kidtexas wrote:
I\'d like to modify that. You can get something that looks similar to film, but getting something that looks exactly like a specific stock can be very difficult. I do acknowledge that getting something similar to film is good enough 99% of the time; getting an exact match is just academic.
Since I\'m only workning with images for viewing on a computer screen, the \"accuracy\" is unimportant. If I had a print, I\'d have to scan it anyway.
So, what is interesting to me is what I can get out of film, that I cannot from a digital camera file. I really don\'t care if it looks like it \"should\" for being film.
I\'ve been saying that for a while. It might be a less accurate reproduction, but I find it a more *pleasing* one. I hate to use an analogy, but it\'s like tube amps for a guitar.
That\'s a good analogy. I happen to play guitar, and I agree that tube amps sound \"better\". Not actually better technically, but they are nicer to listen to, especially when slightly clipping.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Wow. I would not have guessed that was Provia 100F. The contrast and colors seems much harsher than the Provia 100F I\'ve used -- the contrast is even harsher than Velvia. Especially from a 6x7 slide. Are you sure it\'s Provia, or did you really mess around with the file?
I \"messed around\" with the file to make the image look like the original positive, when viewed \"as is\", backlit. A bit overdone perhaps, but I like it. The light was quite harsh too, so it isn\'t too far from reality except for the saturation.
Here\'s another one from the same roll.
Dec 23, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Previous versions of Makten's message #9153381 « Film vs Digital or Film = Digital »
