Do these look like they were shot with film?

[unpopular]

idk. there just seems to be something missing.

 

[Robin Usagani]

i didnt adjust anything on these. I could add grain, vignette, etc. Each one is one click.

 

[o hey tyler]

I kinda like the look of the Fuji 800Z...

 

[Helen B]

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.

Schwetty, I made my comments about VSCO after looking at their site and all the film emulations they show. I didn't base my comments on your use of it. I was only criticizing their ridiculous claims of accuracy. They make a big thing of it, and it is nonsense.

Is your intention simply to make your images look good, or do you want them to look authentic? It's your choice, of course, and nobody should criticize you for the choice itself. For example, the last images you show (post #45) look something like badly underexposed film (so they appear to tell us that your ability to get a decent exposure is poor) - the shadows under the guy's arm are blocked up and grainy. I suggest opening up the shadows before conversion so that you get detail in there. Of the presets you show, the real Portra 800 has superb dynamic range and very low graininess - it is effectively invisible on prints of 5x8 and smaller, and wouldn't be visible at the size you show. If graininess is visible in poorly exposed areas, it would be more noticeably coloured: graininess is not the same in all colour channels (the blue-sensitive layer is the most grainy), and it is not the same at all levels of exposure.

As I said, it's up to you whether you want a preset that makes your pictures look 'film-like, in a sort of vague, advertising executive sort of way' (which is OK if that is what you want) or more authentic, and less likely to trigger howls of derisive laughter from people who actually know what the respective films look like (but thanks for the amusement). If the former is your aim, then why not drop the imaginary film descriptions, or at least accept that they are imaginary by calling them 'Fake Portra 800' for example?

Best,
Helen

 

[Robin Usagani]

Helen, my plan was to use it for my wedding work. I will do adjustment first before I use VSCO (WB, adjustment brush, etc.). Unfortunately I never had experience with film. This plug in is perfect for someone like you. I am sending you a pm.

 

[DiskoJoe]

The updates look better. I like the fuji 800z.

 

[cgipson1]

Unfortunately I never had experience with film. .

It is never too late, Robin! Film Bodies and lenses are cheap now... and it would be fun to play with.

 

[Josh66]

As I said, it's up to you whether you want a preset that makes your pictures look 'film-like, in a sort of vague, advertising executive sort of way' (which is OK if that is what you want) or more authentic, and less likely to trigger howls of derisive laughter from people who actually know what the respective films look like (but thanks for the amusement). If the former is your aim, then why not drop the imaginary film descriptions, or at least accept that they are imaginary by calling them 'Fake Portra 800' for example?

+1

Since the presets don't really look like the films they're named after - I would just not say which you used. Just say "color negative", "B&W negative", etc... I agree that it's totally fine if you just want it to be "filmy", but don't care if it actually matches a specific film.

If you DO want to match a specific film, a much better investment would have been a 35mm body and a few rolls of film.

I like the fuji 800z.

I would like it more if it looked anything like 800Z. 800Z was one of my favorite color films... (It's discontinued, so I can't get any more...)

 

[Robin Usagani]

If I do pursue it, what 35mm body shall I get that will accept all of my lenses?

 

[Josh66]

You shoot Canon, right?

 

[Robin Usagani]

Yes, EF lenses.

 

[Josh66]

Canon EOS 1N:
Canon EOS 1N 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS CAMERA BODY - KEH.com

$120 for BGN grade (might have cosmetic wear, functions perfectly)
$200 for EX grade (basically looks brand new)

I buy from KEH a lot - BGN grade is usually really good.

Another one with the battery pack for $84:
http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-CE02999047069Z?r=FE

edit
That last link says 'surface sticky'... May want to skip that one unless you can live with a sticky camera, or change the grips.

 

[unpopular]

If I do pursue it, what 35mm body shall I get that will accept all of my lenses?

If the transition was as hard for me as digital was from film, going back from digital to film will be even harder. Not to be discouraging...

 

[Robin Usagani]

I don't think it will be that hard. That is a modern film camera. As long as it has a built in metering, I'm confident I can nail the exposure.

 

[Josh66]

If I do pursue it, what 35mm body shall I get that will accept all of my lenses?

If the transition was as hard for me as digital was from film, going back from digital to film will be even harder. Not to be discouraging...

That might be true with a full manual, no meter camera - but with a modern body like, well, pretty much any EOS body, I don't think it will be much of an issue.

Do you look at the LCD on the back of the camera a lot? You'll have to get used to not having that.

You know what you're doing though, so you should be fine getting a good exposure without the LCD. And hey - without all the LCD screens and crap, you'll only have to change the batteries every six months or so.