Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: marcmccalmont on November 15, 2011, 02:52:23 pm
-
Michael
Thank You for the sanity check! For years I have used DxO optics Pro as my primary Raw converter for DSLR's and have tried many versions of the film packs.
I never cared for the result and always returned to just the default setting "RAW Factory RGB Body"" conversion with adjustments to my taste.
Marc
-
DxO seems to have done a pretty thorough job - but is something still missing? Many devotees of film praise its tonal range as having that je-ne-sais-quoi that digital lacks.
I'm assuming colorimetric measurements includes comparisons of overall film tonal curves, but might it be reasonable to assume that you need to start with a digital camera that has a greater tonal range than the film you're trying to emulate? Otherwise, you're just restricting your digital image's color range, adding grain, and still not getting that je-ne-sais-quoi.
Oh, and how about a fourth category of photographers vis-a-vis film? There are those who have shot film, discovered also digital, but after making comparisons, decided their film results (and maybe even the process of working with film cameras) are more successful in expressing their particular artistic vision. Maybe Film Pack is ideal for those who encounter a scene, and realize they should have brought their film camera. ;)
-
Oh, and how about a fourth category of photographers vis-a-vis film? There are those who have shot film, discovered also digital, but after making comparisons, decided their film results (and maybe even the process of working with film cameras) are more successful in expressing their particular artistic vision. Maybe Film Pack is ideal for those who encounter a scene, and realize they should have brought their film camera. ;)
So does that make those that are using LF and are waiting for an affordable digital solution that has at least equal resolution to scans a fifth group?
-
So does that make those that are using LF and are waiting for an affordable digital solution that has at least equal resolution to scans a fifth group?
Hmmm - that group could use DxO unFilm Pack...
-
So does that make those that are using LF and are waiting for an affordable digital solution that has at least equal resolution to scans a fifth group?
Yep, I propose we call them "learn-how-to-stitch-and-you'll-soon-outdo-8x10-my-friend-" group. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"A stitch in time saves nine?"
-
Yep, I propose we call them "learn-how-to-stitch-and-you'll-soon-outdo-8x10-my-friend-" group. :)
I haven't tried, but I'd imagine stitching a portrait would be a fool's errand :P
There's more to film (and photography) than resolution.
-
Here is another product idea. Much more useful would be a reverse film plug-in.
A program that would take some of the old film scans and convert them into properly corrected and balanced digital images.
-
Here is another product idea. Much more useful would be a reverse film plug-in.
A program that would take some of the old film scans and convert them into properly corrected and balanced digital images.
Now that one I might be able to use! I could first run my digital images through DxO Film Pack to convert them to, say Velvia, and then run your new plugin to convert back to an optimized digital image. I can see that saving me several steps in Lightroom. ;)
Actually, I got the first version of DxO Film Pack (I think it came free with an earlier version of DxO), and decided to wait until I had an image that really wanted a "film look." I'm still waiting...
Eric
-
The review made me laugh. If this were Digital Photography Review, the "Conclusion" would be, "Good emulation of film, if you're enough of an idiot to want that."
-
The review made me laugh. If this were Digital Photography Review, the "Conclusion" would be, "Good emulation of film, if you're enough of an idiot to want that."
Well, clearly it's not film makers who pay the bills around here ;)
-
Yep, I propose we call them "learn-how-to-stitch-and-you'll-soon-outdo-8x10-my-friend-" group. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
this one was maybe 9 p45+ frames stitched!
Marc
-
I haven't tried, but I'd imagine stitching a portrait would be a fool's errand :P
Stitched portraits can be very creative! :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
From the DxO Film Pack "report":
Well then, how about the "look" of film? Oh, you mean the grain? Or, do you mean the fixed palette that each particular emulsion offered and which took a great many rolls and many hundreds if not thousands of dollars in stock and processing to become familiar with. And, then when you really thought that you had a handle on the differences between Provia and Velvia, or Ilford Pan X and Agfa APX, you found that you had the wrong roll in the camera for the shot waiting in front of you.
This has to be one of the most asinine statements I have ever read on any website.
If it really took Michael "hundreds if not thousands of dollars in stock and processing to become familiar with" a particular film, it is clear he never knew what he was doing in the first place.
Then there's this little gem:
My second impression is to once again confirm how truly poor film based imaging is / was compared to todays' digital capture.
Michael might as well remove all reference to anything film from the website since he is so enthralled with digital capture. In fact, I challenge him to do so.
-
Michael might as well remove all reference to anything film from the website since he is so enthralled with digital capture. In fact, I challenge him to do so.
Michael's preference to digital is well-documented, and he has been pretty clear about that bias.
For those looking for film discussion, largeformatphotography.info forums are a great place, although it's only for LF.
-
Then he should remove any and all film info, plain and simple. Get an early start on the LuLa spring cleaning.
And yes, I am quite familiar with the LF info website. Great stuff.
-
I have no desire to debate the point. Film was what it was, but simply loses out to contemporary digital image capture in absolutely every respect.
I also don't know a single serious photographer, either commercial or fine art, who still shoots film, except in special circumstances.
Michael
Ps: If anyone, back in the days of film, was able to really become familiar with the tonal and palette characteristics of a particular colour film without shooting 50 or 100 rolls, then they simply hadn't spent enough time and money. Dissing me for the inverse simply shows a lack of appreciation of the subtleties that were involved with working with film in anything other than a casual hobbyist basis.
Film still has a place if one enjoys the process and materials. But I know of absolutely no one that thinks that there is any aspect of image quality, convenience, or cost where film is superior to good contemporary digital.
-
Likewise, I have no desire to debate film vs. digital with you, Michael.
However, to make such an absurd claim that those who still shoot film are not serious photographers, shows not only a complete lack of understanding of the art market, but arrogance and ignorance to boot.
You've drawn a line in the sand. Now go the extra step and remove all traces of your film past. Remove any film-related content from this website. You've gone digital, isn't it time the Luminous Landscape does the same?
-
I also don't know a single serious photographer, either commercial or fine art, who still shoots film, except in special circumstances.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of people on LF forums I mentioned earlier who would consider themselves serious photographers.
-
There are hundreds, if not thousands of people on LF forums I mentioned earlier who would consider themselves serious photographers.
I guess Michael doesn't consider any of those folks serious photographers, or any of these folks, either:
Jonathan Canlas
Ryan Muirhead
Alec Soth
Alex Wall
Brian Finke
Paolo Marchesi
Amanda Friedman
Simon Watson
Finn Ohara
Jose Mandojana
Michael Sugrue
Jeff Lipsky
David Lauridsen
Bryce Duffy
Bruce Percy
Tim Parkin
David Ward
Jerry Uelsman
Albert Watson
Christopher Burkett
Michael Fatali
Michael Gordon
Nevada Weir
David Bailey
Richard Childs
Iain Sarjeant
Dav Thomas
Dan Baumbach
Melanie Foster
Jon Brock
Nigel Haliwell
Ross Brown
Peter Watson
Makes me wonder how many of these folks consider Michael Reichmann a serious photographer?