bjhurley wrote:
I'm amazed at what the cheap phone apps like Hipstamatic and Tintype can do, though, in terms of halation.
This was shot with my iPhone SE and the Hipstamatic app; I guess it's my facsimile of a point-and-shoot film camera and I can even do double exposures with the Hipstamatic app. I can tell it's not the real thing but the images have fooled quite a few people including a professional film photographer...I just like the way they look but I enjoy shooting film more.
Those look great! But that’s the thing isn’t it - using a phone jusn’t isn't as satisfying for some people no matter the output.
My Nikon Z7 can make incredible images but to me it’s just not much fun to use. It’s why I use an M10r more than that, and film cameras more than the 10r! No matter how crappy they are!
However I would save soooo much money if I didn’t use ANY cameras and just used my phone! But I love the participation of using a film camera.
Desmolicious wrote:
I am basically 100% a film shooter, but I am impressed by the film profiles.
But, that is not what makes film photography what it is. As well as the whole process you get one chance at it. You have selected your film, you have made your exposure, you have developed your film. You have a physical image that you are holding in your hand.
With the digital process - click a button, pick your profiles. Don’t like that one? Pick another? Messed up the exposure? Who cares the sensor’s dynamic range will take care of it etc.
I have a couple of digital cameras and they are amazing. They make much more ‘sense’ from a practical and logical point of view. But I don’t get much satisfaction from that. I wish I did as photography would be cheaper for me! ...Show more →
Totally agree.
For me the film photography process is like a high school crush. They usually ignore or are mean to you but once in awhile they half heartedly say "hi" and you are over the moon! Good times!
Fred Miranda wrote:
I wanted to share a quick test demonstrating how well the Cobalt Portra 400 film simulation compares to the actual Kodak film. I used the same settings for both cameras (exposure at 1/1000s, f/2.8, and ISO 400).
I found that the Cobalt profile closely resembled the Negative Lab Pro settings, with the color profile set to "Noritsu" and the tone profile set to "Cinematic Rich".
Also, in LR, I included the Cobalt grain setting specific to Portra 400 film but with a higher amount to match the actual film more closely. I'm planning to do a similar test for Ektar100 and Fuijfilm Superia 400 next....Show more →
Did you end up doing the Ektar and Superia comparisons? Would love to see them!
I don't shoot film but since moving from Sony AF to Leica M10, when processing my RAW images, I almost always choose one of my film simulation presets . Among my favorites are various of the Kodak Portra presets. I've got four of the Portra 160 and three of the Portra 400. This one is Portra 160c
Desmolicious wrote:
Those look great! But that’s the thing isn’t it - using a phone jusn’t isn't as satisfying for some people no matter the output.
My Nikon Z7 can make incredible images but to me it’s just not much fun to use. It’s why I use an M10r more than that, and film cameras more than the 10r! No matter how crappy they are!
However I would save soooo much money if I didn’t use ANY cameras and just used my phone! But I love the participation of using a film camera.
I feel the same. My A7RV is just a tool I use for certain photo expeditions and shooting the Asheville professional ballet every year, but it gives me zero joy to use. When I got my M10 in February (in large part with advice from Huss who saved me from making a huge mistake on my first M purchase) I experienced a joy in photography that I last experienced when shooting my Canon AE1 40 years earlier. The M6 is calling to me because I'm so drawn to M film images, but I'm just not at the point of being willing to deal with the logistics of film - processing/printing/scanning.
@chez wrote:
Yep, if your end result is a digital image…just start out with a digital image.
Desmolicious wrote:
And true to form chez chimes in again promoting digital photography on the film forum!
I need to make an apology to @chez.
To be fair, I have to confess that I've previously joined in chastizing Chez for promoting digital photography on the film forum. I thought he was trolling. I have to confess that until today I had not recognized that this thread is running in both the "Film is Not Dead" forum and in the "Leica and Alternative Gear" forum. Chez, I have to apologize -- although I objected to your comments in Film is Not Dead as having a trolling nature, I did not realize that this thread was also is co-published in Leica and Alternative Gear, where your comments were entirely appropriate.
