Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Black & White => Topic started by: DavidPalermo on December 29, 2016, 06:12:17 pm

Title: Film simulation software...
Post by: DavidPalermo on December 29, 2016, 06:12:17 pm
Hello all and Happy Holidays!

I am lately thinking that digital files are a bit too "sterile" for my taste.  This may pass (may I need to drink more eggnog), but I am exploring tweaking my files to give more of a film quality to them.  There are a few solutions on the market that simulate different film stock.  Do any of you have any experience or opinions about any of these listed below?:

1.  DXO Film Pack 5

2. RNI Films 4.0 Pro

3.  VSCO Film

4.  Silver Efex Pro

There are more but these are the ones I am thinking about.

VSCO and RNI are LightRoom presets so they are non-destructive which is appealing.

VSCO doesn't have a trial version so I cannot test it on my own images ; (

DXO seems to have a very nice grain structure not present in the other offerings.  The other software's grain seems too uniform like PS Noise is.  DXO is more random like real film grain.

I am leaning toward DXO for that reason but I am open to any experiences you may have had with any of the software above.

Thanks!

David
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: hogloff on December 29, 2016, 06:30:50 pm
Silver EFX pro is free so it's very easy to try out for yourself. I use it for my B&W conversions and am pleased with it's abilities and results.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: E.J. Peiker on December 29, 2016, 06:55:56 pm
Silver EFX pro is free so it's very easy to try out for yourself. I use it for my B&W conversions and am pleased with it's abilities and results.
Nik also comes with Analog Effex Pro where you can play with film looks - and it's free.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: DavidPalermo on December 29, 2016, 07:08:42 pm
Update:

I have and use Silver Efex...  I am wondering if Silver Efex has a better engine to produce the look of film over the other programs.  I am sorry, I should have been more clear!  ; (
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: john beardsworth on December 30, 2016, 05:45:32 am
To be frank, I feel film simulation is such a waste of money. That's partly just personal preference, or gut instinct about the creative value of simulating a film you might never have used. And I do wonder how far developers (especially those expensive Lightroom presets) are just fleecing the gullible.

But it's mixed with other doubts that I think are less controversial if you think about the task. Just what is a typical [insert film stock here] look? Can you really define it or bottle this typical look? Really?

If you've ever done B&W in the darkroom you'll know that the same film actually looks very different depending on your processing techniques. Let's put aside how a coloured lens filter would change how the colours are represented as greyscale tones. Consider the developer chemistry - the same film developed in Agfa Rodinal would have very different grain pattern from the same film developed in Ilford Perceptol, for example. On thinking of Rodinal, it produced different grain depending how how dilute it was, and how you agitated the developing tank - eg continuously, x seconds per minute. Then consider the final output, the print. The same negative would look very different depending on which paper you used, which contrast you chose, which developer you used. If these simulations stated something like "PanF in Perceptol 1+20.... printed on Record Rapid grade 3 developed in Neutol WA" - one might be less scathing, but if a software developer is dipping its hand into someone's pocket for a film simulation, doesn't the customer deserve to know that your "FilmX look" is really not as much as it claims?
/rant

Providing you don't invest too much belief in the film simulation's veracity, Silver Efex Pro is a fine program for that task. And free too.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: scyth on December 30, 2016, 09:13:38 am
If you've ever done B&W in the darkroom you'll know that the same film actually looks very different depending on your processing techniques.

it seems that you miss the point that bothers the OP = "DXO seems to have a very nice grain structure not present in the other offerings.  The other software's grain seems too uniform like PS Noise is.  DXO is more random like real film grain. I am leaning toward DXO for that reason " ... it does not matter that same film get different looks ... what matters is that the simulated "grain" still will not be digitally "pseudo-random" there... DxO achieves that by having a database of scanned actual films and using that to generate grain structure, instead of pure math... math may be executed better of course in some other solutions, but it is clearly not the case w/ what the OP tested himself.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: john beardsworth on December 30, 2016, 09:16:05 am
And you seem to miss the point that the thread is titled "film simulation"....
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 30, 2016, 09:57:19 am
it seems that you miss the point that bothers the OP = "DXO seems to have a very nice grain structure not present in the other offerings.  The other software's grain seems too uniform like PS Noise is.  DXO is more random like real film grain. I am leaning toward DXO for that reason " ... it does not matter that same film get different looks ... what matters is that the simulated "grain" still will not be digitally "pseudo-random" there... DxO achieves that by having a database of scanned actual films and using that to generate grain structure, instead of pure math... math may be executed better of course in some other solutions, but it is clearly not the case w/ what the OP tested himself.

