Digital to Film Look

damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
edited September 14, 2010 in People
Shot this a few months ago with my digital. Processed it last night with Exposure 3 to give it a film look.

1596091-large.jpg
«1

Comments

  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2010
    Damon,
    sorry man, this image doesn't have even a hint of a film look. ne_nau.gif
    Nice shot, though! thumb.gif
    Nikolai
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • reyvee61reyvee61 Registered Users Posts: 1,877 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2010
    I have never tried Exposure 3 but this looks pretty cool though.
    Color Efex 2 for CNX2 has some cool film fliters, will have to play with them a bit and post results
    Yo soy Reynaldo
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2010
    What about these?

    1595041-large.jpg

    61896_431036679278_507734278_5123283_3784175_n.jpg

    1595165-large.jpg
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2010
    damonff wrote: »
    What about these?
    First two do look like film :-) clap.gif
    Third one looks somewhat PS-ed, hard to say...headscratch.gif
    Yet again, at this resolution the chance of error is mighty high ne_nau.gif
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2010
    First and third are film. First is Fuji 400H and the third is Kodak Porta 400. The second is digital, converted with Exposure 3. Actually, the third does look PS-ed, but it's not. I was amazed at the look of the negative when I got it.
  • reyvee61reyvee61 Registered Users Posts: 1,877 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2010
    Ok, I'm no expert but I'm liking the style of the first and third and the B&W looks like film to me....
    Yo soy Reynaldo
  • reyvee61reyvee61 Registered Users Posts: 1,877 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2010
    damonff wrote: »
    First and third are film. First is Fuji 400H and the third is Kodak Porta 400. The second is digital, converted with Exposure 3. Actually, the third does look PS-ed, but it's not. I was amazed at the look of the negative when I got it.

    Ah, I thought so!
    Yo soy Reynaldo
  • kidzmomkidzmom Registered Users Posts: 828 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2010
    These are all awesome shots!
  • InsuredDisasterInsuredDisaster Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2010
    See, I tried Exposure twice and each time I reached the conclusion that BW I could get a look I liked better using LR or PS (and have self proclaimed experts insist it was taken with BW film) and the color film settings were ok, but didn't really scream "film" with the looks I tried. Maybe the effect was too subtle. If anything, I felt that with digital cameras these days, color shifts and casts are a thing of the past, so people don't think "film" with a lot of looks, they think "Wrong WB." Each time I want to love the program, but I just can't part with $250 (that's like another SB-600!) for the program yet. Oh well.


    Are you using the demo or something else? I think it would be fun to shoot a scene with film and digital, then use exposure 3 to convert the digital to the same "film stock" and see if we could tell the difference though. :)


    Nice shots by the way. I like them all, including the first one!
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2010
    reyvee61 wrote: »
    Ok, I'm no expert but I'm liking the style of the first and third and the B&W looks like film to me....

    Thanks. And yeah, the b&w conversions in Exposure are really nice. I am going to shoot some Ilford 400 this weekend and see how they measure up.
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2010
    kidzmom wrote: »
    These are all awesome shots!

    Thank you Kelly!
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2010
    See, I tried Exposure twice and each time I reached the conclusion that BW I could get a look I liked better using LR or PS (and have self proclaimed experts insist it was taken with BW film) and the color film settings were ok, but didn't really scream "film" with the looks I tried. Maybe the effect was too subtle. If anything, I felt that with digital cameras these days, color shifts and casts are a thing of the past, so people don't think "film" with a lot of looks, they think "Wrong WB." Each time I want to love the program, but I just can't part with $250 (that's like another SB-600!) for the program yet. Oh well.


    Are you using the demo or something else? I think it would be fun to shoot a scene with film and digital, then use exposure 3 to convert the digital to the same "film stock" and see if we could tell the difference though. :)


    Nice shots by the way. I like them all, including the first one!

