Absolutely spot on. My first reaction when i saw the title of this video was simply "WHY ?" Digital is a million times better than film, and on every level.
Interesting video... I own and operate a film processing lab and agree 100% that digital camera scanning is the way to go. In my shop, we've gone to the time and expense of going the full custom Digital camera scanning route (including software) and average a throughput of 1 frame every 5 seconds at 30+ MP per frame from one single scanning station. It's pretty awesome. I also agree that film tends to have its own look, though, once it's digitized, that's totally malleable. I don't agree with digital having more DR than film though. Slide film, absolutely, but negative film, no, not really. Digital has a lot more under exposure latitude than negative film does, but negative film generally (depending on the emulsion) has oodles of what is generally referred to as over-exposure latitude compared to digital. Negative film generally puts the film base plus fog (it's black level) at ~5 stops less than what is generally considered a correctly exposed exposure card, but... that is pretty subjective, and it's only that because that's what works well for making analog prints onto paper. If you don't care about that and want to effectively put your black levels about where they would be if shooting it digitally (through giving more exposure to the film, starting at about +3 EV over box speed) then you'd discover that film keeps going quite a bit past the point where digital is clipping stuff out to highlights, etc. Again, this with negative film, slide film is a different story. I personally tend to view the box speed of negative film as the minimum amount of light you need to give and choose an exposure that will reflect how far down I want the blacks to go, and with digital, I view the ISO Setting as the maximum amount of light to give and choose an exposure that will reflect how much highlights I want to retain while still maintaining a reasonable amount of noise. Make sense?
Absolutely. The other thing to mention, particularly with negative stock is that you can compensate for lighting using both the development and the exposure to maintain highlight detail and shadow detail. The printing was where the local contrast was determined. The professional films had lower contrast and higher acuity in the mid tones than the consumer emulsions. I am glad that Ted is exploring what to do to bring film feel together with digital practices. The two media at their best seem to exist on different sides of the street and require very different mindsets and expectations. I have stopped previsualising my final image with any film stock and it’s aesthetics in mind. I look at film photographs and love the plasticity and colours but, I don’t speculate about film stock as much.
Right with you on the benefits of digital camera as scanner. And how much highlight latitude is hiding in those color negatives. i think paper and later, CCDS and 90s hardware held color negative back. I shoot vanishing roadside America so, lots of night shots with neon and artificial light sources. I do this on a variety of film stocks and formats plus my ‘camera scanner’ Sony A7Riv and a recently acquired GFX100S. I was astounded the first time I put even a modest stock like Lomo CN800 shot in my RZ67 through the camera scan/NegativeLabPro workflow. It was like using Lightroom’s grownup HDR process; I could hold back highlights to retain color in true neon, the kind that is clear glass when off and reddish orange when lit. That’s my benchmark. True neon has strong green lines in its spectra and easily goes to babysh*t yellow when captured if one isn’t careful. About those Fuji emulations: Nostalgic Negative is a drug for those attracted to neon motels and gritty old downtown Las Vegas. Instant Stephen Shore. It was that one extra thing that pushed me into a GFX100S. I’ll be following this series of videos closely!
@@christopherward5065 For black and white, yes, changing the development to meet your output needs is pretty common. For color negative, I don't recommend doing that as C-41 is pretty standardized and changing the development regime introduces all kinds of variations into the 3 color channels, and it's not predictable from emulsion to emulsion. If you only shoot one emulsion and know it well and do your own processing, then, sure, you can go there, but in my experience, it's more trouble than it's worth. Same with E-6. Unless you know what you're going to get and can't get there once it's digitized, not generally worth it.
@@F9FCJ429 Yep, many negative films can pretty easily hold 16+ stops of total DR without even breaking a sweat. Depending on the stock and where it shoulders you may or may not start to get highlight colors that push towards a color cast, which is a problem if you're making analog prints, but if digitizing, it's fairly straightforward to correct out. With BW negative, TMAX 400 is the king of DR. I've had stuff come through the shop where the shooter accidentally overexposed by 6 or 7 stops (1/400th of a second at f/1.4 outside in the middle of the day, way, way, way over) and it was really dense and grainier than it'd be if less exposure was used, but, with a shorter processing time, once it was digitized, it was all there. The highlights were beautiful, and the client had miles of shadow detail. They actually commented that it almost looked digital with how much shadow detail was there.
Reminds me of some friends who say that I'm dumb for buying some oldschool lenses with interesting bokeh because "YOU CAN ALWAYS ADD THE BLUR IN PHOTOSHOP" :D
I'm not experienced in film photography, only digital, so take this lightly. I agree with everything you say about the colors and dynamic range, however I'd like to add to it. I feel much of what people describe as 'the film look' is not endemic to the medium of film, rather, is synonymous with the methods of film vs digital photography. For example, the lenses made today are much more advanced than the ones made for film. So digital photos are overall going to be sharper and more contrasty (among other things). Film grain is considered a hallmark of the medium, and yet digital has it's own 'grain' (noise). However, we rarely see digital noise in our work because de-noising algorithms are always applied. Though this is more pertinent for small cameras, modern digital cameras will 'sharpen' everything so hard lines are over-accentuated. Film doesn't have the ability to harden lines. And thus, (alongside the many differences in color and dynamic range you described) digital photos are sharper, more contrasty, not grainy, and noticeably sharpened. So if we want to make a good effort to replicate the film look in digital photography, we should cover our bases by using vintage lenses, disabling sharpening, and either disabling de-noising or adding grain in post. Perhaps this is why we feel film is more honest, because we never try to cover up its 'flaws'...
Sharper isn't necessarily better. Film has a more organic sharpness. Film and digital has its pros and cons, like digital drawing or on paper, acrylic or oil paint etc. you choose what fits your needs. Some pros with film is the variety of formats, resolution (can exceed 1000mp), dynamic range, colours (based on opinion but often goes to film by many), film grain and more. 35mm and 70mm are often used in movies and preferred by many directors over digital. While 35mm has a resolution at 9K, 70mm reaches 19k. Movies like Once upon a time in Hollywood are shot on 35 and 16mm film, other newer movies shot on film are James Bond No time to die, The Joker, Fast and the furious, Wonder Woman 1984. There's a reason film are chosen over digital on blockbusters like these. And as Tarantino stated, digital can get close to film, but why shoot a format to try to replicate another instead of using the real thing. And went on to compare digital to a veggie burger.
