Jokkmokk wooden church

Alex_B · Jul 13, 2007

MaxBloom said:
I hate to be a party pooper, but:

1) That doesn't look at all like Foma.

2) My main criterion for deciding whether a conversion is good or not it if I can tell whether it was taken with a digital camera. In this case, it was very obvious.

Well, you are not ruining the party, but you are pointing at something here! First of all, I never used Foma, so I cannot really judge.

So now I wonder if I maybe messed up the conversion since I had my standard settings for RAW to JPG, and on top of those I used the conversion tool.

1. Maybe that ruined the Foma characteristics? Could be ...

2. The light was non-standard

3. Or is it not graduations/contrast but something else which ruins the impression?

Alpha · Jul 13, 2007

Well, Foma is an older style emulsion. It even has that blue tinge to it if you don't pre-wash, sort of like plus-x. As such, it's a fair bit grainier, and would have shown much stronger highlighting on the building itself, even under non-standard lighting.

I suppose what tipped me off to the fact that it's digital was the flatness of the light on the building, and the grain character or lack thereof. I might believe it was shot on film if you told me it was ortho lith. It's just really austere in way that's pretty uncharacteristic of most film.