5D Owner Looking for "Film Like" Settings?

[joel_fletcher]

I was ready to buy a point and shoot digital after leaving photography for 20 years. Right before I was

going to buy, my son decided to give me his 5D. So I now have way more camera than I bargained for.

 

I've decided that I'm only going to shoot Jpeg/aRGB because I like the idea of shooting more images and

discarding of most.

 

My question is, how do I replicate certain films? What settings do you use to get certain film-like looks?

 

Thank you.

[steve torelli]

IMHO, if you want the look of certain film, you should shoot that film.

I would also suggest you learn how to take advantage of the 5D's capabilities by learning how to shoot RAW and post-process your files. You may be amazed at the results you can get after you've mastered the learning curve.Using this camera as a $3000 P&S seems like a waste of a fine camera. With a little learning and effort, it's capable of producing some stunning results. Good luck.

[kance]

You'll need to use something like this Photoshop plug-in. You can't get the "look" of film

straight out of the camera.

<p>

<a href=http://alienskin.com/exposure/index.html>Alien Skin Exposure</a>

[pgranone]

You will find that JPG with the Adobe RGB color space will disply dull on PC's & Macs. The default color space for the OS is SRGB.

JPG has compression and loss of detail due to compression jaggies. If you edit and overwrite a JPG file the problem is compounded.

 

You can alter a JPG file using Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop CS3 in a non-destructive way. Those programs write a sidecar XMP file to track the changes to the original JPG file and then you the changed file to a new name. But JPG is still a huge compromise.

 

You are tossing out much of the color information with JPG. The camera is capable of 36 bit color (tens of billions of colors) and JPG is only 24 bit (16 million colors).

 

I get the most film like results shooting RAW format. Then develop with Digital Photo Professional to 48 bit TIF to preserve the color information. Our use Lightroom or Photoshop to process to 48 bit TIF. In the end, if you need JPG convert the 48 bit TIF file to a 100% quality JPG.

 

RAW files are your digital negative. The TIF created from them are uncompressed and do not suffer the image quality loss of JPG's. You can change parameters after the fact with RAW. Such as white balance, contrast, color, sharpness. With a JPG that is set when you take the photo, be it right or wrong at the time.

 

The 5D is capable of fantastic film like results if you use RAW forat and expose carefully.

[joel_fletcher]

It's my understanding that there are certain "user defined" settings that replicate certain films

and this is what I want to know about.

 

If you don't know about this then it's OK to admit it.

 

My son informs me that that Jpeg will be fine for my type of photography...that the 10%

gained under challening light is not worth the effort in my case. I DO know how to analyze

the histogram and I'm quite good at taking my time to nail the exposure, so this RAW issue is

a mute with me.

[joel_fletcher]

Kent, thanks for the link. However, I don't want to mess with plug-ins. I did get my son's

copy of photoshop CS2. That should be more than I need. I don't like fancy things that add

more to the already complex picture.

[walang_pangalan]

Your question "<i>how do I replicate certain films?</i>" begs a counter-question: <i>"why would you want to do such a thing?"</i>

 

<p>But the easiest way to get that "film look" is probably to add some noise to your images.

 

<p>http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

 

<p>So try shooting at a higher ISO? Other aspects - in particular, saturation and contrast - can be dialed on your camera, as per the user manual. Or just collect raw data and mangle it to taste on your own. Either way, you won't find exact matches, since the responses of film are not the same as a filtered photo-diode. (This is a good thing too. While we aren't at the stage of a full-frame imaging spectrometer yet, the removal of the film substrate from the processing chain connects you closer to the firmament of reality re: photography: the photons themselves.)

[PuppyDigs]

Your best bet is a PS plugin for film emulation. However, the built-in Picture Styles might make you happy. "Landscape" is sorta a Velvia-like look (higher contrast, saturation & intense greens & reds).

 

The easiest way to play with Picture Styles is to shoot raw and view the Picture Style options in DPP 3. Also, Canon has additional Picture Style options you can upload to DPP 3. Once you find a keeper, set it in-camera and shoot jpeg if you wish. Jpeg is kinda a waste of such a fine camera...

[kance]

Joel, you're welcome. Try the fully functioning 30-day demo. It's not complicated really,

unless you choose to get really particular. You can just select the filter and select what type

of film (they have color and b/w) you'd like the photo to have the look of. Other than that,

you'll be spending much more time trying to replicate the "look" of film in Photoshop.