@@dre400 I agree sharper isn't necessarily better, and I made no claims that either medium was inherently sharper than the other. You do raise a good point, though, about the sharpness difference between film and digital that I forgot to cover, I suppose because the video didn't cover it either. What I mean to say is that the 'digital look' and 'film look' imply more than just the look of digital sensors and film emulsions. Modern lenses are generally sharper than vintage lenses, and thus digital media takes on that sharpness because modern lenses are only designed for digital cameras. Likewise, sharpening algorithms are regularly applied to digital media and never to film media, so digital media takes on that 'digital sharpness' as well, even if it's not an effect naturally brought on by the sensor. I agree that the film look has an 'organic sharpness', but just like 'digital sharpness' comes from modern lenses and sharpening software, I believe a portion of that organic sharpness stems from the characteristics of vintage lenses and then not fussing about with software in post. Of course, the arrangement of crystals in a film emulsion also leads to organic sharpness, but I believe that doesn't account for all of it. Tarantino is right, but he's also a purist. If you want it to look exactly like film, you shoot it on film. However, if you want to get the 'film look' with a digital camera, you can achieve many parts of it honestly by using the same lenses and techniques that are used on film. This is why Joker (a production that aimed for the film look yet used digital cameras) paired their modern ARRI cameras with vintage lenses. Hopefully I was able to clear up any confusion about my comment.
Yes, I'd like to see more about the process. I'm just getting into film myself after using digital for a long time. But I feel the same way, I'd like to replicate the film look through lightroom if i could because it would help me understand certain film simulations easier.
Great video. I love film and still shoot Fuji Provia occasionally. But getting the film look on digital is something I tried to do for ages and I don’t really think it’s possible. Film has grain and inconsistencies that you wouldn’t actually choose to add to your digital photos but on film it seems to work. Not every great photographer has to be good at computer editing and I find the process rather complicated and tedious. Therefore, in my opinion, film is film, digital is digital. If you want the film look, just go and shoot film. You will have more fun, get great looking photos and help a dying industry. 😉
As someone who started with digital, one of the key reasons why I started learning film photography is the distinct look film gives. I also started enjoying the process of film photography but that is secondary. With all the flexibility digital photography gives me, I would love to have the best of both worlds. Looking forward to more. Thanks for everything you do for the photography community
So true that most of the Fujifilm simulations do not mirror the original film stock. I am so glad you included the disclaimer that there's no substitution for real film and that we are just looking for more versatility in the digital space. Your Velvia version is sweet! I am grateful for this channel! Thank you.
Interesting video! I find film has the most natural colors. I partly have to disagree on the dynamic range part though. When scanning 120 color negative film, I find the dynamic range to be a lot higher, compared to most digital cameras. Especially with slight overexposure. This is the reason why switched from digital to film about a year ago.
Yes! Also, film reciprocity is what gives us that warm and realistic tone curve. Digital just exposes every tonal range at the same exposure rate. Which is why it's so easy to blow out highlights. Frustrating and sometimes Infuriating if you ask me.
I started with Nikon digital, and have since switched to about 80% medium format film with my Pentax 6x7. However my Nikon Z6 still gets tons of love as I use it to scan the film with the 105 MC! The Z9 will then take over as my main digital camera/scanner
I actually shoot with a Pentax 67II and am looking to sell it and move to digital cause the cost to shoot/develop are killing my wallet! However the results with that camera and the 105/2.4 SMC are just incredible
@@hellatightdude Film has become incredibly expensive. The cameras are now comparable to FF mirrorless cameras in price, and each photo costs me $2! However I've fallen in love with the results and probably won't be switching back. I love the entire process, and it forces me to be incredibly picky with the photos I take. The scans I get with the 105 MC absolutely blow the Epson scanner out of the water too
I'm getting into 35mm film and have a Nikon F3HP on the way. I didn't know you could scan with digital, I have a Z7 as my digital kit so what would I need to buy to be able to scan my film negatives? Am I able to scan ilford hp5 and portra ?
your old video helped draw me back into film and now I shoot mostly film because I love the more tactile experience, but digital is more convenient there is no denying it. Great work with the profile.
I used to love to cross process film and I've been having an internal debate about weather or not that's OK to fake digitally, so thank you for the permission to go forward! I've been tinkering with a Capture One style and think I'm close to what I used to get with film and I would 100% would love to know more about this process, specifically what you mention at 10:50. (And if anyone wants to provide feedback on my cross process style, please let me know; I'm happy to share it)
I am absolutely interested in learning more about this area. It's a beast I've been chasing for years and experimented with over time with limited success. I now shoot with a Fujifilm digital, and I absolutely love it. But you're right: the film stocks still don't look like I expect them to. I'd love to see what you are working on for Provia and Astia as well!
I would love to follow you in that process. I used to, just like you, shoot on all those film and also process them ( I work for many years in a lab). I only do photo as a hobby now but it is very interesting to see and ear someone that remember films, not discover them. Great video like always BTW.
Ted love the channel. I have always been attracted to the various different styles (I use Capture One with Fuji X cameras) but have not really played with them that much. Your video is pretty fortuitous because this week I decided that I was going to treat film styles like rolls of film. I see a lot of negative comments about using digital styles - things like you are not being creative, you are letting the computer choose the look of your picture, yada, yada, yada. I starting thinking a bit about these comments and the role of styles generally. As you mentioned in your video, we used to pick a certain film for its look. I only shot film for a short period of time before going fully digital in 2003, but shot my share of Velvia and a few other emulsions. What I find interesting is that no-one seemed to complain when we would let the film emulsion choose the look of our photos, but with the infinite possibilities of Digital the limitations imposed by styles suddenly becomes a negative. I have not fully thought it through, but I think that styles can very much be like lenses. We can have almost an infinite choice of lens field of view, particularly if we are using zoom lenses. Over the past several years however, I have almost totally transitioned to prime lenses, and despite having a bunch of them, I find that I am using a single focal length for the vast majority of my shots. While certainly limiting in some respects it is also equally liberating not having to worry about focal length all of the time allowing me to focus on the photographs that I am making. I think film choice, when we shot film, used to do the same thing. On the one hand it limited our options, but on the other it made us focus on the photography. We would pick a look and work to make the photographs work within the confines of the limitations of the emulsion. I believe we can use styles in a similar manner, if we force ourselves, to limit ourselves to a certain look for a particular group of photos (like limiting ourselves to a single focal length of lens). Digital gives us unlimited "emulsions" but that is really overwhelming and we can use styles to find a look that we like, which may be film like, or not, and then we can focus on the photographs and making our art.
15:41 YES! I miss the look of film, but despite having half a dozen (mostly) working SLRs and a 6x6, I never shoot it anymore due to the added time, cost, and inconvenience.
I stopped film shooting since there are so expensive. Here in austria you have to pay for one HP5 roll about 9€. The porta 800 is about 14€. One roll!!! Thats insane!
I like adding grain in digital camera that would ‘simulate’ film look. Now I’ve progressed into another approach. Rather than pretending that my digital film look was fooling anyone I still sometime do grain type look but accept that it is a well rendered digital effect.
I used to love Velvia 50 for landscape and Provia 100 for most other stuff. Naturally, for portraits, Kodak Porta got a lot of use. I do miss the look of those. I would love to be able to closely replicate that with digital in LightRoom. So, yes. Please keep it up and share the journey.
