Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
You can also try Exposure X7 (or an earlier version) to simulate the grain. To me it has the most realistic (and flexible) grain simulation.
mranger211 wrote:
You can also try Exposure X7 (or an earlier version) to simulate the grain. To me it has the most realistic (and flexible) grain simulation.
I've tried Exposure X7 as well and I agree, it is the most realistic grain simulation out there.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've tried Exposure X7 as well and I agree, it is the most realistic grain simulation out there.
Have you tried grain simulation in Dehancer? It’s one of the rare implementations that draws image itself with grain rather than overlays grain layer over actual image. The result is quite good.
I also like their halation and bloom modules, but not a fan of their film simulation profiles. That last bit actually can be applied to any other simulation out there that I’ve tried. Still yet to find any profiles that simulate film colors and tonality faithfully out of the box. I have Elite Portra profiles from Cobalt and their digital camera profiles for some of my cameras (Fujifilm S5 pro and GFX50s II) and, unfortunately, they can’t even create profile that would faithfully reproduce reality with digital, let alone faithfully simulate film stocks. Both my Fuji cameras with same Cobalt profiles give different results.
In a way, that is a positive thing, unability to get the colors I get from film in the same relatively easy and predictable way, but using digital, is my main driver to shoot film. I can simulate negative film with some success, but with a lot of manual tinkering, much more that is needed for negative inversion. And with slide film not sure if this possible at all, both scanning and digital copying give me results that pale comparing to what slides can offer on a light table and being projected. The only method that could came close is drum scanning, but that is prohibitely expensive. And then again, trying to fit something like bright red tulips on sunny day to gamut of the existing monitors without loosing the perception of their vividness, is not an easy task. Maybe actual HDR ones (OLED/Mini-LED) can do the trick, but I don’t have one to check that out. At the same time projected slides do that with ease for me.
YariloUA wrote:
Have you tried grain simulation in Dehancer? It’s one of the rare implementations that draws image itself with grain rather than overlays grain layer over actual image. The result is quite good.
I also like their halation and bloom modules, but not a fan of their film simulation profiles. That last bit actually can be applied to any other simulation out there that I’ve tried. Still yet to find any profiles that simulate film colors and tonality faithfully out of the box. I have Elite Portra profiles from Cobalt and their digital camera profiles for some of my cameras (Fujifilm S5 pro and GFX50s II) and, unfortunately, they can’t even create profile that would faithfully reproduce reality with digital, let alone faithfully simulate film stocks. Both my Fuji cameras with same Cobalt profiles give different results.
In a way, that is a positive thing, unability to get the colors I get from film in the same relatively easy and predictable way, but using digital, is my main driver to shoot film. I can simulate negative film with some success, but with a lot of manual tinkering, much more that is needed for negative inversion. And with slide film not sure if this possible at all, both scanning and digital copying give me results that pale comparing to what slides can offer on a light table and being projected. The only method that could came close is drum scanning, but that is prohibitely expensive. And then again, trying to fit something like bright red tulips on sunny day to gamut of the existing monitors without loosing the perception of their vividness, is not an easy task. Maybe actual HDR ones (OLED/Mini-LED) can do the trick, but I don’t have one to check that out. At the same time projected slides do that with ease for me. ...Show more →
I tried their demo and liked it a lot, especially the grain. Lately though, I haven't been adding any grain to my digital images. If I want that look, I would rather just shoot film.
When it comes to film simulations on digital files, I'm more interested in color and tonality, and even then I usually keep it pretty subtle.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I tried their demo and liked it a lot, especially the grain. Lately though, I haven’t been adding any grain to my digital images. If I want that look, I would rather just shoot film.
When it comes to film simulations on digital files, I'm more interested in color and tonality, and even then I usually keep it pretty subtle.
I'm getting questions like "Why ruin photos by adding grain?" from time to time, but personally it became integral part of the aesthetics I like. But I get that it probably seen as unnecessary element by others.