[matt_needham]

"It's my understanding that there are certain "user defined" settings that replicate certain films and this is what I want to know about."

 

Read the camera manual and/or visit the Canon website and read up on Picture Styles.

[images_in_light_north_west]

Use DxO with thier film Pack

[keith_lubow]

"But the easiest way to get that "film look" is probably to add some noise to your images."

 

I could not disagree more. The "film look" has nothing to do with "noise". It has to do with the fact that film has a unique pattern of picture elements, while digital has a fixed one. Therefore, no digital image will have the same feel as film, regardless of technical details. Film is not noisy at all. If you are doing things like shooting in no light with it and processing it over normal, yes, it can get grainy, but that is totally different than noise.

 

I think what Joel might be asking for is formulas for how to make a file look like it was shot with, for instance, Reala 100, or Tri-X, etc. If you want to use a blanket formula like that for all images, only experimentation will give it to you. Like others have said, I don't see the point.

 

As for the JPEG naysayers, most of them would have you think there is a huge difference between shooting RAW and JPEG. There isn't. The ability to cover your ass is the main reason they usually state. (Not anyone in particular on this thread, but on the internet in general.) I think of shooting RAW as being similar to shooting color negs, and shooting JPEG as shooting color transparencies. Either one can be adjusted the say way for display (in fact, JPEG opens up more editing options in Photoshop). The main difference is bit depth, for which shooting RAW and converting to TIFF will give you more. This is great for a commercial photographer or fine artist, etc., who want the most beautiful large prints possible, but is probably not noticeable by your average hobbyist, and is totally unacceptable and unmanageable for a journalistic photo editor, who needs speed above all else.

 

Shooting JPEG, at least at first, will force you to better your technical skills.

 

Keith

[kance]

Well said Keith. I couldn't agree with you more. Film has such a nice look and "feel" to it

which isn't easy to duplicate with a DSLR. *end of pro film rant* :-)

[derek_stanton2]

"It's my understanding that there are certain "user defined" settings that replicate certain

films and this is what I want to know about.

If you don't know about this then it's OK to admit it."

 

That sounded a bit snarky. But, whatever. Perhaps you should define for us what you

mean by "replicate certain films." You may be able to set Picture Styles and/or tone sliders

to manipulate such things as saturation and contrast, but those options are far from

actually emulating real film stocks. If those basic variables are what you're talking about,

then read up on Picture Styles, etc. But, film is more complex than that. In my estimation,

you will need to work with Photoshop, with curves and a layer of simulated film grain, or a

plug-in like the Exposure. And, even with those options, you probably won't 'duplicate'

film to a qualified eye.

 

So, the question is, how critical are you going to be? How many different films are you

hoping to emulate? Finding one formula that really works and can be easily applied to

batches of images is going to be difficult enough. Matching a bunch of different films is

something else altogether.

 

Bottom line - you're not going to get 'film-like results' straight out of the camera. If

imitating film is the objective, you have to work for it a bit. And, i'll have to disagree with

your assessment of plug-ins as "fancy things" that complicate the work experience. Using

a plug-in is no more difficult or complex than using any of Photoshops built-in filters or

adjustment functions. Plug-ins make life simpler, actually. They condense a complex

workflow into presets and simple sliders. Look into it. It'll be worth your time to not ignore

them just because you're intimidated.

 

My advice - get a larger CF card (or multiple cards) so you can shoot RAW and worry less

about file sizes. That way, as your Photoshop skills are developed, you still have a better

'digital negative' to return to later.

[joel_fletcher]

Thanks for your response. I'll experiment with Picture Styles.

 

My son showed me his Jpeg and RAW test and we saw subtle differences in each shooting

scenario. The difference was always small and, honestly, a coin toss as to which one was

actually preferable. This knowledge gives me the motivation to learn the camera better so

that I get it right when I press the shutter button.

[joel_fletcher]

What's your opionion on shooting in aRGB color space as opposed to sRGB?

 

I thought I read where shooting aRGB and then converting to sRGB in Photoshop would give

better results. But if not, then why not just shoot in sRGB.

 

My son, again, told me that most using aRGB were commercial photographers and printers.

He said that my printer would not recognize the benefits of aRGB.

[keith_lubow]

Joel,

 

Honestly, I don't really know much about color spaces.

 

My cameras are set on sRGB, though, and I think I have tried Adobe RGB as well a few times. In either case, results looked good enough for me.