Yes please to more. As a photographer who has shot only in the digital age, but has been shooting plenty of film in the past year, I’ve come to love the simplicity of color choice with film. I’m very quickly “paralyzed” by choice when it comes to coloring digital photos. So I’ve actually dialed in a specific edit in-camera on my X-Pro3 with Classic Chrome so as to simplify my process. But I would still be oh-so interested in gathering the knowledge to understand the why’s and how’s of reaching the color tones I want, chopping through the chaotic brush of choice when the edit comes. I think the intense amount of testing that went into creating films testifies to just how complicated color is by nature, and shoot, just how much I have to learn when it comes to coloring photographs. And I’ve been shooting for 12 years!
Film = vinyl records; digital = well, digital. I shot film for decades (mainly Kodak, Agfa, and Fuji) but just as I can emulate analog amps reasonably well digitally, DxO FilmPack and various Nik plug-ins do a masterful job of emulating many film looks. IMO, DxO is much better than anyone else in this regard, as they have all of the data required to create more accurate renderings (and they now include many Fuji camera looks as well as all of the emulsions you mentioned and many more), plus you have the ability to access these from FilmPack within PhotoLab and tweak the settings in either program to get the exact look you want (however you recalled it). You can also export from PL to Nik (Silver Efex Pro in the case of B&W) to apply further enhancements if "necessary." Also, you have way more flexibility with what you can do to an image compared to film (especially with DxO's U Point tech, which enables you tweak specific areas, so you could "fix" the skin tones without affecting anything else that fell in the same color range). Lenses and technique also affect things, but I think the key element here is in the printing. Especially when coupled with the aforementioned workflow, My Epson P900 with various papers can produce very convincing film-like results. For example, I expect it would be very difficult for many "experts" to tell a P900 (or a Canon PRO-1000) print, especially on various baryta papers, from a film-derived silver-gelatin print (certainly at a normal viewing distance). Some may beg to differ, but as far as I'm concerned, the only really important thing is to get the look you want (regardless of how a laboratory analysis might assess things) and I can generally do that, so no more chemicals for me!
I used to love Orwochrom transparency film back in the late 1970s and 80s. It was an East German film whose colour rendering was completely off - but that made for great effects out of the ordinary! And it was cheap!!
Please keep sharing. I’ve been digitizing my slides and negatives using my Canon 5DSR coupled with a Canon L 100mm macro lens. I’m using a copy stand setup and illuminating and masking my slides and negatives on a light box for the even lighting. Its been working out pretty well. My favorite b/w 35mm film back in the day was Kodak panatomic x. I would have fit right in with Group f/64. I’ve pretty much decided to go at least 50% b/w these days. I’m very much looking forward to using my beautiful Rollei Hy6 and Ebony 4X5 which have been collecting dust on the shelf far too long. I love digital photography and think it has made great strides in trying to replicate the look of film. At the risk of offending pure digitalists (is it even a word), I would compare digital photography to making a TV dinner vs spending the time and effort to prepare a gourmet meal using lots of different ingredients. BTW I do love Swanson Hungry Man Dinners. I sooo miss Poloroid type 55 4X5 film for those who remember those days.
I respect your work, your goals, and your sharing of so much through your videos. Thank you. I'm afraid I don't see film presets/simulations/profiles the same as you though. If I would want to use them I would want to genuine look, shortcomings and all. The moment you start to change the contrast, shadows, saturation, and involve the dynamic range of digital it just becomes another preset and re-enters the same digital world with only an echo of film inspiration.
Absolutely I’d love to see more of the process you use in creating and using the presets. I have started shooting film again because I love the look and the process. It is so much more tactile than digital is.
I think as photography goes on photographers can look to more areas to expand creativity, especially in editing. I’m still starting and so this is just my opinion but I think being able to edit in a film style or a more digital style or anything in between allows you to pick the style for the shot more specifically
I think the obsession with film colors and how digital camera jpegs look straight out of camera, we’re losing what made colorists such as Gordon Parks great. They chose how they wanted to interpret the colors they saw. Where as we typically rely on the camera to interpret what we see while ignoring how much flexibility we have to stylistically interpret what we see in Lightroom. In 2021 we can be the artist that we were relying on film stocks to be back in the day. Let’s use that ability! Edit: got rid of a typo that was bugging me
@@gibcoprobe66 absolutely correct. That’s why presets and profiles are super nice to have, because you can quickly find a good starting place for you image and tweak it from there
@@earthlingtheaaron21 As I said in my other comment, I've never seen a preset or color profile that I like. So to me it's not even worth it. If I want the film look, I shoot film.
@@gibcoprobe66 good for you bro, everyone doesn’t have such a luxury. If you shoot digital and want an exaggerated look without time in post, you either set up presets or even something like recipes on Fuji cameras for your jpegs.
@@gibcoprobe66 furthermore, if it’s taking HOURS in post to touch up your photos, you’re either extremely picky or you just don’t know what you want and how to accomplish such a look efficiently. Practice makes perfect and if you’re struggling to edit in post, it’s time for practice. It comes with the territory of digital photography. If you shoot raw you’re just getting whatever data comes from the sensor, the sensor isn’t an artist, you are. Same goes for film.
I used to love picking a different film type depending on the shooting I was going to be doing. Ektachrome 100 and Velvia 50 were always a joy to use (even if they were a bit of a pain exposure wise). One of the reasons I really like my Fuji system now is trying to match the in-camera profiles to the original look (I use the presets as a starting point because, as you point out, they are definitely off to my eye). One of the great things about the Fujifilm community (and this certainly may be true of other systems, I don't know) is that people are developing and sharing these "recipes". The degree to which we have control over the image (color, contrast, dynamic range etc) is actually one of the greatest parts of digital photography. Especially because so much of this can be done in camera. Basically it is like having 100 different film types you can load up when you need. Great project idea (I don't use lightroom so it might not be exactly beneficial for me). Sharing formulas on how to achieve film looks is always a great idea.
Great video. I shoot black white and color and slide film and shoot digital with my Fuji X-T3 and X100s with their film simulation with custom in camera set up. The reason I use them because those film simulation can remind me what I was thinking on sites. Later on, I may retouch them in C1. And sometimes, it easy to make my one projects with unique style. Good video again, and I love to see more of this kind.
I’m pretty surprised that I didn’t see anything about VSCO film presets within the first couple scrolls through the comments. VSCO did the same thing and then some, between 2011 and 2018 I believe, working with professional colour graders and camera manufacturers. They did different sets with different film stocks for different cameras as how the sensors treated the information coming in differs and every sensor required specialised attention. End result was amazing. Then they decided to get rich and switched to mobile. Anyway, this is still quite a good idea, and it’s a fun exercise on Lightroom.
