At least someone spoke honestly about this plugin, otherwise all the bloggers who received it for free or even paid are repeating the same thing like parrots. But there are more and more honest voices. I also tried dehancer, I didn’t like it at all, it gave off something gray. You are right, not a single plugin will give you the look of a film, I take filmconvert as a basis (I don’t work for them, although some people write that way, lol), but this is only the basis, and it is much easier to buy film and scan it than to try to do something with digital image. For me this is a hobby, and our film is very expensive and we don’t have it. If it were possible, I would shoot only on film
I’m curious did you set your setting in LR to what Dehancer requires (or used to) before you did the conversions? I’m wondering why the conversions are so off.
Noticing this as well. You can see from the settings on the right she did not. Dehancer recommends that you drastically decrease the contrast of images before opening them in the plugin or else the results will be off. I know because I had this exact issue with mine when I bought it. You essentially have to turn it into a “log” shot before using dehancer. They give you the settings to do this. I’d love to see a follow up video with these settings followed and see how she feels about it
A very honest and candid review of this ' film ' plugin, Sophia. Thank you. IMHO, these film emulators do not make anything filmlike. Hopless for B&W photography as any film can have as many looks as developers for it. B&W film can be pushed, can be pulled, can be developed with semi stand or stand development and all these alter the sharpness, tonality of the film, and the appearance of the grain in the final negative. A film emulator could have a better chance with ' colour films' if the colour and gamma profiles are correct and some information regarding colour temp settings for the digital files is provided to the end user to start the process. I myself stick with digital for colour work and B&W film for the rest, although I am quite partial to Kodak Ektar. A truly beautiful film.
you're very talented and that was a great location and beautiful models! it gives me ideas because I'm in the New York area and have lots of "Urban Wasteland" right near my apartment.
Thank you so much! I actually have a full video on the channel about this shoot if you're interested in seeing more. And that sounds amazing! Good luck with your shoots!
Yeah definitely! I think, for people who are intent on still shooting film, it’s probably not going to be a great match unless you also shoot digital and want to match your colours to your film work, but I think for those who are struggling to enter the film community it could probably be a good alternative
Good to see a review of this tool, certainly useful to have a potential alternative to film when you want a quick turn around or a cheaper alternative to buying & developing film but want a that kind of look
Great video. Thank you for posting. If you have occasion/opportunity it would be great for you to test out CaptureOne - I do not have any personal experience with CaptureOne but it seems that one can do image tweaking in the software based on just specific parts of the luminosity spectrum. I enjoy using a software package called Exposure. My current workflow is pretty commonly to shoot a sharp photo on film with a good mundane film (good latitude, like HP5) and then add effects (dirt, bokeh, light leaks, contrast, film simulation) with the software. I only spend any time with the best photos that I have taken. Cheers from Canada
Digital is easier to shoot than film but getting quality digital takes a lot of skill with post processing and I think that’s what a lot of people miss. You can get good/interesting results pretty easily shooting film but it takes a lot of skill to have the same results digitally. I would also argue “film is harder” doesn’t really apply in 2022 with most people shooting film using completely automated processes and sending it elsewhere to be developed.
