Any free options for film simulation? Can Raw Therapee do it?

<p>I have a EOS 20D and shoot RAW. I want to convert the colors from the RAWs such that they approximate the look of specific color negative film (such as Natura 1600 and others).</p>

<p>Are there any free (*) options which let me do that? I know that there are commercial softwares offered for this but I am looking for free options, especially I am wondering if I can do this somehow in Raw Therapee?</p>

<p>My goal is only to approximate the film colors, not necessarily the grain. Also I am aware that a 100% exact film simulation is not possible, I am already shooting physical film mainly but it has become a serious cost issue where I live so I started experimenting with digital. All I want is to approximate the colors which I love from my scanned film negatives somehow in my digital pictures, too. The unprocessed RAW files always look so flat and dull, and the Raw Therapee "Bundled profiles" (Contrasty, Pop...) which I found look unconvincing. I wonder if I can have profiles simulating Natura 1600, X-tra 400 etc. Thank you.<br /> <br />(*) By "free" I mean free-as-in-beer or free-as-in-open-source, both is fine.</p>

Until October 31 you can get DxO Filmpack version 3 for free: http://www.dxo.com/intl/sony

<p>Jus downloaded DXO and tried it, doesn't have Natura 1600 but otherwise it's awesome.</p>

<p>Thanks for the tip, Zane. I normally use Lightroom but I've downloaded DxO to give it a try.</p>

<p>Anton, it's been awhile since I last used RawTherapee - over a year - but as I recall you can create your own custom settings, save them, and apply them as desired to your raw files. Check the RT users forum for tips.</p>

<p>I encountered similar issues with Lightroom 4 when I first used it. Most of the standard and custom presets were only a rough starting point - usually the colors were way over the top for my taste. I dialed them back until I got the look I wanted, closer to portrait color negative films, and created my own presets.</p>

<p>If you give Lightroom a try (there's a generous 30-day free trial, full featured), you may decide it's worth buying. I used RawTherapee for awhile because it was powerful and free. Then I used the trial version of Lightroom 4. Then I went back to RawTherapee for awhile. But by the end of 2012 I was frustrated with RT's resource hogging tendencies (especially the tools for sharpening and clarifying - those would actually kick my quad core CPU's cooling fan into overdrive), chunky looking noise reduction (I shoot at high ISOs a lot) and non-intuitive interface. I bought Lightroom. Still very satisfied a year later, and will upgrade to version 5 for the much improved healing/cloning brush.</p>

<p>Another option/alternative to RawTherapee or Lightroom or Aperture is the newly-open-sourced LightZone. This is a well regarded commercial editor like Lightroom that has just recently been switched to open source. It runs on PCs, Macs and Linux too.<br>

http://lightzoneproject.org/<br>

I'm not sure what it has for presets to get the film look you desire, but it's worth exploring.</p>

 

<p>I could play around a bit more with DxO Filmpack. The film simulation itself looks very good and there is a reasonably large and good selection of films, inbcluding my beloved Delta 3200 and funky stuff like Polachrome. However what this free "Essential" version lacks is batch processing, which makes it for my workflow and amount of pictures basically useless. The paid version does have batch processing from what I understand.</p>

<p>Regarding Lightroom and LightZone, thanks for tips but I have absolutely no interested in fiddling around with parameters myself until I got the look of film approximated. I already tried this and it's extremely time consuming. Also I could do with Raw Therapee or basically any other post-processing software as well, so I don't see how these programs are of particular help. I am/was looking for software which has this pre-set, that's the whole point.</p>

<p>I guess there is a lot of work involved with getting the right parameters, this is why there are no free options.</p>

<p>I played around with that freebie version of DxO FilmPack 3 yesterday. Apparently it can interface with Lightroom - sorta - if you designate FilmPack for the exports. But it's clunky compared with Nik Silver Efex.</p>

<p>DxO FilmPack 3 doesn't work with DNG or camera raw (which has been cussed and discussed extensively on this forum and elsewhere). So I had to export TIFFs or JPEGs.</p>

<p>FilmPack 3 is very limited compared with Silver Efex but I actually liked the simplicity of the Essentials tools. I'll enjoy using the b&w effects. The color film effects were pretty meh. They didn't look like Portra, Astia or most color films to me. Only the Reala 100 profile seemed pretty close to what I expected.</p>

<p>But I'd still need to send a file that had already been fully prepped in Lightroom - including retouching - before slapping on the FilmPack overlay. For b&w effects, that's okay. But for color, probably not gonna be my favorite tool.</p>