Dynamic range of film less than your/my Z 7ii? Well in 1970, we would measure/calibrate sensitivity and processing and measure film or print in "density" (let's call that saturation to keep it easy). This generally generated sort-of an "S" curve with a straight section that we considered "usable dynamic range" or usable contrast envelope. That straight section in the density curve would cover about "4" units on the X axis. This was hard to grasp for uneducated photographers. Because the "X axis" in the graphs represented the 10-base log intensity* time. Extremely good films might go to "5" or bad films to a bit less than 4 (log i*t). What does that "4" mean? Well, if we remove the log, we get 10,000 and if we look at f-stops, we need to go to 14 in order to get more than 10,000 as f-stops or EV stops are 2-base log things. If a film could go to "5" you would have 20 f-stops. The problem with film is that it needs to be printed and in the end you only have between 3 and 5 f-stops of contrast and seemingly that is your dynamic range. As average film would easily do "4" in the straight section of the density curve, there still are the non-linear "shoulders at the bottom and top of the graph - imagine software to straighten these shoulders out and you can digitally increase the usable dynamic range of film. The problem with digital is that we generally look at our photos on a computer monitor with a childishly limited color space and even worse dynamic range.
So you could explain that without insulting "uneducated photographers" - I'm sure not intended. As for the childishly limited displays - SDR is about 6 stops which can handle film scans (depends on the monitor I realize). HDR is much higher (15 or so if I recall).
Love the video, Ted. I like that it wasnt a film is better than digital video nor is it teaching you to trick people into thinking you shoot film. It helps us to understand unique qualities of various stock
I’m all in. Also if you ever decide to dive into Fuji cameras in camera processing and make a recipient for these stocks that you mentioned, that would be a video that I would watch many times
I shot film beginning the day my dad handed the Argus he brought home from the war. Learned a lot from that experience including how to manually meter my shots. Since then I moved thru Minolta, Canon and Nikon SLR’s until one day someone bought me a digital. I shot the thing for several years and learned a lot of what was possible in post. But ultimately I hung up the DSLR - I was weary of photography - I thought I had outgrown my love for it. One day someone dug out a shoebox of my old prints and watching their joy and looking at those old shots it hit me that something was different here. No one was scrolling thru page after page of digitized images on their phones or tablets. They were passing prints around the table over a bottle of wine and reminiscing. There was also a character in those shots that was very different thsn my digital crap. I dug up the old film bodies and havent looked back. And once again lI am enjoying what these images do for my family and friends. Here is what I’ve learned: The process of shooting digital ultimately devolves to one of “shoot, shoot, shoot!!” - throwing away the many garbage shots to get to the one keeper. Film isnt anywhere near as quick. I think about my shot. And the results are changed by that difference in approach. Its the difference between masturbation and making love …while the results may end up in a similar place the process of getting there is very different and for the participants - far more satisfying.
This looks like an amazing project. As someone trying to now learn film after a few years of doing digital it would be great to find a harmony with both worlds.
The options and baked in camera settings with film configurations (aside from nostalgic manual controls) is what made me switch all my equipment to Fujifilm. I agree with the native profiles, but the beauty is that we can create our own, and Fuji X Weekly makes amazing research and collaborations to create film recipes that faithfully recreate the films in camera, no need for post processing and all for free :) Awesome video too!
Agreed but sometimes there are just too many simulations and they don't really seem to get us all the way there. I love Velvia so much but can't quite seem to make that happen in the X-E3. I still have a lot of experimentation to do but not yet floored by the film simulations either in camera or from the community. I hope to change that!
I’m not much interested in going backwards, I understand the interest in film and the look, but at this point in my life it’s more important to get the images! Too many photographers I meet are all about gear and lenses and equipment and seem to have forgotten the photograph. I’m more interested in the subject matter and how I can make it stand out. But good luck in your pursuits. 🖖
One of the reason many go over to analog, digital is too much gear talk where the photos turns less important. With an analog a $50 camera vs a $2000 camera uses the same "sensor" and gear is less important. I must add shooting analog is not going backwards. That'd be the same to say an artist are going backwards for drawing/painting on paper instead of digital. Now I can return from a vacation with 100 memorable photos instead of 3000 photos that I struggle to go through, ends up on a hard drive and never seen again.
@@dre400 I came from analog or should I say film, so I understand it quite a bit. It’s the same whether you were doing film or digital, how much time are you going to spend with technique and technology. I know a few film photographers who still can’t even get a simple image to look good! It’s the same even with digital photographers, as too many don’t even know how to process an image, and their understanding of the technology is still subpar. After a lifetime of taking images, the most important things to me are understanding your image editor and your camera gear. Only then can you start to get quality images of the photos you do take. and I’m not even talking about understanding it all, just a few simple basics. Contrast, color, shadows, highlights, composition. I see so many on Flickr and Instagram who’s photos are too dark and muddy, making me wonder why they’re even posting? Some of them are even better at composition then editing? It all goes hand-in-hand, and if you can’t even do these basics why do they keep talking about all the different camera and lens makers? A lot of them would be better off just having an iPhone. At least technology has progressed to where you can get a half decent image without trying. I still prefer using a camera that has a viewfinder.
This topic has been my number one point of interest for last couple of years! Whenever I would try working with RAW files the way I do with my negatives - I'd never get a result that would satisfy me. So definitely would be happy to see more content from you where you'd elaborate on the theme :) Thank you!
The same process I do with my X series. Its what I love about Fujifilm. Exactly I adjust color channels to my taste specially on skin tones which I am particular. Thank you for sharing!
Hey Ted, thanks for the videos, I have been following you for a bit now. Where can I go or how can I find pictures to use as reference to make my own presets based on a specific film, and what do you recommend as a workflow for actually making those profiles in PS based on the film? I saw a lot of your videos on color grading and such, but I just cannot seem to get the look right, or even close enough to films to be used properly. For example, I absolutely love the oranges and warmth in Portra 400 (I know some say it is overused, I do not care, it is beautiful to me) but I cannot figure out a way to model that warmth and depth in post. Any tips or tutorials to look at would be appreciated!
Ted, I bought my Nikon F5 four years ago based on your review of the camera! She is still a beast and I shoot with it all the time. We do live in a digital world now but some of us just ain't going to give up on the celluloid! Lol!
Ted, I’ve loved your previous presets and have always shot film along with my digital work. Thus, I’ve recently been on a crusade to make my digital images as close to the film look as possible while still harnessing the strengths of digital files.
What are your thoughts on dxo filmpack? I tend to use that to near finish off some of my images. Then bring them back into capture one to probably slightly tweak just a touch more.
I only recently began experimenting with styles and presets in C1. I shoot with an X-T3, so I've used the in camera simulations. However, I've also used raw files and added the simulations in post inside of C1. I would definitely be interested in learning more about this. One of the issues is learning the best simulations/styles/presets for any given shooting situation. Questions about C1: I'm currently using the free version of C1. How can you tell if a set of styles will work in that version? Which do you think is a better method, styles, presets or recipes in camera? It gets very confusing trying to make sense of all of these sometimes. Thanks for a detailed video!!