Hahaha, all good! I think people can sometimes be fooled into thinking that plug ins and presets are one click pieces of software which will transform your photos when really they are a base and you still need to put in the work. So probably a good bit of software for people looking for a bit of a shortcut, but if you’re already established shooting film and happy doing so, or even in your editing process, maybe not for you
Yes we can. Make that, yes we could. But we have not - in answer to the video's title: "Can You Digitally Emulate Film Photography?" I went into photography professionally over 50 years ago and have vivid memories of the colour palettes of different products of the time. And innovations. I was able to identify different colour negative films by looking at their prints, with higher success rate than 50%. But human memory is not a hard drive where data (memories) never change (data is the plural of datum - and hard drives suffer from spontaneous bit flips so are not for eternity either). Different film and paper products from different manufacturers al had subtle differences. Cibachrome positive "printing" paper, Polaroid SX-70 positive film. Ilford HP5 versus Kodak Tri-X. Tri-X on 35mm film versus 120 film. Nuances. I cannot say I have seen my memories reproduced, but also educated in AI, I would maintain that it is very well possible. Again, have not seen it as I remember it. And nuances go deeper. Kodak would have their consumer products that got colour balanced too blue, because at environmental temperatures colour film would shift towards magenta/pink due to ageing. And so they assumed some lead time between manufacturing and processing at an assumed environmental temperature. Film products labelled "Professional" by Kodak, had been colour balanced for neutrality within the product's potential limitations. So these had to be stored refrigerated or else they went "off" quickly. Some products were manufactured both in consumer and in professional guise, some weren't. For example Kodacolor was not available as professional version but had very nice skin tones and a commercially attractive colour palette, so my professional lab purchased batches of Kodacolor, stored these at environmental temperature, and test shot and processed the maturing batch frequently. When "neutral" that batch went into the fridge and this stock got sold with a nice profit. But you could not go into a shop and buy that quality "off the shelf". Film has several qualities that we measured or could measure when needed and the associated disciplines were called "sensitometry" and "densitometry". Film sensitivity would reduce with light intensity (sensitometry) and we would over-expose long exposure times for that in order to get usable negatives (densitometry). With colour film, the challenge was to have red, green, and blue sensitivity curves run parallel, and density curves too. Some films did not, leading to colour shifts as function of (10-base) "log i*t". But there also were shifts related to "i" as in Kodacolor 400 that would become grainy and slightly differently tinted. (i: intensity of light, t": exposure time.) Calling "grain" in film "noise" is extremely debatable. Each "grain" was a light sensitive element and now after processing it has been fixated. It is visible because grains in its environment did not get enough light for them to be processed and fixated - such "unused" grains are washed out in the processing. With larger magnification (larger prints, or projection) the empty space became more visible and this is why "we" shot larger formats next to medium and small. Larger formats have a bit less resolution per millimetre (unit of length) but more per degree of image angle. Slightly reduced resolution meant larger grains and better low light performance and better per degree meant more colour saturation. The first time I looked at an 8"*10" (254mm * 203mm) Ektachrome Professional, I was shocked by that saturation, even looking through an 8x magnifying loupe (8 times linear makes the entire shot 80"*64" - 2032mm * 1626mm). If you linearly enlarge your 36mm * 24mm (1.4"*0.9") negative 8 times, then you get 288mm * 192mm (11.3"*7.6") - so you are in the 8"*10" ballpark at that: 8 times linearly magnified versus native, i.e. 1 time. So enlargement relatively increases the empty space between the grains and this waters the enlargement down. It also makes the grain larger so it becomes well visible. And you could use that for artistic effect - already invented ages before photography used it, by painters in "pointillist" style. With digital enlargement, you never get "empty" space from enlargement because the software we use, will scale your image up. A blue pixel becomes 4 blue pixels when we enlarge to 200%. If that upscaling is done in a smart way, then I call it upsampling and the blue pixel's environment is taken into account so as to generate detail that was not there before. Topaz's Gigapixel AI is very good at that. And this retains saturation, unlike film. So if we want film emulation, then all these effects need to be included, including the "chaotic" grain. But it does not stop there. It is very likely that a film-emulation plug-in will simply apply some filtering, taking some colour out and shifting a few others, working contrast and saturation, etc. Imagine that we have a +50 green saturation shift in one film type (to jokingly mimic an old Fujifilm film). Well, that will only work properly if we first adjust the digital image to being perfectly neutral. No, I haven't seen it yet, on my 4K calibrated Eizo monitor (calibrated for ambient light too). But "we" (humanity) could make it.
Don't emulate, buy film. If we don't keep buying film it will die and be lost to us. If you already own a digital camera then film does not have to be expensive, you just need to be more discerning of when you use it.
At least someone spoke honestly about this plugin, otherwise all the bloggers who received it for free or even paid are repeating the same thing like parrots. But there are more and more honest voices. I also tried dehancer, I didn’t like it at all, it gave off something gray. You are right, not a single plugin will give you the look of a film, I take filmconvert as a basis (I don’t work for them, although some people write that way, lol), but this is only the basis, and it is much easier to buy film and scan it than to try to do something with digital image. For me this is a hobby, and our film is very expensive and we don’t have it. If it were possible, I would shoot only on film
Agreed! If only film was a little cheaper 🤣🤣
I’m curious did you set your setting in LR to what Dehancer requires (or used to) before you did the conversions? I’m wondering why the conversions are so off.
