M8 digital files - can look film like?

[scaryink]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There are many threads claiming that is possible to make the M8 files look like film. Many even praise the M8 as being film like. On the film forum there is a long thread about this issue with many informed members chiming in.

 

I was dubious as to this claim and had a little time to shoot some images while my gf was at class.

 

Here is my attempt at making digital look like film. This time it will be trying to emulate a soft focus lens (my favorite lenses are sf pictorial lenses).

 

I am fairly proficient in the use of digital tools including photoshop and use them daily in digital painting. My gf is a master photoshop teacher at Collins school and possesses the most knowledge of anyone I know. I have had to learn as she bitch slaps me every time I do something either half way or wrong.

 

Here is the setup

 

First image is shot using polaroid 51 (same negative as 55). Cooke PS 945, Arca Swiss. metered at 32 asa f 5.6.

 

M8 estimated for similar dof at f2. 160asa

 

1K fresnel as main (pocket wizard broke).

150W fresnel fill.

 

Initial observations.

 

A big reason that the M8 is lame in the studio is simply due to the wysiwyg issue. Also the lowest iso is a big disadvantage when you are also shooting any larger size film and strobes.

 

A close to 4 stop adjustment is a pain in the rear end.

 

The final M8 adjusted image is not attempting to be the exact same as the film image but rather emulate the look of film with a soft focus lens. The images arent exactly spot on as the M8 was hand held approximating the LF camera. All images were down sampled to 900 pixels before adjustment.

 

The film image was adjusted in initial scan using a creo eversmart pro. Post consiting only of cleaning some marks in the negative using silverfast hdr. No other adjustments.

 

The M8 files were initially processed in C1 pro for conversion to bw. I used the jl(I think thats the name) profile for agfa 25.

 

All post adjustments were in PS.

 

Wacom intuos 15(you can draw right on the screen with a stylus that is pressure sensitive).

 

The post adjustments consist of approx 20 layers - many of them using layer masks in viveza. I have found this tool to be absolutely the most sophisticated layer mask tool on the market.

 

My final conclusion is as follows. For contrast related issues, emulation is possible. For emulation of dof - you can cheap it out. It really isnt the same thing but look for yourself. Perhaps some of you are much better than I. I used dodging, burning, masking, filters grain etc.

 

Adding the fake little edges from the pola 51 negative helps to trick the eye. Its desaturated in the final image. I got tired of playing around.

 

The one thing that I found to be impossible to emulate successfully is the diffusion arising from spherical aberration. I tried different levers of blur and smear as layers and everything I could technically but to no avail.

 

Thoughts?

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[scaryink]

Forgot to add. Lens used on the M8 = Zeiss 50 1.5.

[jaapv]

This one is going to be transferred to the photo forum.

Yes, I think it is quite possible. I have Alien Skin Exposure for the purpose, although I agree that your technique does quite a good job as well. However, I don't do it that often any more, for "artistic" reasons. I feel that it is an attempt to copy, and does not do justice to the different look of real film.

[Jeff S]

For me, having switched recently from film to digital, the proof is still in the print. I can't tell much on a screen, and that's not my primary output anyway. And, a fair amount of my work is b&w. So, my experience is that other variables have as much or more influence on the final results...papers, profiles, inks and such. All I can say is that, for the most part, I've been able to achieve results that are very close...not quite the same. And, often less time and effort is involved compared to the darkroom.

 

Jeff

[luigi bertolotti]

Digital Post Processing is such an immense field of capabilities that, for me, is simply an issue on how one can find the right way, expecially when one searches for the "mood" of film (and not, for instance, the extreme quality that can be achieved from, say, a 8x10" neg properly exposed, processed etc.).

I think the problem is more on the PRINT side : I saw superb bw prints, from digicameras, made with top inkjet printers, proper inks, RIP software etc., but have the idea that SOME combinations paper+chemicals can lead to prints still unmatchable (in terms of specific "flavor") with digital printers. Not, repeat, a problem of "quality" in absolute terms, but of subtle visual impact.

[scaryink]

Well informed points.

[csg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First, thank you for your original post on the three images. Its very interesting to compare them while referencing the information you provided. Second, I'm impressed with the final M8 image: it is very film-like without the heavy-handeness that one finds in some conversions. I'm struggling with this issue right now but in color. While I don't want to mimic film with digital post-processing (otherwise why not shot film?) but I would like to emulate and borrow its look to offer a blended photo.

 

But back to your work: it all looks good, except the dof doesn't really compare. I find a marked difference between the film and the M8. On the other hand if you weren't comparing the photos side-by-side you might get away with it

[Nitrox]

I don't want to spoil your fun and your efforts, but the edited M8-Picture looks very digital. No comparison to the Pola-Shot...

[tobey bilek]

I have a bunch of film Leicas. You can use one if you want the film look.

[Guest joewehry]

The printed M8 files that come closest to my printed film shots are generally:

 

1) shot as JPEG highest resolution (usually I print no larger than 8x12)

2) BW in saturation

3) turn off sharpening

4) set contrast depending on subject or mood (for night I like heavy contrast, during day or portraits, low to standard contrast)

 

5) shooting style hyperfocal and spontaneous

6) correct black and white points for printing

7) print on either matt or glossy depending on subject

 

Generally if I shoot raw and try to convert everything later, it looks too clean. Most of my film shots are "messy", have movement blur and more mood. Additionally, pre-setting the saturation, sharpness and contrast in a JPG format before shooting, trains your eye to consider subjects in a certain way, as if you had loaded a certain kind of film into a camera. This is just one approach as there is nothing wrong with shooting RAW and deciding later how you want to finally present an image.

 

On a side note: Harald Mante just published a book "Photography Unplugged", a collection images, "untouched by digital image editing tools--uncropped and unmodified..." presented as captured on Kodak slide film.

 

Humbling and inspiring when you see what can be done with attention to detail and practice. (His other book, "The Photograph", is a keeper as well.) It would be good training to apply to digital the same kind of commitment one has when capturing an image to slide film.

 

BTW, I agree if you want the look of film, shoot film. In comparison, I suppose there are painters who use acrylics to mimic watercolours, but I bet most just reach for the watercolours that gives them the look they want in the first place. But if it cheers you to try to get the same look from digital, go for it.

 

Best wishes

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

The one thing that I found to be impossible to emulate successfully is the diffusion arising from spherical aberration. I tried different levers of blur and smear as layers and everything I could technically but to no avail.

 

I like all the images, but there's a lot of apple / oranges going on here.

 

I completely and totally agree with you, BTW, on lens aberrations, and especially spherical aberrations. One reason I'm sorry Leica has discontinued the R line is some of the greatness of some of the Mandler-era glass in balancing softness and sharpness.

 

Having said that, I'm not sure much compares with that Cooke, not even the Zeiss That's the biggest difference I see here.