edgar_njari

Posterisation sounds like a good idea, but photoshop posterisation doesn't give natural soft "borders" between color areas, like film does.

 

Take any image you want for the raw image, I don't have any specific picture I want edited for now.

Well lens blur simulates the blur of objects that are out of focus in the lens.

I don't think it simulates diffusion of light in the emulsion

Here's another one. Velvia I believe.

sorry, here:

Here is a good example. Notice how its not really regular blur, but some kind of non-linear falloff, don't know how else to describe it.

 

Its someone elses picture, don't know who is the author, so I apologize in advance if its a problem

 

Its a really tight crop from a frame of Reala

Hello

 

Is there a plugin out there, or any kind of software, or a manual trick in

photoshop that would simulate the softness of the film emulsion.

 

You know, sort of like, making a normal sharp image look like enlarged film.

 

Film softness doesn't really have a linear radius, so its not that simple

 

Any kind of blur in photoshop doesn't really work, and neither does lens blur or

anything else I could find in photoshop.

 

Any suggestions?

 

I'll see if I can come up with a nice example of the kind

You have to remove the antihalation layer first (remjet). I believe it will mess up your c41 processor real bad.

But if you do remove it before processing, I believe you would get some results, just not sure what kind of results, probably not close to how it should be.

And you are right that no scanner can actually show grain particles

 

But a grain particle is not the same thing as visible grain.

The grain we see in prints and slides are big clusters of grain particles. Density variations of grain particles. Where we see a grain "lump" its actually an area where grain particles are denser and reach their peak, and where we thing we see "area between grain", that's actually an area of lower particle density.

Grain particles can only be seen under a microscope, what we see is simple density noise, random variations of density.

While you can't see actual grain particles with a scanner, a 8000dpi scanner can be fairly accurate in rendering these variations in density, which we call grain.

But still, that grain is fractal, so you can only render it right one one level

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/exposureP.shtml#structure

Ilkka.

 

I'm not really talking about scanners.

 

When you look at a negative and a slide under a loupe, the grain is about the same in comparable emulsions.

But the difference is that, that same image you are seeing on the negative needs to be amplified in order to be printable (contrast needs to be increased), the increase in contrast increases grain amplitude.

 

Both films pretty much use the same generation of technology are are made in a similar way too.

 

Remember that grain RMS is not actually a number describing grain size, but grain variations. in other words amplitude of random density changes (amplitude of the grain "noise")

Overcast, slight underexposure (or darkened in photoshop), desaturated (parts or whole, depending what you want), but not compleatly, color balance to cold. Don't see anything else, but I could be wrong

Here is my opinion on some of the films out there (last time I checked):

 

I think that when you first try slide film, you will be amazed by the colors you can see with your naked eye on the film.

It becomes an addiction for a couple of months for a lot of people.

And I think the best film to get you through this phase is EBX (Elite chrome extra color). It's an amateur version of Ektachrome E100VS.

You can use E100VS too, but EBX is cheaper, and though some claim to see differences, they are suppose to be identical.

 

Once you get over that super-saturation phase, you can start using slide film for general stuff you do, whatever that is. Then you can try some other films:

 

Ektachrome E100G/GX

 

G is a great film, moderate contrast (for a slide film), and moderate color. Extremely fine grain and a high-quality rendering of the scene.

That's the Kodaks idea of "normal" slide film (=not special purpuse)

In other words, the best they can do it right now.

GX has warmer shadows but other than that is the same film.

Good reciprocity, longevity etc.

I like its deep but moderate blues and greens.

 

Ektachrome E100VS

More contrast, MORE saturation.

When you shoot something RED and look at it on a lightbox, the red color will just pop out of the slide. It's not that its too saturated, it feels "heavy" and "thick" (sort of like Velvia greens)

Also with this film you don't have to use a polarizer, the blues are very deep and saturated. On a very sunny day, it looks like a painting almost. Very saturated.

Greens are great, but I never used this film for green work much.