Noticing this as well. You can see from the settings on the right she did not. Dehancer recommends that you drastically decrease the contrast of images before opening them in the plugin or else the results will be off. I know because I had this exact issue with mine when I bought it. You essentially have to turn it into a “log” shot before using dehancer. They give you the settings to do this. I’d love to see a follow up video with these settings followed and see how she feels about it
The images shot on film look soooo good. This video only makes me want to buy more film!
Hahah definitely can't beat the look of film, especially 120
A very honest and candid review of this ' film ' plugin, Sophia. Thank you. IMHO, these film emulators do not make anything filmlike. Hopless for B&W photography as any film can have as many looks as developers for it. B&W film can be pushed, can be pulled, can be developed with semi stand or stand development and all these alter the sharpness, tonality of the film, and the appearance of the grain in the final negative. A film emulator could have a better chance with ' colour films' if the colour and gamma profiles are correct and some information regarding colour temp settings for the digital files is provided to the end user to start the process. I myself stick with digital for colour work and B&W film for the rest, although I am quite partial to Kodak Ektar. A truly beautiful film.
Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!
I do too. Still use film for BW and switched to digital C41 (ooc jpeg) for colour.
you're very talented and that was a great location and beautiful models! it gives me ideas because I'm in the New York area and have lots of "Urban Wasteland" right near my apartment.
Thank you so much! I actually have a full video on the channel about this shoot if you're interested in seeing more. And that sounds amazing! Good luck with your shoots!
Great video and it does look like a decent alternative to those especially who as you say either cannot afford to shoot film or are scared to
Yeah definitely! I think, for people who are intent on still shooting film, it’s probably not going to be a great match unless you also shoot digital and want to match your colours to your film work, but I think for those who are struggling to enter the film community it could probably be a good alternative
Good to see a review of this tool, certainly useful to have a potential alternative to film when you want a quick turn around or a cheaper alternative to buying & developing film but want a that kind of look
Definitely! I think it’ll be an interesting tool to continue experimenting with!
@@SophiaCarey I’m interested in how the CineStill 800T profile looks
Totally off topic but your thumbnails are so fire
Thank you! I really appreciate that!
Great video. Thank you for posting. If you have occasion/opportunity it would be great for you to test out CaptureOne - I do not have any personal experience with CaptureOne but it seems that one can do image tweaking in the software based on just specific parts of the luminosity spectrum. I enjoy using a software package called Exposure. My current workflow is pretty commonly to shoot a sharp photo on film with a good mundane film (good latitude, like HP5) and then add effects (dirt, bokeh, light leaks, contrast, film simulation) with the software. I only spend any time with the best photos that I have taken. Cheers from Canada
Thank you! I’ll definitely give it a look over and sort something out. Thanks so much for watching!
Short answer. No
top answer
Digital is easier to shoot than film but getting quality digital takes a lot of skill with post processing and I think that’s what a lot of people miss. You can get good/interesting results pretty easily shooting film but it takes a lot of skill to have the same results digitally.
I would also argue “film is harder” doesn’t really apply in 2022 with most people shooting film using completely automated processes and sending it elsewhere to be developed.
Thank you, now i know that this plugin is useless for me
Hahaha, all good! I think people can sometimes be fooled into thinking that plug ins and presets are one click pieces of software which will transform your photos when really they are a base and you still need to put in the work. So probably a good bit of software for people looking for a bit of a shortcut, but if you’re already established shooting film and happy doing so, or even in your editing process, maybe not for you
Yes we can. Make that, yes we could. But we have not - in answer to the video's title: "Can You Digitally Emulate Film Photography?"
I went into photography professionally over 50 years ago and have vivid memories of the colour palettes of different products of the time. And innovations. I was able to identify different colour negative films by looking at their prints, with higher success rate than 50%. But human memory is not a hard drive where data (memories) never change (data is the plural of datum - and hard drives suffer from spontaneous bit flips so are not for eternity either).