If more realistic film grain simulation is wanted, then one should have a look at TrueGrain (https://grubbasoftware.com/). They use actually scanned grain structure at various exposure levels for certain developers and film sizes, and offer additional exposure control for color filters. To me, that looks as close to what can be realistically achieved for a broad choice of films.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: scyth on December 30, 2016, 10:03:30 am
And you seem to miss the point that the thread is titled "film simulation"....

oh dear, the thread is titled "Film simulation software...", not "Film simulation"

and I suggest you to pay attention to the substance of what OP asks, not to the short titles in the future... it pays to avoid looking like Obama.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: scyth on December 30, 2016, 10:04:47 am
If more realistic film grain simulation is wanted, then one should have a look at TrueGrain (https://grubbasoftware.com/). They use actually scanned grain structure at various exposure levels for certain developers and film sizes, and offer additional exposure control for color filters. To me, that looks as close to what can be realistically achieved for a broad choice of films.

Cheers,
Bart

yes, and so does DxO - which is the point... randomize prepared tiles from actual scans or attempt to do pure math.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: john beardsworth on December 30, 2016, 10:33:07 am
oh dear, the thread is titled "Film simulation software...", not "Film simulation"

and I suggest you to pay attention to the substance of what OP asks, not to the short titles in the future... it pays to avoid looking like Obama.

Once a troll, always a troll, no matter how many times it changes its user name...
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: Manoli on December 30, 2016, 12:01:33 pm
If more realistic film grain simulation is wanted, then one should have a look at TrueGrain (https://grubbasoftware.com/). They use actually scanned grain structure at various exposure levels for certain developers and film sizes ...

Actually the first ( and IMO still by far the best) to do this was Alien Skin (http://www.alienskin.com) with their stand-alone/plugin Exposure. It's now been combined with Bokeh and you not only have finely tuned presets and emulations but also fine control over the final look. Attached screenshot. Useful for taking the 'digital out of digital'.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: Herbc on December 30, 2016, 12:04:29 pm
I have used Nik's stuff for years, paid many hundreds of $ for it before Google bought them - Silver EFX is excellent.  The post about rodinal has led me to my sink, on which sits an almost full bottle of Rodinal-time to shoot some film! 8)
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: scyth on December 30, 2016, 12:26:20 pm
Once a troll, always a troll, no matter how many times it changes its user name...

readers can clearly see that you neither capable of comprehending the question OP has nor even simple quote 3 words title :-)
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: john beardsworth on December 30, 2016, 12:39:38 pm
Readers can see you're just trolling. Bye.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: hogloff on December 30, 2016, 01:02:22 pm
Readers can see both of you have no interest in this topic...so buzz off. :-\
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: rdonson on December 30, 2016, 02:53:53 pm
...
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: john beardsworth on December 30, 2016, 03:21:14 pm
Readers can see both of you have no interest in this topic...so buzz off. :-\

Buzz off yourself. See my contribution before the troll....
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: David Sutton on December 30, 2016, 03:55:52 pm
I've used DxO and Silver FX and a few others. I think none of really give a good film simulation and it's probably a waste of time trying.
On the other hand, they all can give some useful digital effects if you want to change the "look" of your files.
To get closer to film you could try buying a Fujifilm camera. The files from the X series really have a different appearance.
Better still, buy a film camera and scan the negatives. I'm serious. I took a couple or 100 year old cameras to the Antarctic along with the usual digital gear.
B&W 120 film is still available, a developing tank is easy to get and use, and a reasonable scanner cheap to buy. Be aware that the scanning process can lift the shadow detail and give the files a digital look, so you may need to apply a curves adjustment afterwards to restore the tone response of film.
David