Ted, I just bought a Nikon Zf. Coming from Fuji. Thinking of getting your Lightroom presets. Will they work well with the Nikon files? I also have an X100V. This video is amazing, btw.
Another detailed articulate analysis. Great info and comparison! And I agree. For me, personally, it’s simply this. If I want the film look, I shoot with my Nikon F and load it with Kodak color or black and white 35mm film. For digital, my mirrorless cameras. Lots of fun to experiment with both! Thanks again.
Great discussion Ted Forbes, certainly the technology of digital has advanced a lot so it seems as a natural progress to look back at film times and merge ideas that because the access and great work of technology are possible. Thanks for loving Photography so much and share so much in your wonderful channel!
I stared off way back when shooting Kodachrome 64, and I’m always looking for ways to the the film look to my digital photos, so please continue with this series!
Great video!! I’m very interested learning about Ernst Haas’ analog workflow. Finally, do you have a release date for those Fujifilm presets/color profiles???
I have been digitizing old negatives lately too and I have been using my Canon EOS r with my 100 mm macro lens and it works great. I sandwich the negatives between two pieces of heavy plate glass and place them on my light box and shoot away. I have a beautiful flatbed scanner but as you and others have mentioned, it's very tedious and time consuming and I'm pretty sure the digital copies I create with my camera are much better than even my very good scanner could give me. It's definitely the way to go. That Nikon rig looks pretty cool.
Fuji files also did not render correctly in C1, even if you set film profile in C1. Actual .jpg with settings in camera will look different. Maybe colors are similiar but thats it. So i always shoot RAF/JPG because of that. When i figure that. Also different Fuji cameras render different colours even in same picture profile settings. Its not only based on sensor they use X-Trans I/II/III etc, but whole firmware settings. Tell Ted how your presets differ from what Exposure Software offers?
I loved Velvia, use it for most of my colour work. The interesting thing is when I used it in Japan it was amazing, colours were out of this world and it looked like Japan, however when I used it in India the result was not so great, it did not have the same pop. I shoot landscape for most part and some street photography, I understand its due to the geography and the light you get in those parts of the world. Did anyone else have similar experience?
Fascinating. This is exactly my workflow for moving images. Cinema camera - shoot raw - FilmConvert in Resolve - raw controls to expose, control contrast, colour temp, etc. I didn't consciously realise film had less latitude and increased contrast. Also, a raised black level. I spend all my time reducing highlights and lifting shadows to fit into Rec.709 box for display. Same with audio: squeezing and squashing dynamic range to hit loudness target. Seems a bit ironic. HDR monitors will be able to display the full dynamic range of the camera, but not sure how this will affect the film simulation🤔
I use presets of "really nice images" with LRcc. They are great but you have to do a little finetuning. Printed on fine art baryt paper it looks like film.
Hi Ted, I'd love to have you explain WHY you use a certain slider in your creative process. What made you decide you wanted a part of the photo to be more blue, less contrasty, more saturated, ... Most UA-cam clips just show you where the sliders are, what the abbreviations stand for, and that's it. I wouldn't even know where to start looking for improvements to my (mediocre, let's be honest) shots. So my question to you, is: can you provide some of your creative insights in WHAT somebody should start looking at, and only then tell HOW to do it? I know the H/S/L slider, but I wouldn't know when to use it apart from turning my portrait subjects into space aliens. Thanks for all you've covered so far, Ted, especially the retrospectives on some of the best photographers.
It's funny, you're not recreating the look, but your memory of the look. It's like the idealized memory of a lover.
Yes! You win the best comment of the post.
Well said
Pictures of Madelines
Absolutely spot on. My first reaction when i saw the title of this video was simply "WHY ?"
Digital is a million times better than film, and on every level.
Interesting video... I own and operate a film processing lab and agree 100% that digital camera scanning is the way to go. In my shop, we've gone to the time and expense of going the full custom Digital camera scanning route (including software) and average a throughput of 1 frame every 5 seconds at 30+ MP per frame from one single scanning station. It's pretty awesome. I also agree that film tends to have its own look, though, once it's digitized, that's totally malleable. I don't agree with digital having more DR than film though. Slide film, absolutely, but negative film, no, not really. Digital has a lot more under exposure latitude than negative film does, but negative film generally (depending on the emulsion) has oodles of what is generally referred to as over-exposure latitude compared to digital. Negative film generally puts the film base plus fog (it's black level) at ~5 stops less than what is generally considered a correctly exposed exposure card, but... that is pretty subjective, and it's only that because that's what works well for making analog prints onto paper. If you don't care about that and want to effectively put your black levels about where they would be if shooting it digitally (through giving more exposure to the film, starting at about +3 EV over box speed) then you'd discover that film keeps going quite a bit past the point where digital is clipping stuff out to highlights, etc. Again, this with negative film, slide film is a different story. I personally tend to view the box speed of negative film as the minimum amount of light you need to give and choose an exposure that will reflect how far down I want the blacks to go, and with digital, I view the ISO Setting as the maximum amount of light to give and choose an exposure that will reflect how much highlights I want to retain while still maintaining a reasonable amount of noise. Make sense?
Absolutely. The other thing to mention, particularly with negative stock is that you can compensate for lighting using both the development and the exposure to maintain highlight detail and shadow detail. The printing was where the local contrast was determined. The professional films had lower contrast and higher acuity in the mid tones than the consumer emulsions. I am glad that Ted is exploring what to do to bring film feel together with digital practices. The two media at their best seem to exist on different sides of the street and require very different mindsets and expectations. I have stopped previsualising my final image with any film stock and it’s aesthetics in mind. I look at film photographs and love the plasticity and colours but, I don’t speculate about film stock as much.
Right with you on the benefits of digital camera as scanner. And how much highlight latitude is hiding in those color negatives. i think paper and later, CCDS and 90s hardware held color negative back. I shoot vanishing roadside America so, lots of night shots with neon and artificial light sources. I do this on a variety of film stocks and formats plus my ‘camera scanner’ Sony A7Riv and a recently acquired GFX100S. I was astounded the first time I put even a modest stock like Lomo CN800 shot in my RZ67 through the camera scan/NegativeLabPro workflow. It was like using Lightroom’s grownup HDR process; I could hold back highlights to retain color in true neon, the kind that is clear glass when off and reddish orange when lit. That’s my benchmark. True neon has strong green lines in its spectra and easily goes to babysh*t yellow when captured if one isn’t careful. About those Fuji emulations: Nostalgic Negative is a drug for those attracted to neon motels and gritty old downtown Las Vegas. Instant Stephen Shore. It was that one extra thing that pushed me into a GFX100S. I’ll be following this series of videos closely!
What about medium and large format film scans?
