Jump to content

B&W conversion: TrueGrain release new version and price drop


Gismoto

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those of you who are interested in B&W conversion: TrueGrain (TrueGrain Overview) has just released a new price (USD 49.95 was 300!!) and added some more film profiles. TG mimics B&W films in great quality and allows many adjustments. There is also a free trial (but one cannot safe the work). TIFF files can be opened directly from LR and also from C1 (select in the "open in" box of the output recipe TG). I use the program since quite some time and really enjoy it. It has a few issues worth to know (EXIF data, such as lens etc. will be omitted and one must remember to hit the "save" button since there is no warning when closing the program) but the results are great IMHO.

 

Cheers,

 

Tobias

 

P.S. I have no relationship with the company and I payed the previous price ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent news. I've thought TG was flying under the radar for some time, and that price was astronomical. That said, though the basic conversions are as good as anybody else's (which is to say, a pretty good starting point), the grain engine is first-rank. $50 hits the mark for me. A must-have.

 

How do you lower the price of your product that severely? What's the catch?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How do you lower the price of your product that severely? What's the catch?

 

I guess that the program just did not sell given the astronomical price that they asked before. Maybe more people get the program with the lower price. I agree that TG performs very well and the adjustment options are great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's a standalone app. You have two choices for workflow: you can do your corrections in whatever, output a TIFF, and bring that into TG for b/w conversion and grain. Then you're done. Or you can do corrections, output a TIFF, bring that into TG for conversion only (turn the grain engine off), back to whatever you like for post-conversion corrections (though there is curves correction in TG) and then back into TG to add the grain, done. Or do the conversion in PS or whatever else you like and just use TG as a grain engine -- which is not crazy, given that it is only $50 now.

 

I believe they're considering the plug-in route. If it was it'd be a no-brainer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's a standalone app. You have two choices for workflow: you can do your corrections in whatever, output a TIFF, and bring that into TG for b/w conversion and grain. Then you're done. Or you can do corrections, output a TIFF, bring that into TG for conversion only (turn the grain engine off), back to whatever you like for post-conversion corrections (though there is curves correction in TG) and then back into TG to add the grain, done. Or do the conversion in PS or whatever else you like and just use TG as a grain engine -- which is not crazy, given that it is only $50 now.

 

I believe they're considering the plug-in route. If it was it'd be a no-brainer.

 

Making it a plug-in would make life easier but I can live with a stand-alone. I'll look into purchasing this. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

on can open a photo from Lightroom (ie, LR produces a TIFF which opens in TG and, when saved, is viewable and editable in LR). One can also do this from C1 Pro if the output file is set to the folder where the RAW files are located (and specify to open in TG in output recipe).

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, someone should play the Bad Guy & I'm really happy to:

 

Please cease & desist from the nefarious practice of trying to make digital images look like film.

 

The plain Grayscale conversion in Photoshop is a careful emulation of the color balance of Plus-X film. To use filters, simply use the BW Conversion Layer for remarkably full control.

 

As to grain, wake up! Digital images don't have any (unless they're scans). What they have is superior tonal transitions (descending into noise, if you don't expose properly). With the M8 these were subtler than with any other camera of comparable sensor & pixel size, because of the absence of an anti-aliasing filter (& of the artifacts that are involved in compensating for its presence).

 

With the M9, this will be even more crucial: the sensor will be capable of smooth tonal transitions unmatched by medium format as we knew it in film days. Introducing retro grain patterns will simply undo a main benefit for which you spent $7K.

 

In my unfiltered opinion (no AA filter), there's something especially illicit & perverse about putting grain patterns into web images, where the 72 ppi resolution keeps them from looking real anyway.

 

I can see how a person who'd worked on an art or commercial project using film might want to wind it up as an integrated submission, converting a few new digital images so they'd look like the older ones. Otherwise I see no extenuating circumstances besides bad taste.

 

So: Repent, all ye who make digital images & want to pretend they aren't. Get with the aesthetic of your own equipment & its era - lest you be turned into a pillar of undisolved sodium hyposulfite.

 

Preacher Kirk

Digital Fundamentalist

 

:)

Edited by thompsonkirk
My grammar is weaker than my opinion
Link to post
Share on other sites

On Kirk's: although I love fiddling with Silver Efex and also love the true grain of yesteryear, I'm also sliding more and more towards the idea that digital B&W is a new proposition, next to film B&W. On screen the grain really only shows when you really lower the amount (which can be horrible) per inch and on print, however carefully done, it just is not the real thing. And why should it be?

 

The (almost philosophical) question is why I / we somehow cannot take that next step and want to keep the old ways as is.

 

Hmmm, interesting thread, some more thinking ahead, no doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Marco -

 

Seriously & without a happy-face emoticon, that's just what I meant. People will of course do whatever they feel like, but the question is worth raising.

 

Why pretend the present is the past? Digital media have their own strengths that are worth exploring - just as HCB, Kertesz, & others lept at the possibilities when Leicas with 35mm film became available to them.

 

As you say, 'I'm also sliding more and more towards the idea that digital B&W is a new proposition, next to film B&W.' If digital imaging isn't just an easy substitute for darkroom photography, then what are its own potentials? If something new is possible, wouldn't a film-imitative approach actually get in its way?

 

Kirk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I'm not young enough. If I was coming of age during the primacy of digital, that would be my reference. But my references are older, so that's what I'm trying to work from, only with the conveniences and advantages (and lower cost) that the new technology brings. I certainly don't expect the ten-year-olds of today to evolve into photogs that are the least bit interested, any more than I care to make daguerreotypes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I'm not young enough. If I was coming of age during the primacy of digital, that would be my reference. But my references are older, so that's what I'm trying to work from, only with the conveniences and advantages (and lower cost) that the new technology brings. I certainly don't expect the ten-year-olds of today to evolve into photogs that are the least bit interested, any more than I care to make daguerreotypes.

 

Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying people who try to achieve the true grainy look through digital processing are wrong. I'm only asking (myself mostly) why I would try to do something that is not a logical part of the process. If I'd shoot film, I could digitalize the image by scanning and so would get grain in a digital capture. But I'm shooting digital and adding grain is somehow not logical: we're doing our utmost to get rid of noise and then enter another kind of noise because it gives us a look as if it was an analogue photo.

 

In my case, I'm trying to step forward to something new, although I don't know exactly what that is. But somehow it would please me when I'd show two photos, one digital in origin and the other film, and a knowledgeable person would see that they are truly two different media. Each with its own quality.

 

Last but not least, I'm happy to see that IF you want to "do grain", better, easier and less costly tools are available. Which brings me back to Tobias' start of this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I am not using TG to add grain but to get the contrast and dynamics of some specific films to enhance a digital capture. I sometimes add grain to get a specific impression but only use a grain strength of 85% or so. So for me the aim is not to reproduce the film look but to use it as a tool to enhance digital capture. Using specific film profiles gives me quite consistent results in creating a picture the way I saw the scene. Luckily, each of us work differently and I love to explore different styles.

 

Cheers,

 

Tobias

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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