recipes for simulating various films
- Thread starter georgier
- Start date
Hi, and welcome.
If you mean Black & White film there is a piece of software that specifically provides things like FP4, Tri-X, HP4 contrast and grain etc. I can't for the life of me remember its name (ah! just remembered, it's DxO); I had a demo version that was very effective. However, I have created my own Duotone (and tri-, quad- etc.) mixes to give me the effects I am after. Duotone rendering is excellent for bromide type reproduction.
I would DDG search "film simulation" and the like.
EDIT: just looked at DxO's website - they don't mention B&W film simulation any more
If you mean Black & White film there is a piece of software that specifically provides things like FP4, Tri-X, HP4 contrast and grain etc. I can't for the life of me remember its name (ah! just remembered, it's DxO); I had a demo version that was very effective. However, I have created my own Duotone (and tri-, quad- etc.) mixes to give me the effects I am after. Duotone rendering is excellent for bromide type reproduction.
I would DDG search "film simulation" and the like.
EDIT: just looked at DxO's website - they don't mention B&W film simulation any more
You'll find what you need by googling analog film simulations using [insert name of software you use here]
Another way to go is to try a Fuji X series camera. I have used one myself though.
If are into mono try a Leica monochrome but is not a cheep option.
Remember a flappy mirror is not necessary.
Sent from my SM-G980F using Tapatalk
If are into mono try a Leica monochrome but is not a cheep option.
Remember a flappy mirror is not necessary.
Sent from my SM-G980F using Tapatalk
I have just bought a roll of 120 Ilford Delta 100 to put through my Bronica. I'll send it off to be processed (I don't have any wet gear anymore ) and then scan the negatives to process and print them. I'm looking forward to playing with B&W film again; just waiting for the right day to take the camera out
) and then scan the negatives to process and print them. I'm looking forward to playing with B&W film again; just waiting for the right day to take the camera out 
I need to put a roll through this again
Camera and light meter 3 by Alf Branch, on Flickr#
Its been a while
This is Portra 160
Red boat in lock by Alf Branch, on Flickr
Camera and light meter 3 by Alf Branch, on Flickr#Its been a while
This is Portra 160
Red boat in lock by Alf Branch, on Flickr
Found it:
DxO FilmPack - Analog and creative film rendering software
It's £49 at the moment but you can download a 30 day trial for free
I had a quick play with the DxO trial version last night. I took the somewhat flat photo below and started by putting it through the FP4 filter with just a little contrast added.
Then I had a play at getting a grainy very old looking photo - you could spend forever adjusting the settings and the end result is very subjective - in this case quite interesting I think
Then I had a play at getting a grainy very old looking photo - you could spend forever adjusting the settings and the end result is very subjective - in this case quite interesting I think
That is because you didn't notice the thread was posted in the photography area, not Lovely Grub, although I think Silence of the Lambs recipes would be more of a Fair Game subject.
I have what may be a stupid question, for which maybe a little background is needed. I like taking pictures of landscapes, but am far from proficient. I have a couple of nice cameras, a Sony RX100 Mk1 and a Canon 5D Mk2. My film cameras were earlier, reasonable entry quality point and shoot. I have had the chance to scan negatives from those cameras, and the quality is pretty poor compared to the digital output. Not all that surprising given the basic quality of the film cameras I used.
Unless you have or did have, a film camera of comparable quality, and had film processed expertly, how do you know what the output of your digital film simulation should look like? If I made my digital photos look like my film photos I would simply be lowering their quality.
Cheers
Chris
Unless you have or did have, a film camera of comparable quality, and had film processed expertly, how do you know what the output of your digital film simulation should look like? If I made my digital photos look like my film photos I would simply be lowering their quality.
Cheers
Chris
It's a valid question and independent reviews of film simulations point out that the results (for the same film type) are very different between the software products.
However, if you have a look at the DxO product you'll see that each film type (colour and B&W, negative and positive) is defined by the characteristics of the original film manufacturer - grain size, contrast, tonal range etc. and the simulations try to achieve that. Of course, when we were doing wet photography, the developer chosen for the film and the paper chosen to print on also affected the actual characteristics of the outcome so nothing was set in stone even then.