@@christopherward5065 For black and white, yes, changing the development to meet your output needs is pretty common. For color negative, I don't recommend doing that as C-41 is pretty standardized and changing the development regime introduces all kinds of variations into the 3 color channels, and it's not predictable from emulsion to emulsion. If you only shoot one emulsion and know it well and do your own processing, then, sure, you can go there, but in my experience, it's more trouble than it's worth. Same with E-6. Unless you know what you're going to get and can't get there once it's digitized, not generally worth it.
@@F9FCJ429 Yep, many negative films can pretty easily hold 16+ stops of total DR without even breaking a sweat. Depending on the stock and where it shoulders you may or may not start to get highlight colors that push towards a color cast, which is a problem if you're making analog prints, but if digitizing, it's fairly straightforward to correct out. With BW negative, TMAX 400 is the king of DR. I've had stuff come through the shop where the shooter accidentally overexposed by 6 or 7 stops (1/400th of a second at f/1.4 outside in the middle of the day, way, way, way over) and it was really dense and grainier than it'd be if less exposure was used, but, with a shorter processing time, once it was digitized, it was all there. The highlights were beautiful, and the client had miles of shadow detail. They actually commented that it almost looked digital with how much shadow detail was there.
Reminds me of some friends who say that I'm dumb for buying some oldschool lenses with interesting bokeh because "YOU CAN ALWAYS ADD THE BLUR IN PHOTOSHOP" :D
I'm not experienced in film photography, only digital, so take this lightly.
I agree with everything you say about the colors and dynamic range, however I'd like to add to it.
I feel much of what people describe as 'the film look' is not endemic to the medium of film, rather, is synonymous with the methods of film vs digital photography.
For example, the lenses made today are much more advanced than the ones made for film. So digital photos are overall going to be sharper and more contrasty (among other things).
Film grain is considered a hallmark of the medium, and yet digital has it's own 'grain' (noise). However, we rarely see digital noise in our work because de-noising algorithms are always applied.
Though this is more pertinent for small cameras, modern digital cameras will 'sharpen' everything so hard lines are over-accentuated. Film doesn't have the ability to harden lines.
And thus, (alongside the many differences in color and dynamic range you described) digital photos are sharper, more contrasty, not grainy, and noticeably sharpened.
So if we want to make a good effort to replicate the film look in digital photography, we should cover our bases by using vintage lenses, disabling sharpening, and either disabling de-noising or adding grain in post.
Perhaps this is why we feel film is more honest, because we never try to cover up its 'flaws'...
Sharper isn't necessarily better. Film has a more organic sharpness. Film and digital has its pros and cons, like digital drawing or on paper, acrylic or oil paint etc. you choose what fits your needs. Some pros with film is the variety of formats, resolution (can exceed 1000mp), dynamic range, colours (based on opinion but often goes to film by many), film grain and more. 35mm and 70mm are often used in movies and preferred by many directors over digital. While 35mm has a resolution at 9K, 70mm reaches 19k. Movies like Once upon a time in Hollywood are shot on 35 and 16mm film, other newer movies shot on film are James Bond No time to die, The Joker, Fast and the furious, Wonder Woman 1984. There's a reason film are chosen over digital on blockbusters like these. And as Tarantino stated, digital can get close to film, but why shoot a format to try to replicate another instead of using the real thing. And went on to compare digital to a veggie burger.
@@dre400 I agree sharper isn't necessarily better, and I made no claims that either medium was inherently sharper than the other. You do raise a good point, though, about the sharpness difference between film and digital that I forgot to cover, I suppose because the video didn't cover it either.
What I mean to say is that the 'digital look' and 'film look' imply more than just the look of digital sensors and film emulsions.
Modern lenses are generally sharper than vintage lenses, and thus digital media takes on that sharpness because modern lenses are only designed for digital cameras. Likewise, sharpening algorithms are regularly applied to digital media and never to film media, so digital media takes on that 'digital sharpness' as well, even if it's not an effect naturally brought on by the sensor.
I agree that the film look has an 'organic sharpness', but just like 'digital sharpness' comes from modern lenses and sharpening software, I believe a portion of that organic sharpness stems from the characteristics of vintage lenses and then not fussing about with software in post. Of course, the arrangement of crystals in a film emulsion also leads to organic sharpness, but I believe that doesn't account for all of it.
Tarantino is right, but he's also a purist. If you want it to look exactly like film, you shoot it on film. However, if you want to get the 'film look' with a digital camera, you can achieve many parts of it honestly by using the same lenses and techniques that are used on film. This is why Joker (a production that aimed for the film look yet used digital cameras) paired their modern ARRI cameras with vintage lenses.
Hopefully I was able to clear up any confusion about my comment.
Yes, I'd like to see more about the process. I'm just getting into film myself after using digital for a long time. But I feel the same way, I'd like to replicate the film look through lightroom if i could because it would help me understand certain film simulations easier.
Great video. I love film and still shoot Fuji Provia occasionally. But getting the film look on digital is something I tried to do for ages and I don’t really think it’s possible. Film has grain and inconsistencies that you wouldn’t actually choose to add to your digital photos but on film it seems to work. Not every great photographer has to be good at computer editing and I find the process rather complicated and tedious. Therefore, in my opinion, film is film, digital is digital. If you want the film look, just go and shoot film. You will have more fun, get great looking photos and help a dying industry. 😉
As someone who started with digital, one of the key reasons why I started learning film photography is the distinct look film gives. I also started enjoying the process of film photography but that is secondary. With all the flexibility digital photography gives me, I would love to have the best of both worlds. Looking forward to more. Thanks for everything you do for the photography community
So true that most of the Fujifilm simulations do not mirror the original film stock. I am so glad you included the disclaimer that there's no substitution for real film and that we are just looking for more versatility in the digital space. Your Velvia version is sweet! I am grateful for this channel! Thank you.
Interesting video! I find film has the most natural colors. I partly have to disagree on the dynamic range part though. When scanning 120 color negative film, I find the dynamic range to be a lot higher, compared to most digital cameras. Especially with slight overexposure. This is the reason why switched from digital to film about a year ago.
he is talking mostly about slide film, which has a much narrower dynamic range than negative film
Yes! Also, film reciprocity is what gives us that warm and realistic tone curve. Digital just exposes every tonal range at the same exposure rate. Which is why it's so easy to blow out highlights. Frustrating and sometimes Infuriating if you ask me.
I started with Nikon digital, and have since switched to about 80% medium format film with my Pentax 6x7. However my Nikon Z6 still gets tons of love as I use it to scan the film with the 105 MC! The Z9 will then take over as my main digital camera/scanner
I actually shoot with a Pentax 67II and am looking to sell it and move to digital cause the cost to shoot/develop are killing my wallet! However the results with that camera and the 105/2.4 SMC are just incredible
@@Acoupleofmolecules are you addressing him or me?