I like the idea of just shooting film, tried that last year on some occasions. Too bad in my area outsourcing the developing to the lab would mean ruined film because of depleted/expired chemicals or scratched to death (sometimes film looks like it was wiped with sandpaper) or both. So I develop myself, once a year, "delayed gratification" at its finest. And naturally sometimes I want to see photos a bit earlier than late December and take digital with me as well, but that isn't fun at all to shoot (almost) each frame twice.
I need to embrace my kind of delayed gratification and just shoot film, without digital support.
YariloUA wrote:
I'm getting questions like "Why ruin photos by adding grain?" from time to time, but personally it became integral part of the aesthetics I like. But I get that it probably seen as unnecessary element by others.
I like the idea of just shooting film, tried that last year on some occasions. Too bad in my area outsourcing the developing to the lab would mean ruined film because of depleted/expired chemicals or scratched to death (sometimes film looks like it was wiped with sandpaper) or both. So I develop myself, once a year, "delayed gratification" at its finest. And naturally sometimes I want to see photos a bit earlier than late December and take digital with me as well, but that isn't fun at all to shoot (almost) each frame twice.
I need to embrace my kind of delayed gratification and just shoot film, without digital support....Show more →
I see your point, and in some cases I agree that adding grain or noise to mimic a film look can be desirable. I especially like it for portraits, where it can soften skin imperfections and add a bit more character.
But, there are plenty of situations where I don't think it helps, so having the choice is welcome. Even in the film days, that choice existed, whether it was going with a very low ASA fine-grain film or picking something with more noticeable grain.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I see your point, and in some cases I agree that adding grain or noise to mimic a film look can be desirable. I especially like it for portraits, where it can soften skin imperfections and add a bit more character.
But, there are plenty of situations where I don't think it helps, so having the choice is welcome. Even in the film days, that choice existed, whether it was going with a very low ASA fine-grain film or picking something with more noticeable grain.
For sure having a choice is a good thing. I'm not a fan of excessive lo-fi/lomography type of grain. That is why I gradually limited my 135 options to Ektar 100 and slide films, even Portra 400 was already too much for me grain-wise. Kodak Vision 3 250D is somewhat borderline between Ektar 100 and Portra 400. Grain is also non-issue for me with projected slides even with 135 format.
But on properly exposed and scanned MF negative I think that one need to really look at magnified level to spot the grain even with Portra 800, and then again to me it's rather like fine texture of the painter canvas than something distracting. 4x5 and beyond the grain basically is not an issue at all.
Fun thing is that most of my digital works are "too analog" for "digital crowd" and most of my film works are "too digital" for "analog crowd", but I like it that way.
To give you an example, here one of the "film vs digital" pairs I made last year, this was perfect test scene with vivid greens under near-sunset sun, very colourful in real world, real beauty of nature.
First is Portra 800 on Rolleicord Vb with Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar 3.5/75 (and with unfortunate banding from CoolScan 8000 because I haven't noticed that Fine Scan wasn't on - this is known issue with 8000) and second is GFX50s II with Nikon Nikkor-H•C Auto 50mm f/2, developed in ACR with custom profile and manually adjusted colours via Camera Calibration.
YariloUA wrote:
To give you an example, here one of the "film vs digital" pairs I made last year, this was perfect test scene with vivid greens under near-sunset sun, very colourful in real world, real beauty of nature.
First is Portra 800 on Rolleicord Vb with Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar 3.5/75 (and with unfortunate banding from CoolScan 8000 because I haven't noticed that Fine Scan wasn't on - this is known issue with 8000) and second is GFX50s II with Nikon Nikkor-H•C Auto 50mm f/2, developed in ACR with custom profile and manually adjusted colours via Camera Calibration.
You did a great job here, especially with matching the white balance, which is really the most important adjustment before moving on to any finer tweaks.
Fred Miranda wrote:
You did a great job here, especially with matching the white balance, which is really the most important adjustment before moving on to any finer tweaks.
Thank you Fred! Nice to hear that you liked it.
And naturally sometimes I want to see photos a bit earlier than late December and take digital with me as well, but that isn't fun at all to shoot (almost) each frame twice.
