 21, 2008 Share #52 Posted July 21, 2008 Hate to throw a pebble in the pool but why should European users be expected to pay over 30% more for the Silverfx software than US users? (US price $199, EU price E199=$314). I suspect fulfilment is still from the US and even if you are argue in VAT it should only be 17.5% more not nearly double that. LouisB 100% agree with you Louis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstotler Posted July 22, 2008 Share #53 Posted July 22, 2008 You only start getting useful or aesthetically pleasing printed output from digital, IMO, when you take the plugins off "autopilot" which is not always possible due to time constraints for jobs. Jaime: Thanks for mentioning this bit about taking plugins off "autopilot," because it's really true. In my test shots (page 1) I did stay with "default" settings for the side-by-side comparisons--to show how something could look out of the box with the plug-ins/applications. In practice, I tweak pretty heavily to reduce and skew dynamic range and I select photos that will lend themselves best to this approach. Others: (1) Does anyone else want to contribute some side-by-side comparisons to give people who are interested in B&W plug-ins/applications some additional data to think about? (2) Likewise, anyone want to share specific methodologies/techniques on how they go about performing their workflow--with some samples? Thanks, Will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted July 22, 2008 Share #54 Posted July 22, 2008 I have just downloaded this as a demo (NIK) and am astonished at the degree of control offered. How long will this mean sitting in front of the screen I had just posted a shot in "people" run as "normal" but have added a second run off after a very quick play (10 mins) and profess no expertise in the software, yet, but it is intuitive, no use of Help at all, just playing. I am more than tempted to invest. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/59153-old-new.html#post612154 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 23, 2008 Share #55 Posted July 23, 2008 As I stated before anyone who needs a quick fix, it is a great bnw application and only costs a tank and a half in fuel depending on where one lives Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted July 26, 2008 Share #56 Posted July 26, 2008 For those that are NAPP members, National Association of Photoshop Professionals, there is a $50 discount for a limited time, if purchased through the NAPP website. (I have no idea if this applies to Europe, Australia, India, etc.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac Posted July 26, 2008 Share #57 Posted July 26, 2008 Hello! I saw your post and decided to download the 15-day trial version. I used it on the M8 image below and have to say I'm pretty impressed. Nothing dramatic at all. Luminanz from Lab, gamma slightly increased, shadows slightly cutted off and (standard distributed) noise applyed... Even if luminanz from Yuv is used, there will be only marginal difference in B&W data (looks identically, histogramm differs slightly). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted August 9, 2008 Share #58 Posted August 9, 2008 I'm another convert to using Silver Efex Pro. It's superb b&w rendering and UPoint technology for local adjustment with both Aperture & CS3 have had me printing more B&W images over the last week or so than I have for literally years. This product is nothing short of revolutionary IMHO. In a way I'm rather sad about the results because I'm now considering selling my M7 and giving up on film altogether. I've enjoyed using the M7 solely for B&W but from here on I'll using the M8 full time instead and post processing to B&W using Silver Efex Pro. The results are nothing less than spectacular for me, especially considering the amount of work involved to produce very pleasing results. So it's happy & sad feelings at the same time. I'll miss the mechanical beauty of the M7 but the funds will go towards some more Leica glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.