    That's what I like about Exposure. You can go to the film look that is a preset, and then tweak it to your specifications. I love Fuji 400H film and being able to tweak it is nice. Of course, I can just shoot 400H and scan it. I need to do a side by side comparison.

    I am using the full program. Thanks for the compliments!
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2010
    I gotta admit I think its really odd to shoot digital and then try to get back to the imperfect look of film. I mean, its just odd, isn't it? And yet I like it.... :shrug
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • michswissmichswiss Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 2,235 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2010
    mercphoto wrote: »
    I gotta admit I think its really odd to shoot digital and then try to get back to the imperfect look of film. I mean, its just odd, isn't it? And yet I like it.... :shrug

    Look, I really feel that imperfections are what we respond to emotionally the vast majority of the time. I think we get too drawn into achieving some form of technical perfection that we forget that it's the misplaced, the slightly out of focus, the soft or out-of-balance composition that truly captures a moment. Working with film brings back some of the spontaneity of photography. You can't chimp, you just shoot. And I think that mentality comes through in the images.
  • InsuredDisasterInsuredDisaster Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2010
    damonff wrote: »
    I need to do a side by side comparison.

    I am using the full program. Thanks for the compliments!


    Please do. i would be very interested in seeing this.
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2010
    michswiss wrote: »
    Look, I really feel that imperfections are what we respond to emotionally the vast majority of the time. I think we get too drawn into achieving some form of technical perfection that we forget that it's the misplaced, the slightly out of focus, the soft or out-of-balance composition that truly captures a moment. Working with film brings back some of the spontaneity of photography. You can't chimp, you just shoot. And I think that mentality comes through in the images.

    Well said. That's exactly how I feel.
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2010
    mercphoto wrote: »
    I gotta admit I think its really odd to shoot digital and then try to get back to the imperfect look of film. I mean, its just odd, isn't it? And yet I like it.... :shrug

    I'm glad you like it Bill!
  • InsuredDisasterInsuredDisaster Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
    edited September 12, 2010
    damonff wrote: »
    That's what I like about Exposure. You can go to the film look that is a preset, and then tweak it to your specifications. I love Fuji 400H film and being able to tweak it is nice. Of course, I can just shoot 400H and scan it. I need to do a side by side comparison.

    I am using the full program. Thanks for the compliments!

    Quick question about that. Of course, on the one hand, one can tweak an image to what they want and all that.

    But I thought that Exposure was supposed to already have the look of film and that once you tweak an image further, don't you end up moving away from a certain film?

    For me, I feel that once I start tweaking an image, I might as well just tweak it in LR3.

    I look forward to seeing additional exposure images from you to examine.thumb.gif
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited September 12, 2010
    Quick question about that. Of course, on the one hand, one can tweak an image to what they want and all that.

    But I thought that Exposure was supposed to already have the look of film and that once you tweak an image further, don't you end up moving away from a certain film?

    For me, I feel that once I start tweaking an image, I might as well just tweak it in LR3.

    I look forward to seeing additional exposure images from you to examine.thumb.gif

    Hey I.D.

    Yes, once you tweak, you move from AlienSkin's interpretation of a film. Their interpretations are excellently crafted. But if you want to add some spots or scratches or some blue, you can. I don't stray far from their sets. It's just that I have shot film since like 1984 and it is refreshing to be able to "do it again" with my digital equipment. Of course, I still shoot actual film (just shot some today!) so, the process is always fluid. In that regard, I accidentally shot a roll of Fuji 800 Z at ISO 40 (I know) and I can't wait to see what happened. I didn't even dare tell the processing lab because I was so embarrassed about it.
  • misterbmisterb Banned Posts: 601 Major grins
    edited September 12, 2010
    The NIK representative demo'ed the Silver EFX which had presets for Ilford, Plus-X, Tri-X, etc.
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited September 12, 2010
    misterb wrote: »
    The NIK representative demo'ed the Silver EFX which had presets for Ilford, Plus-X, Tri-X, etc.

    cool!
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited September 12, 2010
    damonff wrote: »
    Hey I.D.

