Do these look like they were shot with film?

Derrel · Dec 12, 2011

Well, if those images are representative of VSCO's "35mm Tri-X" look, their product is far off-base...the shots posted look absolutely nothing at all like Tri-X...I shot Tri-X from 1976 to 1999...the grain is wrong, but even more importantly the tonality looks absolutely NOTHING like Tri-X...the highlights look dreadful. Digital as heck.

I have not used VSCO, nor the brand-new DxO Film Pack application software, but I do know what images made on Tri-X look like, when shot and processed in multiple different ways.

I have seen some pretty good images made with some of the Nik software B&W film apps. But like Josh said, the ones of the L.L. Bean-looking dude putting up the Christmas lights--those are far,far too "clean" to look like they had been made using 35mm Tri-X film...the images as shown are virtually grainless, so if those came thru VSCO, then I think you need to tweak the settings quite a bit if film emulation is your goal. Oh...and add some dust, some scratches, and some water spots too!! lol

Robin Usagani · Dec 12, 2011

derrel, I might very well didnt use it right. There is also a preset for "screen view". I should have used that maybe. I will work on it again tonight.

Robin Usagani · Dec 12, 2011

the reason im staying away from Nik is that it is photoshop based. My workflow would be way too slow if I have to use photoshop almost every image. I rather stay inside LR.

GeorgieGirl · Dec 12, 2011

Schwettylens said:
the reason im staying away from Nik is that it is photoshop based. My workflow would be way too slow if I have to use photoshop almost every image. I rather stay inside LR.

I thought you could select LR based from some webinars I took. Check into that.

unpopular · Dec 12, 2011

The highlight transition is too harsh. Was the original clipped?

Robin Usagani · Dec 12, 2011

unpopular said:
The highlight transition is too harsh. Was the original clipped?

Ill do before and a few afters tonight.

Helen B · Dec 12, 2011

Derrel said:
Well, if those images are representative of VSCO's "35mm Tri-X" look, their product is far off-base...

I had a look at the VSCO website and tend to agree with Derrel. They make a big claim about their authenticity, but fail to deliver on it - in fact anyone who claims to have an authentic "look" for negative film is either fooling themselves or taking their customers for gullible idiots. There's no such thing really, especially for negative films that changed over their life, such as all the Portra films, Tri-X and TMZ. Negatives have to be turned into positive images for viewing. If you are using prints as your basis for the "look" then the look depends as much, if not more, on the paper used. For B&W negative film there are almost as many looks as there are combinations of film developers and developing techniques. For most neg films how do you get an authentic look when the digital original has less dynamic range than the film it is trying to emulate - you would have to start off with underexposed images to try to get the highlight tonality that film can deliver.

There's no harm in producing some good-looking profiles that can be applied to Raw images to make them look a bit like film, but calling them accurate representations of various negative films is something of a con.

Best,
Helen

raphaelaaron · Dec 12, 2011

ChristopherCoy said:
Derrel said:

If you want these to look like 35mm film from the 1970's, you need to add some obvious film grain to the images. The large, plain side of the white house..if that had been shot on film, we'd likely see some grain there. Same with the sky in that frame...too smooth, no grain,looks digital. In another vein, the tonality looks very "digital"...these look digital. Low noise, smooth broad areas with NO visible grain, and compressed tonal range. Film images that were shot on ASA 125 to 400 B&W film and developed in almost anything, anything at ALL,would show grain in the sky,and on larger, smooth-toned expanses.

Click to expand...

What about the sharpness? Film wouldn't be this tack sharp would it?

i beg to differ.

Josh66 · Dec 12, 2011

ChristopherCoy said:
Derrel said:

If you want these to look like 35mm film from the 1970's, you need to add some obvious film grain to the images. The large, plain side of the white house..if that had been shot on film, we'd likely see some grain there. Same with the sky in that frame...too smooth, no grain,looks digital. In another vein, the tonality looks very "digital"...these look digital. Low noise, smooth broad areas with NO visible grain, and compressed tonal range. Film images that were shot on ASA 125 to 400 B&W film and developed in almost anything, anything at ALL,would show grain in the sky,and on larger, smooth-toned expanses.

Click to expand...

What about the sharpness? Film wouldn't be this tack sharp would it?

Film often has more resolving power than digital. Especially slower film like 25-100.

There are a lot of things that can affect sharpness, but I don't think the film you use is one of them. For example, I can use the same lenses on either a digital or film body... The frames from the film body always look sharper to me (they're bigger too)...

tirediron · Dec 12, 2011

Just out of curiosity Robin, if you wanted the look of film, why not just shoot film?????

unpopular · Dec 12, 2011

If you're on a mac, you can use Raw Photo Processor. While not taking into account grain, it's various film simulations are pretty good IMO.

Sw1tchFX · Dec 12, 2011

I don't understand, why not just shoot film in the first place? Than you take out all the guesswork of trying to fake it?

It's like putting lipstick on a pig....it's still a pig.

Robin Usagani · Dec 12, 2011

You guys are funny. Always find something to argue about. VSCO is no joke. It is a nice LR plug in. Just because I dont know how to use it YET and dont know what film photos should look like, dont assume it is crap. This isnt a rip off presets people sell. I already said why I didnt shoot it with film.

unpopular · Dec 12, 2011

Here is my stab at the film-like look using Raw Photo Processor and Image Fuser. I used the A25 profile, which I think is supposed to emulate the tone of Agfapan 25 film. Because RPP does not add grain, it does not simulate grain.

For the hilight detail, the settings were R:0, B:-3, G1:-1, G2:-0.9921 (auto), simulating an orange filter - if I am imagining it right. RPP allows you to perform a sort of channel mixing on RAW files. Overall exposure was set to zero.

For the shadows I used settings of -2, +3, -3, 3.0078 (auto), simulating a blue filter. Again, overall exposure at zero.

I then merged the two images together in ImageFuser, which is similar to but different from tone mapping. The fusion needs some further work, as you can see a feathering effect over the hilight transition area on the right building. I also added a highpass filter, one for local contrast and another to enhance sharpness. This is not a finished work:

RPP handles noise a bit differently than most processors. At first you get this kind of "holy hell" reaction, but it really does render out nicer. If you're going to have noise, I'd rather it look like the noise produced by RPP than some of the other processors. It looks like Rodinal 1:15 to me, but with much smoother highlights. You get the same kind of assertive grain effect in color. Keep in mind, the shadow region was pushed +3EV on the blue channel and already taken at ISO 800, so it's going to be pretty loud. If this were something more serious, I'd prefer to have taken two exposures:

So I think that you can get some film-like qualities if you have the right tools and knowledge. But I don't think it would ever be as simple as just pressing a button. Even though RPP provides some great profiles, getting it look good still takes some work. In any case, the simulation is never complete.