Edit: Or buy an older lens and adapter:
http://www.ebay.com/bhp/helios-44-2-58mm
http://www.ebay.com/itm/INDUSTAR-22-3-5-50-Russian-Lens-M39-Fed-Leica-Zorki-/331824842235
I have a good copy of the Helios. Unlike some Russian lenses the glass is not radioactive.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: donbga on December 30, 2016, 04:43:14 pm
If more realistic film grain simulation is wanted, then one should have a look at TrueGrain (https://grubbasoftware.com/). They use actually scanned grain structure at various exposure levels for certain developers and film sizes, and offer additional exposure control for color filters. To me, that looks as close to what can be realistically achieved for a broad choice of films.

Cheers,
Bart

+1.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: donbga on December 30, 2016, 04:45:28 pm
I've used DxO and Silver FX and a few others. I think none of really give a good film simulation and it's probably a waste of time trying.
On the other hand, they all can give some useful digital effects if you want to change the "look" of your files.
To get closer to film you could try buying a Fujifilm camera. The files from the X series really have a different appearance.
Better still, buy a film camera and scan the negatives. I'm serious. I took a couple or 100 year old cameras to the Antarctic along with the usual digital gear.
B&W 120 film is still available, a developing tank is easy to get and use, and a reasonable scanner cheap to buy. Be aware that the scanning process can lift the shadow detail and give the files a digital look, so you may need to apply a curves adjustment afterwards to restore the tone response of film.
David

Edit: Or buy an older lens and adapter:
http://www.ebay.com/bhp/helios-44-2-58mm
http://www.ebay.com/itm/INDUSTAR-22-3-5-50-Russian-Lens-M39-Fed-Leica-Zorki-/331824842235
I have a good copy of the Helios. Unlike some Russian lenses the glass is not radioactive.
+1!
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: Schewe on December 31, 2016, 12:26:31 am
Readers can see both of you have no interest in this topic...so buzz off. :-\

Not a particularly useful post with your 12th ever post. Ya might want to spend some time here in the forums before you take on traffic control duties...
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: Schewe on December 31, 2016, 12:40:52 am
I am lately thinking that digital files are a bit too "sterile" for my taste.  This may pass (may I need to drink more eggnog), but I am exploring tweaking my files to give more of a film quality to them.

Exactly what is looking too "sterile"? Tonal range? Lack of texture? Noise reduction making images look plastic? I don't think 3rd party software is necessarily going to offer anything you can't accomplish in Photoshop if you know what you want to accomplish. The 3rd party solutions do offer you the easier chance to try a lot of things if you don't know what you want, but it's kinda a crapshoot. So, what is it you really want?
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: hogloff on December 31, 2016, 09:40:34 am
Not a particularly useful post with your 12th ever post. Ya might want to spend some time here in the forums before you take on traffic control duties...

I've actually been here for years under user chez. I guess you like the personal attack banter that was polluting this thread?
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: Schewe on December 31, 2016, 01:26:19 pm
I've actually been here for years under user chez. I guess you like the personal attack banter that was polluting this thread?

And your post helped how?
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: hogloff on December 31, 2016, 03:31:41 pm
And your post helped how?

By not accepting this type of garbage on the board. If we just let things go...we will be no better than most of the other sites where personal attacks are rampant. If we as a community are vocal...maybe we can keep personal issues out of this site and keep it productive as it is.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: DavidPalermo on December 31, 2016, 04:40:04 pm

Exactly what is looking too "sterile"? Tonal range? Lack of texture? Noise reduction making images look plastic? I don't think 3rd party software is necessarily going to offer anything you can't accomplish in Photoshop if you know what you want to accomplish. The 3rd party solutions do offer you the easier chance to try a lot of things if you don't know what you want, but it's kinda a crapshoot. So, what is it you really want?