    Yes, once you tweak, you move from AlienSkin's interpretation of a film. Their interpretations are excellently crafted. But if you want to add some spots or scratches or some blue, you can. I don't stray far from their sets. It's just that I have shot film since like 1984 and it is refreshing to be able to "do it again" with my digital equipment. Of course, I still shoot actual film (just shot some today!) so, the process is always fluid. In that regard, I accidentally shot a roll of Fuji 800 Z at ISO 40 (I know) and I can't wait to see what happened. I didn't even dare tell the processing lab because I was so embarrassed about it.

    The results will be terrible since the lab doesn't know to pull it......it will be terrible over exposed in my guestimation...........maybe totally burned ..............................
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • reyvee61reyvee61 Registered Users Posts: 1,877 Major grins
    edited September 12, 2010
    mercphoto wrote: »
    I gotta admit I think its really odd to shoot digital and then try to get back to the imperfect look of film. I mean, its just odd, isn't it? And yet I like it.... :shrug

    Kinda like digital audio, we perfect it then spend tons of time and money trying to dirty it up again with tube sound simulators...go figure :-)
    Yo soy Reynaldo
  • reyvee61reyvee61 Registered Users Posts: 1,877 Major grins
    edited September 12, 2010
    damonff wrote: »
    Hey I.D.

    Yes, once you tweak, you move from AlienSkin's interpretation of a film. Their interpretations are excellently crafted. But if you want to add some spots or scratches or some blue, you can. I don't stray far from their sets. It's just that I have shot film since like 1984 and it is refreshing to be able to "do it again" with my digital equipment. Of course, I still shoot actual film (just shot some today!) so, the process is always fluid. In that regard, I accidentally shot a roll of Fuji 800 Z at ISO 40 (I know) and I can't wait to see what happened. I didn't even dare tell the processing lab because I was so embarrassed about it.

    Sounds like it's worth giving it a try
    Yo soy Reynaldo
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited September 13, 2010
    Art Scott wrote: »
    The results will be terrible since the lab doesn't know to pull it......it will be terrible over exposed in my guestimation...........maybe totally burned ..............................

    Yeah, I noticed it on the eleventh frame. I was like, why is the shutter so slow (I was in aperture priority mode). Doh! So the remaining 25 shots will be ok, hopefully.
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited September 13, 2010
    reyvee61 wrote: »
    Kinda like digital audio, we perfect it then spend tons of time and money trying to dirty it up again with tube sound simulators...go figure :-)

    Or cubism...I read somewhere that Picasso could draw anything perfectly, almost life like. Then he "messed" his style up to find his voice.
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited September 13, 2010
    I downloaded the trial pack this weekend but have yet to give it a spin. (and, frankly, I can't figure out what the trial pack really means? reduced functionality? time-limit? does it put a watermark on the final image?) But I'm curious if there are any pointers that would make my trial period be more productive? Thanks! I've always loved the Kodachrome 64 look myself.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • photosthatgivephotosthatgive Registered Users Posts: 48 Big grins
    edited September 13, 2010
    digging the shots.
    -Josh

    Photographer/Founder - Photos That Give

    www.photosthatgive.com

    Facebook
    Twitter
    Blog
    Website
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited September 13, 2010
    mercphoto wrote: »
    I downloaded the trial pack this weekend but have yet to give it a spin. (and, frankly, I can't figure out what the trial pack really means? reduced functionality? time-limit? does it put a watermark on the final image?) But I'm curious if there are any pointers that would make my trial period be more productive? Thanks! I've always loved the Kodachrome 64 look myself.

    I think it only has a time limit.

    The program is straight forward. I access it from Lightroom. Pick your image and then go to photo -> edit in Exposure. Then another window pops up with your image and the film choices are on the left. Just browse them. It then saves a copy with the new edits in Lightroom.

    Have fun!
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited September 13, 2010
    digging the shots.

    thanks Josh
Sign In or Register to comment.