Velvia is better for that.

Either way, a real eye candy film. When you look at a slide it feels like you are there.

 

Fuji Provia 100F:

Sort of like E100G but with a Fuji Twist. Didn't use it much, but I'd best describe it like this:

It has the "depth" of the high saturation films, but without too much color. I think its the best film for flower photography, because it doesn't exaggerate the colors of the flowers to make them into big blotches of paint. It renders flowers just right.

I live its colder greens. A more gentle and colder nature film

 

Velvia 50:

Best works with olive greens I think. Very thick, 3D greens that make you feel you are looking at it for real.

A lot of contrast on this film too. But works great if you want rich lush green textures.

Has a funny thing it does to yellows too. Makes them very warm and rich (leaning to orange almost).

Very fine grain too.

Had to scan right, and expose right. I would not advise you to experiment with it first, use other films, then come to this one.

 

Astia:

A mild film with a warmer color balance. At first sight a slide might look almost like a print from a negative, but not even this film has that highlights compression of negative films (use negative for that)

Delicate and gentle film, if you want a negative film look, but still have a slide.

Very fine grain, the finest of them all. A really high-quality rendering, but many people don't like it because it kind of negates all why slide film is used in the first place: contrast and saturation.

Others like it for what it is, a finest grain, pastel, watercolor rendering of any nature scene.

 

Which reminds me:

If I could chose one technique of painting for each of these films to compare I'd put it like this:

 

E100VS= acrylic, for its slightly textured bright colors that pop out

Velvia 50= oil , for its heavy thick greens and "fat" yellows

Astia= watercolor, for its pastel smooth colors

 

Can't really think of what other films remind me of.

 

And now, these are current films, but you are lucky because

Kodak still keeps their old films in production.

These hold little or no appeal to the general customer, but mean a life to the folks who know what they are looking for, or have been in the bussiness for a long time and have been used to working with some specific films.

I think these old film still have advantages over some newer emulsions.

 

My favorites of these are:

 

Ektachrome 64, because its unique. It has a genuine retro look that you can't find in other emulsions. Genuine because it actually IS an old emulsion. From 1976 that is. And has not been changed (exept for the base) since them. That's 30-31 years old now. A real time machine.

It is pretty much moderate in everything exept for having a bit more contrast. But it still has that old shape of the curve that old films used to have, and older kind of crossover issues, and sharpness and grain, everything that gives it that warm nostalgic look of the old days (when I wasn't around actually, but still like that look)

A bit grainy for 35mm, best used in MF and LF.

 

Ektachrome 64T.

A more modern film, around 1991 I think. But a great one.

I used it a lot for tungsten before I started using gels on lights.

It has beautiful colors, but mild (specially like the reds and purples on it) and makes everything sparkle under those tungsten lights.

Works specially well under hard light, because it doesn't crush the shadows like some other films.

When compared to its competition Fuji 64T, It wins in my eyes, because it is a less refined film, less high-tech, so it gives a certain warmth, while Fuji makes everything one step more realistic.

Still a bit grainy in 35mm, but not that much.

 

Hope this helps

Isn't not that the grain is fine, it's that it has smaller "amplitude" (contrast) so its a lot less visible.

Negative film (once printed) has its grain much more visible because the whole image is increased in contrast a lot in printing (including grain)

 

But it's not so an issue with MF and LF.

 

Though I still don't understand why people who complain about grain use 35mm in the first place? It's a format perfect when you DO want to see grain.

Before someone says its the sensitivity resolution, I have to testify, I can control up to 1 level with my hand out of 512 pressure levels on the Trust, just like it works on a Wacom, so it's not just advertised 512 levels. If you have a steady hand, the software shows change down to one level as you press, but you have to press very slightly to get a 1 level change.

Same goes for 3048 lpi , you can move it one line at a time, it's not just advertised. You get what you pay for, and what says on the box.

So its not like only Wacom is true to their specs.