This problem came along because of the distinctively different nature of the film forum vs. the digital forums, and the confusion on my part that came from having a what amounts to a digital thread being co-located in the film forum.
From the perspective of Film is Not Dead, this thread makes no sense. This thread is about digital photography, not film photography. It's premise is that one can use a digital input file on a digital camera to pre-process a digital photo to simulate (fake) a film emulsion's color balance. The closest connection to shooting film is that in the first post a film image was used as a reference point to demonstrate how well a commercial "simulation" accessory for Leica digital cameras fakes the look of a film emulsion's color balance. This is a great topic for Leica and Alternative Gear, but it's not really germane for the film forum, where digital camera pre-processing is not relevant.
This topic is of great interest to digital photographers who want to manage their color science in pre- instead of post-, but I don't understand why it would be of any interest to film photographers; although the digital shooters find value in the color simulations, I think that most film shooters would see the images as not being close to having a true filmic look. I think that the co-publication of this thread in two very different fora led to an unfair calling-out of Chez. In the context of Film is Not Dead he was trolling, but in the context of Leica and Alternative Gear he was not. I apologize for not having recognized this earlier. It confuses me when threads are cross-posted to forums that have such different objectives. Maybe this thread shouldn't have been co-located in Film is Not Dead.
Chez, I apologize. And I blame myself for not recognizing the problem of having this thread co-located in two fora that have very different objectives.
coralnut wrote:
I need to make an apology to @chez.
To be fair, I have to confess that I've previously joined in chastizing Chez for promoting digital photography on the film forum. I thought he was trolling. I have to confess that until today I had not recognized that this thread is running in both the "Film is Not Dead" forum and in the "Leica and Alternative Gear" forum. Chez, I have to apologize -- although I objected to your comments in Film is Not Dead as having a trolling nature, I did not realize that this thread was also is co-published in Leica and Alternative Gear, where your comments were entirely appropriate.
This problem came along because of the distinctively different nature of the film forum vs. the digital forums, and the confusion on my part that came from having a what amounts to a digital thread being co-located in the film forum.
From the perspective of Film is Not Dead, this thread makes no sense. This thread is about digital photography, not film photography. It's premise is that one can use a digital input file on a digital camera to pre-process a digital photo to simulate (fake) a film emulsion's color balance. The closest connection to shooting film is that in the first post a film image was used as a reference point to demonstrate how well a commercial "simulation" accessory for Leica digital cameras fakes the look of a film emulsion's color balance. This is a great topic for Leica and Alternative Gear, but it's not really germane for the film forum, where digital camera pre-processing is not relevant.
This topic is of great interest to digital photographers who want to manage their color science in pre- instead of post-, but I don't understand why it would be of any interest to film photographers; although the digital shooters find value in the color simulations, I think that most film shooters would see the images as not being close to having a true filmic look. I think that the co-publication of this thread in two very different fora led to an unfair calling-out of Chez. In the context of Film is Not Dead he was trolling, but in the context of Leica and Alternative Gear he was not. I apologize for not having recognized this earlier. It confuses me when threads are cross-posted to forums that have such different objectives. Maybe this thread shouldn't have been co-located in Film is Not Dead.
Chez, I apologize. And I blame myself for not recognizing the problem of having this thread co-located in two fora that have very different objectives....Show more →
I believe it made sense to post this comparison in both forums. I compared a digital Leica M10-R with a film Leica MP using Portra 400 film. Afterward, I applied a film simulation profile to the digital images to replicate film colors.
This discussion is relevant to photographers who use both film and digital cameras. It demonstrates how far digital technology can mimic film aesthetics, even though film always retains its unique look appeal.
I understand the distinction between the forums and apologize for any confusion. The goal was to share interesting information that could benefit photographers interested in both mediums. Thank you for bringing up these points, and I'm open to further discussion on how to best contribute to each forum's focus.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I believe it made sense to post this comparison in both forums. I compared a digital Leica M10-R with a film Leica MP using Portra 400 film. Afterward, I applied a film simulation profile to the digital images to replicate film colors.
