p.1 #1 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
Anyone jump on board with these yet?
They've been in development for over a year now, they just launched, and they're really really good. You can find more info at www.mastinlabs.com
I've had the chance to use them pretty extensively and these aren't VSCO or Redleaf-like (read: faux film). They're real, true film emulation presets from a medium format film photographer who knows his stuff. Kirk is primarily a film shooter and does all his own scanning via a Fuji Frontier. These presets have been developed to function the exact same way a Fuji Frontier scanner handles Kodak Portra 400.
Due to my, ahem, "enthusiastic" nature of gear ownership Kirk asked me to help him in development since I have access to so many different RAW files from so many different Canon and Nikon cameras. And I can say without a doubt as a primary film shooter myself, these are the closest thing on the market to true film emulation (and I own all the VSCO and Redleaf presets and almost pulled the trigger on the Replichrome presets as well).
Full Affiliate Disclosure: I don't normally do the affiliate thing and I'm not doing this to make a buck. I'm doing it because I believe enough in Kirk's approach and the results I'm getting that I agreed to support him in this way as well. If you'd like to support me a little you can purchase via my affiliate link at http://bit.ly/mastinlabs or via the direct link above.
Affiliate link or not, these need to be shared since so many people love the film look but for many reasons don't want to incorporate film into their actual professional or personal workflow. I've always hated my digital processing and I've also been so let down by all the faux film presets on the market that I'm fed up with it. Now I'm finally feeling good about the digital results I'm getting.
Also, for anyone curious to see before/afters or that want to see direct side-by-side comparisons of film scans compared to the Mastin Labs presets from real users, friend me at www.facebook.com/joshuagull and shoot me a message for me to add you to the Mastin Labs Facebook group and I'd be happy to add you (I'm not an admin but it's an open group so anyone can add anyone).
p.1 #2 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
Josh... I saw you posting some results on Facebook... looks really good. I think these would be 100% necessary for anyone looking to blend film and digital work and make it look cohesive.
p.1 #5 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
It's interesting that they have an example of legit portrait 400 next to their preset's portra 400, and there are tons of differences in the way their preset renders compared to the film.
If you love film just freaking shoot film, I don't get why some people shoot both. Seems like fear of commitment to me.
p.1 #6 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
TTLKurtis wrote:
It's interesting that they have an example of legit portrait 400 next to their preset's portra 400, and there are tons of differences in the way their preset renders compared to the film.
If you love film just freaking shoot film, I don't get why some people shoot both. Seems like fear of commitment to me.
I do shoot primarily film (100% film for portrait sessions, 75% film on wedding days). But I do understand some people who have cost concerns or concerns with not being comfortable enough with 1) their technical abilities or timing to *know* they got the shot without the LCD review and/or 2) the concern and fear or film mishandling leading to ruined negatives and lost parts of coverage.
I essentially equate #1 to the folks who don't need to be shooting primarily film right now for wedding work (I was there once) and #2 to the same people who worry about card corruption with digital so they shoot the day on 6-8 smaller memory cards or buy a dual card slot camera. Valid concerns on both counts.
For me these are all about matching my digital second shooter's files to my film files and getting better results when I do shoot digitally, which they've definitely provided for me. Like I said for a hybrid workflow these are amazing from a results standpoint, and for digital shooters who don't buy into the "one click boom" marketing and are instead looking for the most accurate film results and don't mind a few tweaks per lighting condition then a sync across the whole set these are really great too.
I'm personally always happy to see something new hit the market when it's as well thought out as these are.
p.1 #9 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
D. Diggler wrote:
But the cost of film if you're a "spray and prayer" shooting 5000 frames per wedding.
Including both film + lab fees it breaks down to ~$1.50 per frame every time I click the shutter and I normally shoot 450-550 frames on film per wedding (and deliver 300-400 of those frames plus another 150-300 digital images mostly of general dancing). I factor in $800 on average per wedding for film costs. Sure my time in post is a lot quicker but it's still much more expensive to shoot film that it is to shoot digital and outsource. For me the look and time savings are worth it but for many others it isn't. If you could shoot a couple rolls of film throughout the day in your different lighting situations but shoot digital primarily then match the results very well in post then that's a huge money saving opportunity.