<p>That said, I do like some of the b&w effects, especially the infrared simulations. They're pretty close to the grungy look of my Ricoh digicams b&w modes, and to my old Delta 3200 prints when I pushed the negatives and printed with heavy magenta filtration to emphasize the grit and contrast. </p>

<p>The Tri-X and HP5+ effects are way overdone. I don't know why so many folks get the impression that the default look for those films is cranked to 11. Exposed at EI 400 and developed properly the grain isn't that pronounced. At EI 200 and given appropriately less development those are fine grained films. But every digital simulation of Tri-X seems to think it should look like it was pushed to 1600 and souped in Rodinal. Bleah.</p>

<p>I need to piddle a bit more with the C-41 process monochrome effects, but so far I'm happy with my own Lightroom preset for simulating XP2 Super and T400CN. Those are lovely films for portraits, including direct flash. The default for FilmPack 3 was pretty meh, but I'll try some custom settings.</p>

<p>I had the same gripes about Silver Efex. I needed more time to get the hang of it, and should have viewed some good video tutorials first.</p>

<p>Anton, Lightroom can easily batch process photos to a consistent look, if you prefer the film workflow. As long as the photos were taken under similar conditions and exposed consistently, the results will be consistent.</p>

<p>LR actually does this better than RawTherapee. That's specifically why I switched from RawTherapee to Lightroom 4 last year. Almost everything RT does, LR does better. Except for being free. RT is an outstanding value, no doubt about that.</p>

<p>One thing Lightroom doesn't do as well as Silver Efex and DxO FilmPack 3 is convincing looking film grain. It's okay in light doses. Mostly I use it to break up luminance noise in my high ISO photos. Rather than apply heavy luminance noise reduction, I'll apply chroma noise reduction and very little luminance NR. Then I'll apply a light bit of film grain effect in Lightroom. This helps minimize the digital-ish look of luminance noise. Even to a b&w film fan like me, the effect is pretty darned authentic. But it's not quite like really grainy films like Delta 3200's unique popcorn grain, or old school pushed Tri-X (the current Tri-X is very different, much closer to T-Max films).</p>

<p>Regarding batch processing, however, even when I used film exclusively I rarely worked that way. I almost always spent more time on some prints than others, dodging/burning, etc., adjusting the photo to suit my preferences. And I'm talking about candid street snaps, theater photos, etc., not just fine art type prints of landscapes, etc. I got over my "straight" photography bias years ago and chastised myself for wasting so many years and prints in some misguided pursuit based on mistaken notions of how other photographers worked. When I realized every photographer whose work I admired did a lot of darkroom gymnastics - or had a master printer do it for them - I tossed my notions of purity in the bin.</p>

<p>Thanks Zane.</p>

<p>I got the DxO plugin and it actually solved one problem I had had, immediately the first time I tried it. I have Nik, but it's nice to have other arrows in the quiver. Use both in Photoshop CS5.</p>

<p>Hi Lex, yes Lightroom is great I guess, but I simply have no interest in it as it's 149$, and what's more I have absolutely no interested in paying with my personal time, by fiddling around on each image for hours to get the look I want. If I can press a button and get 90% the look I want (as I can with DoX FP 3), that's better than investing 1 hour+ per image and getting 100% the look I want. I am sure that master photographers like Ansel Adams have spent 100 hours+ in the darkroom to make a picture of the moon over the desert, and now we can recreate the fun in the digital age. But this is simply not what is photography to me! With my DSLR , I basically want only better snapshots, but with realistic film look. Photography allows me to be creative after work, with the little time that is left. If there is a software like DoX FP3 that gets me from digital image to a more or less convincing fake of Delta 3200 at the push of a button, great!</p>

I understand what you mean. I miss having good affordable labs for color

print and slide film. Saved a lot of time.

<p>There is a plugin for G'MIC and GIMP. It is a set of film emulation filters:<br /> http://blog.patdavid.net/2013/08/film-emulation-presets-in-gmic-gimp.html<br /> Flexible with many choices. <br /><br /><br />http://imgur.com/MLu2Ygu<br>

This imgur.com link is a screenshot of the 'Film Emulator' in G'MIC</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Actually, RawTherapee is integrating all of those film emulations presets right now (should be available shortly). I just need to check a few things first before they're ready to be pushed out.</p>

<p>Thanks, Pat, I'm looking forward to trying those. I still use RT occasionally for some raw files that don't quite behave in other raw converters.</p>