@@Acoupleofmolecules huh
@@hellatightdude Film has become incredibly expensive. The cameras are now comparable to FF mirrorless cameras in price, and each photo costs me $2! However I've fallen in love with the results and probably won't be switching back. I love the entire process, and it forces me to be incredibly picky with the photos I take. The scans I get with the 105 MC absolutely blow the Epson scanner out of the water too
I'm getting into 35mm film and have a Nikon F3HP on the way. I didn't know you could scan with digital, I have a Z7 as my digital kit so what would I need to buy to be able to scan my film negatives? Am I able to scan ilford hp5 and portra ?
Your old film videos (especially the one about the Voigtländer Bessa RF) are the reason I shoot film :) Thank you!
your old video helped draw me back into film and now I shoot mostly film because I love the more tactile experience, but digital is more convenient there is no denying it. Great work with the profile.
Yes, I'd like to see more of this stuff. Can't wait for these profiles to become available.
From someone who has been shooting film and digital for over 20 years.. 100% yes, I would love to see more on what your creating.
I used to love to cross process film and I've been having an internal debate about weather or not that's OK to fake digitally, so thank you for the permission to go forward! I've been tinkering with a Capture One style and think I'm close to what I used to get with film and I would 100% would love to know more about this process, specifically what you mention at 10:50. (And if anyone wants to provide feedback on my cross process style, please let me know; I'm happy to share it)
I am absolutely interested in learning more about this area. It's a beast I've been chasing for years and experimented with over time with limited success. I now shoot with a Fujifilm digital, and I absolutely love it. But you're right: the film stocks still don't look like I expect them to.
I'd love to see what you are working on for Provia and Astia as well!
I would love to follow you in that process. I used to, just like you, shoot on all those film and also process them ( I work for many years in a lab). I only do photo as a hobby now but it is very interesting to see and ear someone that remember films, not discover them. Great video like always BTW.
I was a photojournalist for 20 years in the film era. You are not missing anything. Even if you shoot jpg's, its better than film.
Ted love the channel. I have always been attracted to the various different styles (I use Capture One with Fuji X cameras) but have not really played with them that much. Your video is pretty fortuitous because this week I decided that I was going to treat film styles like rolls of film. I see a lot of negative comments about using digital styles - things like you are not being creative, you are letting the computer choose the look of your picture, yada, yada, yada. I starting thinking a bit about these comments and the role of styles generally. As you mentioned in your video, we used to pick a certain film for its look. I only shot film for a short period of time before going fully digital in 2003, but shot my share of Velvia and a few other emulsions. What I find interesting is that no-one seemed to complain when we would let the film emulsion choose the look of our photos, but with the infinite possibilities of Digital the limitations imposed by styles suddenly becomes a negative.
I have not fully thought it through, but I think that styles can very much be like lenses. We can have almost an infinite choice of lens field of view, particularly if we are using zoom lenses. Over the past several years however, I have almost totally transitioned to prime lenses, and despite having a bunch of them, I find that I am using a single focal length for the vast majority of my shots. While certainly limiting in some respects it is also equally liberating not having to worry about focal length all of the time allowing me to focus on the photographs that I am making.
I think film choice, when we shot film, used to do the same thing. On the one hand it limited our options, but on the other it made us focus on the photography. We would pick a look and work to make the photographs work within the confines of the limitations of the emulsion. I believe we can use styles in a similar manner, if we force ourselves, to limit ourselves to a certain look for a particular group of photos (like limiting ourselves to a single focal length of lens). Digital gives us unlimited "emulsions" but that is really overwhelming and we can use styles to find a look that we like, which may be film like, or not, and then we can focus on the photographs and making our art.
15:41 YES! I miss the look of film, but despite having half a dozen (mostly) working SLRs and a 6x6, I never shoot it anymore due to the added time, cost, and inconvenience.
I stopped film shooting since there are so expensive. Here in austria you have to pay for one HP5 roll about 9€. The porta 800 is about 14€. One roll!!! Thats insane!
I like adding grain in digital camera that would ‘simulate’ film look. Now I’ve progressed into another approach. Rather than pretending that my digital film look was fooling anyone I still sometime do grain type look but accept that it is a well rendered digital effect.
I used to love Velvia 50 for landscape and Provia 100 for most other stuff. Naturally, for portraits, Kodak Porta got a lot of use. I do miss the look of those. I would love to be able to closely replicate that with digital in LightRoom. So, yes. Please keep it up and share the journey.
Yes please to more. As a photographer who has shot only in the digital age, but has been shooting plenty of film in the past year, I’ve come to love the simplicity of color choice with film. I’m very quickly “paralyzed” by choice when it comes to coloring digital photos. So I’ve actually dialed in a specific edit in-camera on my X-Pro3 with Classic Chrome so as to simplify my process. But I would still be oh-so interested in gathering the knowledge to understand the why’s and how’s of reaching the color tones I want, chopping through the chaotic brush of choice when the edit comes. I think the intense amount of testing that went into creating films testifies to just how complicated color is by nature, and shoot, just how much I have to learn when it comes to coloring photographs. And I’ve been shooting for 12 years!
Yes and yes. WOuld love to hear more and play around with your presets pack once they're ready. Great vid as always Ted
just downloaded these and they are the best I've tried by far. Thanks.
Loved this! I'm late to the party but I really enjoy seeing how other people process images, especially the why.
Yes, I would be really keen to see more about how you go about this process. As always, thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Film = vinyl records; digital = well, digital. I shot film for decades (mainly Kodak, Agfa, and Fuji) but just as I can emulate analog amps reasonably well digitally, DxO FilmPack and various Nik plug-ins do a masterful job of emulating many film looks. IMO, DxO is much better than anyone else in this regard, as they have all of the data required to create more accurate renderings (and they now include many Fuji camera looks as well as all of the emulsions you mentioned and many more), plus you have the ability to access these from FilmPack within PhotoLab and tweak the settings in either program to get the exact look you want (however you recalled it). You can also export from PL to Nik (Silver Efex Pro in the case of B&W) to apply further enhancements if "necessary." Also, you have way more flexibility with what you can do to an image compared to film (especially with DxO's U Point tech, which enables you tweak specific areas, so you could "fix" the skin tones without affecting anything else that fell in the same color range).
Lenses and technique also affect things, but I think the key element here is in the printing. Especially when coupled with the aforementioned workflow, My Epson P900 with various papers can produce very convincing film-like results. For example, I expect it would be very difficult for many "experts" to tell a P900 (or a Canon PRO-1000) print, especially on various baryta papers, from a film-derived silver-gelatin print (certainly at a normal viewing distance). Some may beg to differ, but as far as I'm concerned, the only really important thing is to get the look you want (regardless of how a laboratory analysis might assess things) and I can generally do that, so no more chemicals for me!
I used to love Orwochrom transparency film back in the late 1970s and 80s. It was an East German film whose colour rendering was completely off - but that made for great effects out of the ordinary! And it was cheap!!
Always a joy to watch yer video’s Ted… in about a week, I’ll be a new Ft Worth Resident … Moving in from NW of Chicago….