This discussion is relevant to photographers who use both film and digital cameras. It demonstrates how far digital technology can mimic film aesthetics, even though film always retains its unique look appeal.
I understand the distinction between the forums and apologize for any confusion. The goal was to share interesting information that could benefit photographers interested in both mediums. Thank you for bringing up these points, and I'm open to further discussion on how to best contribute to each forum's focus....Show more →
The cross-positing is recognizable currently only on the main forum site with the grey dot in front of the subject line. But it does not reveal in which other forum it is cross posted - it just indicates that it is posted in another FM forum. Normally this is of no issue since it just allows two kind of communities to interact in the same thread. With the new film forum, it might get a bit complicate since it sort of functions on its own within the other digitally focused FM forums. Nevertheless there are many gear, photo, and photo digitalization topics which are of interest especially in the Alt forum.
IMO it would help to see in which other forum the thread is cross-posted. This could be added as line below the headline thread title after clicking on it maybe with smaller letters.
retrofocus wrote:
The cross-positing is recognizable currently only on the main forum site with the grey dot in front of the subject line. But it does not reveal in which other forum it is cross posted - it just indicates that it is posted in another FM forum. Normally this is of no issue since it just allows two kind of communities to interact in the same thread. With the new film forum, it might get a bit complicate since it sort of functions on its own within the other digitally focused FM forums. Nevertheless there are many gear, photo, and photo digitalization topics which are of interest especially in the Alt forum.
IMO it would help to see in which other forum the thread is cross-posted. This could be added as line below the headline thread title after clicking on it maybe with smaller letters....Show more →
If you mouse over the 'gray dot,' you can see where the thread is cross-posted.
coralnut wrote:
I need to make an apology to @chez.
To be fair, I have to confess that I've previously joined in chastizing Chez for promoting digital photography on the film forum. I thought he was trolling. I have to confess that until today I had not recognized that this thread is running in both the "Film is Not Dead" forum and in the "Leica and Alternative Gear" forum. Chez, I have to apologize -- although I objected to your comments in Film is Not Dead as having a trolling nature, I did not realize that this thread was also is co-published in Leica and Alternative Gear, where your comments were entirely appropriate.
This problem came along because of the distinctively different nature of the film forum vs. the digital forums, and the confusion on my part that came from having a what amounts to a digital thread being co-located in the film forum.
From the perspective of Film is Not Dead, this thread makes no sense. This thread is about digital photography, not film photography. It's premise is that one can use a digital input file on a digital camera to pre-process a digital photo to simulate (fake) a film emulsion's color balance. The closest connection to shooting film is that in the first post a film image was used as a reference point to demonstrate how well a commercial "simulation" accessory for Leica digital cameras fakes the look of a film emulsion's color balance. This is a great topic for Leica and Alternative Gear, but it's not really germane for the film forum, where digital camera pre-processing is not relevant.
This topic is of great interest to digital photographers who want to manage their color science in pre- instead of post-, but I don't understand why it would be of any interest to film photographers; although the digital shooters find value in the color simulations, I think that most film shooters would see the images as not being close to having a true filmic look. I think that the co-publication of this thread in two very different fora led to an unfair calling-out of Chez. In the context of Film is Not Dead he was trolling, but in the context of Leica and Alternative Gear he was not. I apologize for not having recognized this earlier. It confuses me when threads are cross-posted to forums that have such different objectives. Maybe this thread shouldn't have been co-located in Film is Not Dead.
Chez, I apologize. And I blame myself for not recognizing the problem of having this thread co-located in two fora that have very different objectives. ...Show more →
yeah, that mea culpa belongs to me too. Had no idea it was cross posted.
So my understanding of Cobalt is that when you buy their emulation sets, you get a specific profile for a camera model and also presets (LR) or styles (C1) for the respective software correct? The benefit here is instead of just giving you presets, they make sure they match the profile of the camera before applying presets.
!