I use Trust 6x8, works just fine for me. Price was about half of a Wacom. Specs are the same as an equivalent Wacom.

 

Now when you ask anyone for their "opinion" on this matter, they'll say Wacom is great, all else is crap, but the truth is, not many people have tried anything other than a Wacom, so its kinda funny.

 

But you can't go wrong with a Wacom, that's for sure

Slide film, in general tends to exaggerate contrast compared to a more natural contrast of negative film.

Also, a lot of slide films have also exaggerated saturation, sometimes to the extreme.

 

I'd say slide is good for following things: projection (obviously), stylish images with high saturation and contrast, nature scenes where you want lots of saturation

20 years ago, you could consider, you could say slide was just another type of film, and not a film with a special "look", but today when you have digital photography and high-latitude negatives, slide films stands out as a film with a special look as is no longer just a general photographic material.

 

Negative is better for: general stuff where you simply want things to show "normal" in the print, portraits, nature where you want to capture a softer atmosphere (like magic hour), sunlight, well anything where you don't need a special slide film look.

 

But remember, you can always make negative look like slide in digital, but you can't make slide look like neg, because you can't have information that isn't there on film in the first place (like they do in movies)

The price for that is grain, because when you "push" the negatives contrast to look like slide, you are also pushing the contrast of grain making it more visible.

That's why if you want the end product to be a high contrast and saturation image, its best to use slide film because in that domain it will give you most quality.

As long as you keep negative in its own domain, it will perform at high quality, unless you DO want grain.

 

In short, slide give high precision and quality contrasty and saturated images.

While negative gives performs best when printed in a more natural contrast and color.

Both reign in their own domains.

I think a drum scanner is still the best, but I doubt you want or can to buy one of those

The stuff that those plugins do, you can do yourself with some basic photoshop tools.

 

And if you want real simulation, making it actually look like that film, that's impossible, or nobody has done it so far that I have seen.

 

You can only make it have a color twist that reminds people of a certain emulsion.

A combination of contrast masking and manual dodge/burn

plus some basic things like saturation, color and contrast tweaking

 

And very good photos to begin with.

 

To get the idea where to start, use shadow/highlights took and crank it up real hard, and you'll see the effect of contrast masking.

just one for the archives: Kodak says EPR is 1976, but I wouldn't be suprized that they don't know themselfs

That's one part of it, yea, but there is so much more that makes certain films look vintage

wide highlights sholder and shadow toe, color precision, sharpness, flesh to neutral reproduction, color crossover

Are only a part of the complex network of factors that make older emulsions have a different look.

 

The best way to find out what gives that retro look is to ask yourself a counterquestion: what has improved over the last 20 years.

I'd agree with Jochen

 

this is such a simple picture (not much detail, simple lines and surfaces) that you could simply repaint some parts.

A good traditionally trained (no trickery, just a skilled brush, digital or real) airbrush artist could repair much of the image

Well if you compare any slide film with an avarage negative film, you'll find that slide film has more contrast (less latitude), so there is no slide film that has the contrast of 160NC.

 

If I'm wrong, I'd like to see someone proving to me by showing me

a nice slide image overexposed by two stops, which is what 160NC can handle.

 

But in overall looks , when you compare a finished print (which is higher in contrast) with the slide, I'd vote for EPP.

I just love it when people "fix" each others photos

 

I prefer the original version of color and contrast, Paul

Well in case of Portra VC, yes, it's less in 400VC the way I see it

 

But that's not what I ment by pleasing contrast.

By pleasing I mean the way the curve feels more rounded on the edges.

Contrast feels smoother to me.

 

To be more specific, I think 400VC highlights have a more tender quality, while 160VC does them a bit harsh for my taste.

also, while Portra 160VC and 400VC share the same last name, they are not just different speed versions of the same film, probably are supose to be, but they don't look the same.

I think 400VC has more latitude, and a more pleasing contrast, though the color palette is similar.

That's just my subjective obseravtion