Low to mid-end point and shoot film cameras tended to produce very flat images to be honest; the glass quality was rarely good enough. Point and shoot Nikon's could produce startling results though. My earliest camera was an Ilford Sportsman 35mm that I had to work very hard at to get a good contrast print out of. My next camera was an old medium format Ensign 220 (bellows focus) - it produced a much better photo on the same film type. I then moved on to Olympus OM-1 and Bronica ERS (35mm and 120 formats) and the image quality for the same film type was again dramatically improved - so I don't think there is a 'right' answer even if shoot with a film camera.
Of course, there are scanners and scanners as well - a top end film scanner is not cheap.
P.S. - what I am really talking about is a B&W print of course - I have no idea what an FP4 photo is supposed to look like on a digital display!
However, if you have a look at the DxO product you'll see that each film type (colour and B&W, negative and positive) is defined by the characteristics of the original film manufacturer - grain size, contrast, tonal range etc. and the simulations try to achieve that. Of course, when we were doing wet photography, the developer chosen for the film and the paper chosen to print on also affected the actual characteristics of the outcome so nothing was set in stone even then.
Low to mid-end point and shoot film cameras tended to produce very flat images to be honest; the glass quality was rarely good enough. Point and shoot Nikon's could produce startling results though. My earliest camera was an Ilford Sportsman 35mm that I had to work very hard at to get a good contrast print out of. My next camera was an old medium format Ensign 220 (bellows focus) - it produced a much better photo on the same film type. I then moved on to Olympus OM-1 and Bronica ERS (35mm and 120 formats) and the image quality for the same film type was again dramatically improved - so I don't think there is a 'right' answer even if shoot with a film camera.
Of course, there are scanners and scanners as well - a top end film scanner is not cheap.
P.S. - what I am really talking about is a B&W print of course - I have no idea what an FP4 photo is supposed to look like on a digital display!
Last edited:
Thanks Broch, that does answer my question pretty well. Cheers! 
The scanner I used wasn't a dedicated negative scanner, but was a £200+ Canon flat bed with negative bed adapter. Some scans from other (better) cameras certainly came out better than my shots.
I am sorry to say that "georgier" will not be participating further in this thread. It came to our attention that they were a spammer, and they have been banned accordingly.
Not really sure what these spammers hope to gain by joining here, all new members' first posts must be manually approved, and while we might miss the first post, we don't miss more than that, so they are never going to get to actually post whatever it is they want to advertise here. Before the manual approval system was brought in, we proved the membership itself reported spam messages very fast, and they got banned within a short time of posting.
Anyway, unlike the usual fare, this has been an interesting thread, even if it was started with dishonest intent.
ATB
Chris
The scanner I used wasn't a dedicated negative scanner, but was a £200+ Canon flat bed with negative bed adapter. Some scans from other (better) cameras certainly came out better than my shots.
I am sorry to say that "georgier" will not be participating further in this thread. It came to our attention that they were a spammer, and they have been banned accordingly.
Not really sure what these spammers hope to gain by joining here, all new members' first posts must be manually approved, and while we might miss the first post, we don't miss more than that, so they are never going to get to actually post whatever it is they want to advertise here. Before the manual approval system was brought in, we proved the membership itself reported spam messages very fast, and they got banned within a short time of posting.
Anyway, unlike the usual fare, this has been an interesting thread, even if it was started with dishonest intent.
ATB
Chris
They know they need to make a certain number of posts to be able to post freely, so they try some innocuous posts which can be copied and pasted to different forums with minimal effort, worded in such a way to arouse little suspicion. Sometimes they are copied from real people on other forums. This was sophisticated because they posted a photography subject to a photography sub-forum. The posts asking about hair care products or pet grooming posted in Bushcraft are rather easier to spot.
Our opening post looks awfully like the one that started this thread:
www.dpreview.com
There are a bunch of ways we spot spammers and it doesn't do to describe them in public.
Our opening post looks awfully like the one that started this thread:
recipes for simulating various films: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com
There are a bunch of ways we spot spammers and it doesn't do to describe them in public.
Similar threads