 

Keith

[images_in_light_north_west]

Joel, you wont see a big diff. in RAW and JPG untill after you process the RAW, the whole thing about RAW is it allows much more latitude in adjusting your image in a RAW conversion program. Its like the negative and you are processing it in the "lightroom" instead of the Darkroom.

[jeff_louie]

For a Fuji like film shot I set the standard picture setting to 3,1,1,0.

[joel_fletcher]

so you're dialing up a bit on the contrast a saturation, right? That's +1 (or 1 right of the 0)?

 

I'm curious, but have you tried increasing your sharpness to 4 or 5 and, if so, what did you

think?

[tom_murray2]

"I don't want to mess with plug-ins. I did get my son's copy of photoshop CS2. That should be more than I need. I don't like fancy things that add more to the already complex picture."

 

You've got it backwards. Plugins can do in one click what it'd take an expert Photoshopper ten minutes to do, and a newbie would take all night.

[joel_fletcher]

but from what I know plugins and actions need to be fiddled with, too?

 

Am I wrong?

 

They might be time-saving, but they still need to be fine-tuned for the image you happen

to be working on.

 

My goal for this renewed hobby is to get the picture right in camera. The computer is

going to be used mainly to store/archive the image and print it. Maybe and Auto Levels

and quick sharpen and to the printer.

[keith_lubow]

Which Fuji Film, Jeff? Pro 800Z? Pro 400H? Pro 160S? Pro 160C? 64T? Velvia 50? Velvia 100? Velvia 100F? Astia? Provia 100F? Provia 400? Superia Press 1600? Superia Press 800? Superia Press 400? Superia Press 200? Superia Press 100? Superia Reala? Neopan 100? Neopan 400? Neopan 1600?

 

Any that I missed? Every one of these films looks different...because they are different...which is why they have different names.

 

My point is that I don't understand the term Fuji-like.

 

This doesn't even go into the 800-plus varieties of Kodak transparency film that were once available.

 

Used to be you would choose a film for its specific characteristics, so had to put some forethought into it. Now, you dial in what you want after the fact.

 

The only way to answer these questions accurately is to shoot a MacBeth chart with every single film available, and compare them to a shot taken with your 5D...problem is how do you compare a transparency to a print to a computer screen to an inkjet print to a lightjet print to a giclee print...etc.

 

In short, I don't think you will ever get exact. The best way is to probably look at a film you like, figure out what that films characteristics are, and name what about it that you like.

 

Namely, these characteristics will boil down to a few discernible characteristics, aside from overall "look" of the film. For instance, resolution, graininess, contrast, saturation. Getting a little more hard to pin down are things like tonal gradations and color response; overall and of certain layers of emulsion in certain light...and on and on and on...

 

Perhaps the hardest to understand and pin down is saturation. Saturation is a term that is often misunderstood. It is a term used to describe the purity of a hue (a.k.a. color), i.e. the amount of other colors that are mixed in. People confuse it with brightness or color accuracy, among other things. Raising saturation is to the color palette what using a higher contrast black and white multigrade filter is to the greyscale tonal palette of a print. When you use a more "saturating" film, or boost saturation in Photoshop, you are eliminating "stray" colors from the mix. Thus, what would be a slightly mixed hue of yellow and something else would become a true yellow.

 

It is all so confusing that I think it is best to shoot totally flat and come up with a good rough set of image characteristics (formerly known as film characteristics) when you get on your computer. Heck, you can even do it down to the individual image now. (Well, you CAN do this to a pretty good degree by using different types of RA papers.)

 

Keith

[Ian Taylor]

I've seen some great results from Alien Skin Exposure.

[tom_murray2]

"but from what I know plugins and actions need to be fiddled with, too?

 

Am I wrong?"

 

Yes and no. Some plugins have default settings (sometimes called "novice mode" or such) that work amazingly well even for picky folk, and others don't. I've used DxO lens correction and rarely tweak anything. Their film-emulation plugin is equally good. I haven't used Alien Skin personally so I can't say. Most of them let you download a trial version, so you can judge for yourself.

 

"My goal for this renewed hobby is to get the picture right in camera. The computer is going to be used mainly to store/archive the image and print it. Maybe and Auto Levels and quick sharpen and to the printer."

 

If that was my goal I would definitely look into some plugins. DxO lens corrections + a good sharpening and uprezzing plugins (Fred Miranda's are great for very low cost and very one-button-simple, but there are plenty of others) just using the defaults will give you much better results than the "auto"-anything in Photoshop.