A Little Face Time

[smoke665]

Don't buy many presets, but I liked the direction this guy was going with the Ilford Delta 3200 simulation, plus it gave Lil Bit a chance to work on her faces. Out of the box I found it just a tad to grainy, so these show the resultant reduction. C&C welcome, does it need more work or need more
no-image-available-grid.jpg by William Raber, on Flickr

 

[CherylL]

She has such cute expressions. I like the contrast best in #2.

 

[smoke665]

Thanks Cheryll, she was visiting today. Sunday we're taking her to a stage production of the Little Mermaid. Maybe if I keep working with her she'll become a famous actress someday, and lavish lots of camera gear on Papa.

 

[vintagesnaps]

They're framed a little tight for me and being in that close I'd think about giving the hair a quick comb before you get going (because in close makes the wispy strands of hair noticeable) and I'd think about the backgrounds. But mostly I really don't get why this is supposed to look like film... I just don't get it! lol

I've usually found 800 or 1000 speed to not be quite as good in quality as 400 and mostly just used it if I'd be in really low light (and I don't know if those are manufactured anymore so that takes care of that!). I haven't tried the Ilford 3200 to know what it's like. But... why does this look like film?? I use the same lenses on my digital camera and film rangefinders, I guess I'd have to compare mine and see.

You do capture her personality!

 

[smoke665]

@vintagesnaps The shots were not so much about her as a chance to try the presets. She was playing and I was a distraction. Lol

Its been years since I've even shot film. Thought about it awhile back, but the still sealed rolls of Ilford in the refrigerator is as far as I got. As to the film simulations, the person who developed them followed along the lines of what most do (tone curve, hue, add grain). One thing on digital today is that it can be almost to perfect, to sharp, to realistic. Adding a film simulation can take the sharp edges off, bring it back to a more pleasing feel.

 

[razashaikh]

Such a cute photo. She has a cute expression. #1 is so cute. Loved it.

 

[Derrel]

I think MORE grain effect would make these look more film-like. My preference is for shot#2.

 

[smoke665]

I think MORE grain effect would make these look more film-like. My preference is for shot#2.

I was hoping you'd check in. Memories can be highly subjective, which why having other opinions helps to make them clearer . Like any new process I need to experiment more to find that sweet spot between to little and to much. Thanks for commenting.

 

[jcdeboever]

I think the addition of grain really brings film simulations closer to the real thing. I have yet to find one (add on software) that screams film. Probably the closest one I have seen is Fujifilm Acros simulation jpeg out of camera. It is scary close. My custom portrait Acros simulation in camera is Acros green filter, one bump of grain, one bump increase contrast, -2 sharp. It produces lovely skin tones and closely mirrors Acros film with a green filter.

Try shooting the same scene with film and digital and then go to the software and compare, you will find it night and day is my guess. I don't shoot Delta film but if that's the look your after, that is what I would do. I did one for TriX. Yours looks very digital to me. I just shoot film when I want the film look. I think if it were possible to immulate film on digital, someone would have figured it out by now. I racked up hours of time I will never get back trying to do it. Just shoot film...

 

[smoke665]

Yours looks very digital to me. I just shoot film when I want the film look. I think if it were possible to immulate film on digital, someone would have figured it out by now. I racked up hours of time I will never get back trying to do it. Just shoot film...

I suspect that part of that might be that you are much closer to film on a regular basis, but I do agree that I might need to bump the grain backup closer to the original preset level. This was a print of my daughter that was shot 42 years ago and processed in my darkroom. I can't remember the film, but likely Tri-x 400 as I bought it in bulk rolls, and only rarely shot Ilford. I can't remember the paper I used back then, but it was printed as an 8x10. It hung the on the wall of my office for several years, and was stored in a box in bottom of the drawer since. The print actually looks a little better then my cheap scanner produced and this is straight into a JPEG with no edits. I realize Tri-X and Ilford have a different look/feel, but still the tonal gradations are so much better with film.

I would go back to film except for two reasons. One - I've sunk so much into equipment and glass that I hate to go backward, and two - I'm a little on the lazy side. Film shooting takes effort both during the shot and after in processing. If I were to do it again, it would be with a full darkroom much like I had before. Having a raw file, that can produce color, b&w, or any number of options in between has certain advantages for me as someone who likes to experiment in real time.

I'm finding digital improvement a two edged sword. As I said earlier the better the equipment, the better the processing, the sharper, more realistic it becomes, but at what cost from an artistic standpoint. Digital can be unforgiving in it's representation especially on skin, having the ability to soften and bring back some of nostalgic look of the film era, I think has an advantage.

 

[Derrel]

Digital is so clean and so High-detail compared to film. The grain of film served to obscure the finer levels of detail and most scenes contain enough fine, high-frequency detail that it is quite easy for me to discern film from digital images in most cases, especially on portraiture.
There is a smoothness to digital images that is not found in film images. Digital images lack "grain", Whereas most images made on film clearly show the grain structure of the negative. When one can easily see individual hairs that make up the down peach fuzz of a young child's face, then the image was most likely made on digital.

The smoothness of the face skin in these three photos screams digital. Delta 3200 Has pretty pronounce grain. This photo looks more like a very low ASA film, like Panatomic-X, printed on a very low contrast grade of paper.

 

[smoke665]

The smoothness of the face skin in these three photos screams digital. Delta 3200 Has pretty pronounce grain.

Actually it was the simulation and wide aperture that covered a lot of skin imperfections in these, but I agree with what you're saying. That said, if we assume that digital will never be film, at what point would you stop? Would you seek to get as close to film as possible, knowing someone with film knowledge would still be able to tell the difference or would you strive to attain a level somewhere in between, more of an artistic choice?

 

[CherylL]

Thanks Cheryll, she was visiting today. Sunday we're taking her to a stage production of the Little Mermaid. Maybe if I keep working with her she'll become a famous actress someday, and lavish lots of camera gear on Papa.

When she is interviewed years from now, she will tell how she honed her expression skills in her grandfather's studio