Back in the 70s and 80s I was captured by Francesco Scavullo's BW photographs of people.  His book "Scavullo Women" in particular was beautiful to look at. What I liked about those images was the texture created by the look of the film he was using.  Peter Lindbergh is another more contemporary photographer that achieves a similar look.  (Lindberg shoots digitally these days often using a Nikon D810).

Thank you for chiming in Jeff!  So for me it is lack of texture in digital files that give them a "sterile" and "plastic-y" look.  The tonal range is fine.  Good grain gives a very pleasing look in a print.  Maybe that is because I grew up looking at small and med format prints?  I am sure this is achievable in PS and I am sure that YOU can achieve this Jeff!  ; )  However, I don't know that I can so I am looking for a good starting point and yes Silver Efex is a good place to experiment.  I also like DXO and Alien Skin's "Exposure".

In the old days of film I would buy the film that had a look that I wanted to achieve.  We had a large palette of options to choose from…  Tech Pan, to Tri-X, to Portra, Poloroid etc... each giving us their individual characteristics.  I didn't have to make the film every time I wanted a different look.  Now we shoot RAW and then apply our various options including “grain”.  LightRoom has “grain sliders” for a reason… I am just trying to find what works best for my style.

That is why I posted this.  To see if adding grain to images was in any way pleasing to any of you.  I should have been more thorough in my post!  Lots of opinions here!

 By the way, True Grain is not available for sale any more.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 31, 2016, 05:41:25 pm
By the way, True Grain is not available for sale any more.

I assume that it will be, once they resolve the issues with their payment processor.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: Schewe on December 31, 2016, 05:58:12 pm
LightRoom has “grain sliders” for a reason… I am just trying to find what works best for my style.

And why do you think there _IS_ a grain slider in ACR/LR? Because "some people" wanted to add grain back into an image after doing noise reduction...it may seem odd that adding grain helps in the effort of noise reduction but it does after smoothing the noise out.

The problem with adding grain to an image is it's resolution dependent which means you really need to do it after you've set your image size and output resolution. It would be great of ACR/LR allowed one to add grain AFTER spewing the print size and rez (hum, maybe something to ask for) but the only way to do it in Photoshop is AFTER you have your final size/rez set–and that holds true for any 3rd party grain maker. Any resampling kills the grain structure :~(

In the old film days, I tended to shoot 35mm with Tri-X and develop in Accufine...I loved the acceptance of the grain structure. But that's before I got into large format film...now I'm perfectly happy with images with no grain :~)
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: Schewe on December 31, 2016, 05:59:51 pm
By not accepting this type of garbage on the board.

Then report it to the moderator and move on...posting on adds additional "noise". If you want to vollenteer to be a moderator, go right ahead.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: DavidPalermo on December 31, 2016, 06:53:46 pm
Wow, we have mentioned everything from Obama, to buying a film camera, to how much a waste of money it is to add grain to a digital image!  This is not the Group f/64 club is it?  :o

lol

So, I am not sure what Obama has to do with my post.  And I don't have any desire to buy a film camera for many reasons.  And it's not a waste of money if I can express my photographic vision by adding a film-type look to my photographs.

I am certainly not alone in feeling that digital can be too sterile looking.  And it's not because I am doing anything "the wrong way".  To me sometimes digital is just too sterile looking!  And yes I have done a LOT of BW printing back in the day.

One of the beautiful things about digital RAW files is that you have one amazing file that you can tweak into what you envisioned your photograph to look like!  In the old days for the most part we had to choose a certain film to get certain looks. Or use specific developers, filters,  etc... etc...

Some of you have been very helpful and I want to say thank you!  You know who you are.  ; )

Happy New Year!
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: chez on December 31, 2016, 06:58:08 pm
Then report it to the moderator and move on...posting on adds additional "noise". If you want to vollenteer to be a moderator, go right ahead.