Different film and paper products from different manufacturers al had subtle differences. Cibachrome positive "printing" paper, Polaroid SX-70 positive film. Ilford HP5 versus Kodak Tri-X. Tri-X on 35mm film versus 120 film. Nuances.
I cannot say I have seen my memories reproduced, but also educated in AI, I would maintain that it is very well possible.
Again, have not seen it as I remember it.
And nuances go deeper. Kodak would have their consumer products that got colour balanced too blue, because at environmental temperatures colour film would shift towards magenta/pink due to ageing. And so they assumed some lead time between manufacturing and processing at an assumed environmental temperature. Film products labelled "Professional" by Kodak, had been colour balanced for neutrality within the product's potential limitations. So these had to be stored refrigerated or else they went "off" quickly. Some products were manufactured both in consumer and in professional guise, some weren't. For example Kodacolor was not available as professional version but had very nice skin tones and a commercially attractive colour palette, so my professional lab purchased batches of Kodacolor, stored these at environmental temperature, and test shot and processed the maturing batch frequently. When "neutral" that batch went into the fridge and this stock got sold with a nice profit. But you could not go into a shop and buy that quality "off the shelf".
Film has several qualities that we measured or could measure when needed and the associated disciplines were called "sensitometry" and "densitometry". Film sensitivity would reduce with light intensity (sensitometry) and we would over-expose long exposure times for that in order to get usable negatives (densitometry). With colour film, the challenge was to have red, green, and blue sensitivity curves run parallel, and density curves too. Some films did not, leading to colour shifts as function of (10-base) "log i*t". But there also were shifts related to "i" as in Kodacolor 400 that would become grainy and slightly differently tinted. (i: intensity of light, t": exposure time.)
Calling "grain" in film "noise" is extremely debatable. Each "grain" was a light sensitive element and now after processing it has been fixated. It is visible because grains in its environment did not get enough light for them to be processed and fixated - such "unused" grains are washed out in the processing.
With larger magnification (larger prints, or projection) the empty space became more visible and this is why "we" shot larger formats next to medium and small. Larger formats have a bit less resolution per millimetre (unit of length) but more per degree of image angle. Slightly reduced resolution meant larger grains and better low light performance and better per degree meant more colour saturation. The first time I looked at an 8"*10" (254mm * 203mm) Ektachrome Professional, I was shocked by that saturation, even looking through an 8x magnifying loupe (8 times linear makes the entire shot 80"*64" - 2032mm * 1626mm). If you linearly enlarge your 36mm * 24mm (1.4"*0.9") negative 8 times, then you get 288mm * 192mm (11.3"*7.6") - so you are in the 8"*10" ballpark at that: 8 times linearly magnified versus native, i.e. 1 time.
So enlargement relatively increases the empty space between the grains and this waters the enlargement down. It also makes the grain larger so it becomes well visible. And you could use that for artistic effect - already invented ages before photography used it, by painters in "pointillist" style.
With digital enlargement, you never get "empty" space from enlargement because the software we use, will scale your image up. A blue pixel becomes 4 blue pixels when we enlarge to 200%. If that upscaling is done in a smart way, then I call it upsampling and the blue pixel's environment is taken into account so as to generate detail that was not there before. Topaz's Gigapixel AI is very good at that.
And this retains saturation, unlike film.
So if we want film emulation, then all these effects need to be included, including the "chaotic" grain. But it does not stop there.
It is very likely that a film-emulation plug-in will simply apply some filtering, taking some colour out and shifting a few others, working contrast and saturation, etc.
Imagine that we have a +50 green saturation shift in one film type (to jokingly mimic an old Fujifilm film). Well, that will only work properly if we first adjust the digital image to being perfectly neutral.
No, I haven't seen it yet, on my 4K calibrated Eizo monitor (calibrated for ambient light too). But "we" (humanity) could make it.
Don't emulate, buy film. If we don't keep buying film it will die and be lost to us. If you already own a digital camera then film does not have to be expensive, you just need to be more discerning of when you use it.
another bunch of presets with possible tweaks, the presets are very inaccurate, sorry but no. Check the RNI