p.1 #10 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
Joshua Gull wrote:
Including both film + lab fees it breaks down to ~$1.50 per frame every time I click the shutter and I normally shoot 450-550 frames on film per wedding (and deliver 300-400 of those frames plus another 150-300 digital images mostly of general dancing). I factor in $800 on average per wedding for film costs. Sure my time in post is a lot quicker but it's still much more expensive to shoot film that it is to shoot digital and outsource. For me the look and time savings are worth it but for many others it isn't. If you could shoot a couple rolls of film throughout the day in your different lighting situations but shoot digital primarily then match the results very well in post then that's a huge money saving opportunity. ...Show more →
If I shot that much film I would be looking to do scanning at home. (I want the plustek opticfilm 120, but I don’t shoot enough film to justify it)
p.1 #11 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
SloPhoto wrote:
If I shot that much film I would be looking to do scanning at home. (I want the plustek opticfilm 120, but I don’t shoot enough film to justify it)
Most of my personal work is 35mm and I do develop and scan at home via a Pakon F135+ scanner. It'll scan a whole roll of 35mm in less than 5 minutes and the software is phenomenal. Results are VERY good, on par with pro lab scans, the resolution is just a bit lower at 3000x2000 (16 bit TIFF files @ 300dpi). It's very cheap for me to shoot film for personal stuff. But for client stuff it's 80% medium format color and 20% 35mm B&W and a pro lab handles everything.
p.1 #12 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
There have been some questions as to how these will handle in lower light. When doing low light and these presets it's basically an exposure issue and if you can get a good exposure at ISO 1600 or 3200 or even 6400 with your digital camera then these presets will work well.
We've got a sick kiddo and I'm running on the fourth consecutive night with basically no sleep, and I'm swamped in weddings and sessions to edit, so forgive me for not doing an extensive comparision with multiple presets in multiple lighting situations. However, I did go through my LR catalog and pulled several different shots in several different lighting situations ranging from ISO 800-6400, put them all in a zipped folder and uploaded it to my Copy account.
Once I had exposure, WB and tint correct these were all "one click boom" between one of the Frontier adjustment selections (I almost always use the standard setting, Shadow Hard or Soft, or Highlight Hard or Soft depending on the light). Every shot was in dim light save for the one brighter shot of the couple around the middle of the set. Even the shots of my daughter's hair and face at the end that look really bright were shot at dusk at ISO 800 @ f/1.4 and it was dim to the human eye (way too dim to shoot color film and get good results).
EXIF should still be in tact on everything if you want to check. These are all Nikon files. The Canon files I've used them on (5Dc, 5DmkII, 5DmkIII) look just as good.
p.1 #13 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
I am going to play with these soon... most likely in the next couple weeks when we get to CO.
BTW haters gonna hate.
I do not find I have the need to blend my film stuff seamlessly with my digital stuff HOWEVER my biggest thing is just getting skin tones right. VSCO works sometimes... replichrome works sometimes and hopefully these will be just as good.
p.1 #14 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
jamesmorophoto wrote:
what an utter waste of money. your clients will never know the difference, and I'm finding it hard to see any perceivable difference.
looks like they saturated the reds slightly...
make your own presets. be a trendsetter. don't jump on the next vsco bs.
Why exactly is VSCO b.s.? I see a lot of super talented photographers using these, and see nothing wrong with it. It's their market they're aiming toward. Why not stop bashing other people's editing style, and work on your/our own and worry more about ourselves than what others are doing?
p.1 #15 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
Just saw jamesmorophoto's post from your quote Michael (I blocked him long ago because he seems to have a penchant for trolling). I personally don't think there is anything wrong with VSCO. They're great presets for anyone wanting the VSCO look. As a film shooter I just don't think they look much like real film though, which is where these Mastin Labs presets really shine. Both are great, just different strokes for different folks.
p.1 #16 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
Prettym1k3 wrote:
Why exactly is VSCO b.s.? I see a lot of super talented photographers using these, and see nothing wrong with it. It's their market they're aiming toward. Why not stop bashing other people's editing style, and work on your/our own and worry more about ourselves than what others are doing?
Absolutely agreed. So what if people want to emulate a look that has been around a lot longer than our digital SLR's have been?
p.1 #17 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
Just a heads up to anyone considering these that they're on sale until Friday then they go from $60 to $120. I feel like $120 is steep for a presets, but I'd personally pay it for these since I am a hybrid shooter and they're a big deal for me. But even for a digital-only shooter for $60 they rock if you want your digital files to look as film-like as possible.
p.1 #18 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
Dont see much of difference with this presets, all it does for film look is add some grain and subtle color change. It might work for hybrid shooter but as some of people highlighted there is nothing that client will realize if all you are giving them is digital files in the end.
p.1 #19 · Mastin Lab's Real Film Emulation Presets?
mjoshi wrote:
Dont see much of difference with this presets, all it does for film look is add some grain and subtle color change. It might work for hybrid shooter but as some of people highlighted there is nothing that client will realize if all you are giving them is digital files in the end.
In general film is only a subtle difference anyway and many would argue not worth $500-1000 more of out of pocket expenses per wedding over digital, yet many shoot film because it's a look they love (no matter how subtle). I shoot film because I love it and for how it makes me work just as much as for the look, and obviously a preset can't replicate that, but it can replicate the look. Even if you don't have film scans from the same scene/setting if you tweak exposure and WB you will get a more true film look than any other presets offer. Whether that look suits you or not is your preogative though. I should post a true film shot vs VSCO so people can see how far off VSCO really is compared to real film.