Ummm...you seem to be doing a great job moderating here. Just keep going with it. Done...
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: john beardsworth on January 01, 2017, 05:11:43 am
Wow, we have mentioned everything from Obama, to buying a film camera, to how much a waste of money it is to add grain to a digital image!  This is not the Group f/64 club is it?  :o

Well, is my "waste of money" view not clearly stated in terms of "just personal preference" and software vendors' using film brand names for grain patterns that supposedly resemble some typical look? Is that not a legitimate comment? No, I don't get how someone thinks Obama is relevant, but it's what happens when posters are allowed to hide behind a series of pseudonyms.

It seems you are most concerned about "sterility". On another forum I recall someone expressing similar feelings but they were centred around the level of Lightroom/ACR clarity he applied. I usually add clarity locally with radial/grad filters, but it made me try defaulting global clarity to +10. Although I did revert to 0 after a while, just a little extra punch made a nice difference, as if I'd changed my agitation method or whatever. So in other words, is "sterility" not a wider concern than just adding grain patterns?

John
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: keithcooper on January 01, 2017, 12:05:57 pm
I've tried a few of these software packages and quickly realised that many of the reasons people might want to use them (or hate them) were pretty opaque to me ;-) I've never even seen many of the films you get in collections

Now that doesn't mean that I don't sometimes like using them to give a particular 'feel' to an image, but I regard it as an add-on effect, rather than any attempt at accurately reproducing what the shot would have looked like had I fished one of my old film cameras out of the drawer (before I even consider the vagaries of exposure and development)

I like DxO's filmPack mainly because it has a less regular feel to it - that's just a feeling rather than any rigorous analysis, since I've not actually shot film this century...  The other day someone asked for a B&W crop from an 11MP 1Ds image - but for a 60" wide display print. A good hefty dose of Tri-X produced a rather pleasing looking view - enough for a happy client and paycheque :-)

One area I did find it quite useful was when I needed to do some repair work on a scanned negative and used it to make a good cloning source.  Looking again at a large print, I can't see the join.
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: DavidPalermo on January 02, 2017, 11:11:28 am
Well, is my "waste of money" view not clearly stated in terms of "just personal preference" and software vendors' using film brand names for grain patterns that supposedly resemble some typical look? Is that not a legitimate comment? No, I don't get how someone thinks Obama is relevant, but it's what happens when posters are allowed to hide behind a series of pseudonyms.

John,

Your comments were helpful.  I was being a little sarcastic.  ; )
Title: Re: Film simulation software...
Post by: unesco on January 03, 2017, 07:39:01 am
Just my 2 cents.

I have over 25 years of experience with B&W photography, including pure analogue, BW analogue film scanning ->FA printing and pure digital. I worked a lot on Kodak T-MAX P3200, BW400CN and some others, mostly 35 mm, sometimes 6x6 (usually ISO400). Now mostly Canon full frame, a few times Leica Monochrome.

When it came to digital age and BW conversion I was very excited with possibility to mimic analogue look using digital workflow. It turned out not to be so easy, sometimes very difficult to get desired results, not only in grain area but also contrast and tonality.

I play a lot with Silver Effex Pro and I have made <10 (single digit) photographs in the last 2 years that I am really happy with simulation of analogue print look when ink jet printed (I use QTR and Epson K3 Inks). As a rule of thumb, Silver somehow simulates into direction of both Kodak films I have used, but is far from ideal. This is not only about grain, but also other aspects. The final output requires a lot of tweaking, try and error, also number of sample prints.

As for the grain, I always use 2 passes of Silver. First, to make BW conversion from color with NO grain added. Then additional processing in PS or other software, also scaling in correspondence to the final print size. The second pass, just to add grain - with parameters dependent on print size.

Interesting, very often I haven't used the 2nd pass results for the final print - I usually liked "no grain" version on print more, even when my initial target was to simulate grain and although the picture with grain looked good on screen, I didn't like it after print. Maybe it is specificity of ink jet reproduction technique...?

As a summary, simulation of analogue films is not a trivial task, requires a lot of time not to make the picture even more artificial than synthetic digital. Even when you have a lot of good quality tools.