Please keep sharing! I am very interested! Thanks for all your great ideas and video!
Really Nice Images profiles has been my go to for this to date. Will be interesting to see how yours come out!
Heck yeah, I'd love to see more stuff about emulating the film look too!
Please keep sharing. I’ve been digitizing my slides and negatives using my Canon 5DSR coupled with a Canon L 100mm macro lens. I’m using a copy stand setup and illuminating and masking my slides and negatives on a light box for the even lighting. Its been working out pretty well. My favorite b/w 35mm film back in the day was Kodak panatomic x. I would have fit right in with Group f/64. I’ve pretty much decided to go at least 50% b/w these days. I’m very much looking forward to using my beautiful Rollei Hy6 and Ebony 4X5 which have been collecting dust on the shelf far too long. I love digital photography and think it has made great strides in trying to replicate the look of film. At the risk of offending pure digitalists (is it even a word), I would compare digital photography to making a TV dinner vs spending the time and effort to prepare a gourmet meal using lots of different ingredients. BTW I do love Swanson Hungry Man Dinners. I sooo miss Poloroid type 55 4X5 film for those who remember those days.
I respect your work, your goals, and your sharing of so much through your videos. Thank you. I'm afraid I don't see film presets/simulations/profiles the same as you though. If I would want to use them I would want to genuine look, shortcomings and all. The moment you start to change the contrast, shadows, saturation, and involve the dynamic range of digital it just becomes another preset and re-enters the same digital world with only an echo of film inspiration.
Yes. Would love to see more content on your film look processes.
Absolutely I’d love to see more of the process you use in creating and using the presets. I have started shooting film again because I love the look and the process. It is so much more tactile than digital is.
I think as photography goes on photographers can look to more areas to expand creativity, especially in editing. I’m still starting and so this is just my opinion but I think being able to edit in a film style or a more digital style or anything in between allows you to pick the style for the shot more specifically
I think the obsession with film colors and how digital camera jpegs look straight out of camera, we’re losing what made colorists such as Gordon Parks great. They chose how they wanted to interpret the colors they saw. Where as we typically rely on the camera to interpret what we see while ignoring how much flexibility we have to stylistically interpret what we see in Lightroom. In 2021 we can be the artist that we were relying on film stocks to be back in the day. Let’s use that ability!
Edit: got rid of a typo that was bugging me
Not all people like to spend hours in post...
@@gibcoprobe66 absolutely correct. That’s why presets and profiles are super nice to have, because you can quickly find a good starting place for you image and tweak it from there
@@earthlingtheaaron21 As I said in my other comment, I've never seen a preset or color profile that I like. So to me it's not even worth it. If I want the film look, I shoot film.
@@gibcoprobe66 good for you bro, everyone doesn’t have such a luxury. If you shoot digital and want an exaggerated look without time in post, you either set up presets or even something like recipes on Fuji cameras for your jpegs.
@@gibcoprobe66 furthermore, if it’s taking HOURS in post to touch up your photos, you’re either extremely picky or you just don’t know what you want and how to accomplish such a look efficiently. Practice makes perfect and if you’re struggling to edit in post, it’s time for practice. It comes with the territory of digital photography. If you shoot raw you’re just getting whatever data comes from the sensor, the sensor isn’t an artist, you are. Same goes for film.
I used to love picking a different film type depending on the shooting I was going to be doing. Ektachrome 100 and Velvia 50 were always a joy to use (even if they were a bit of a pain exposure wise).
One of the reasons I really like my Fuji system now is trying to match the in-camera profiles to the original look (I use the presets as a starting point because, as you point out, they are definitely off to my eye). One of the great things about the Fujifilm community (and this certainly may be true of other systems, I don't know) is that people are developing and sharing these "recipes".
The degree to which we have control over the image (color, contrast, dynamic range etc) is actually one of the greatest parts of digital photography. Especially because so much of this can be done in camera. Basically it is like having 100 different film types you can load up when you need.
Great project idea (I don't use lightroom so it might not be exactly beneficial for me). Sharing formulas on how to achieve film looks is always a great idea.
Great video. I shoot black white and color and slide film and shoot digital with my Fuji X-T3 and X100s with their film simulation with custom in camera set up. The reason I use them because those film simulation can remind me what I was thinking on sites. Later on, I may retouch them in C1. And sometimes, it easy to make my one projects with unique style. Good video again, and I love to see more of this kind.
I’m pretty surprised that I didn’t see anything about VSCO film presets within the first couple scrolls through the comments. VSCO did the same thing and then some, between 2011 and 2018 I believe, working with professional colour graders and camera manufacturers. They did different sets with different film stocks for different cameras as how the sensors treated the information coming in differs and every sensor required specialised attention. End result was amazing. Then they decided to get rich and switched to mobile. Anyway, this is still quite a good idea, and it’s a fun exercise on Lightroom.
RNI presets are even better!
Dynamic range of film less than your/my Z 7ii? Well in 1970, we would measure/calibrate sensitivity and processing and measure film or print in "density" (let's call that saturation to keep it easy). This generally generated sort-of an "S" curve with a straight section that we considered "usable dynamic range" or usable contrast envelope. That straight section in the density curve would cover about "4" units on the X axis. This was hard to grasp for uneducated photographers. Because the "X axis" in the graphs represented the 10-base log intensity* time. Extremely good films might go to "5" or bad films to a bit less than 4 (log i*t). What does that "4" mean? Well, if we remove the log, we get 10,000 and if we look at f-stops, we need to go to 14 in order to get more than 10,000 as f-stops or EV stops are 2-base log things. If a film could go to "5" you would have 20 f-stops.
The problem with film is that it needs to be printed and in the end you only have between 3 and 5 f-stops of contrast and seemingly that is your dynamic range. As average film would easily do "4" in the straight section of the density curve, there still are the non-linear "shoulders at the bottom and top of the graph - imagine software to straighten these shoulders out and you can digitally increase the usable dynamic range of film. The problem with digital is that we generally look at our photos on a computer monitor with a childishly limited color space and even worse dynamic range.
So you could explain that without insulting "uneducated photographers" - I'm sure not intended. As for the childishly limited displays - SDR is about 6 stops which can handle film scans (depends on the monitor I realize). HDR is much higher (15 or so if I recall).
Love the video, Ted. I like that it wasnt a film is better than digital video nor is it teaching you to trick people into thinking you shoot film. It helps us to understand unique qualities of various stock
This has got to be one of the best and elaborate ad for a film preset ever
Is the hardware device you're using only compatible with the Nikon system ?
I’m all in. Also if you ever decide to dive into Fuji cameras in camera processing and make a recipient for these stocks that you mentioned, that would be a video that I would watch many times
I shot film beginning the day my dad handed the Argus he brought home from the war. Learned a lot from that experience including how to manually meter my shots. Since then I moved thru Minolta, Canon and Nikon SLR’s until one day someone bought me a digital. I shot the thing for several years and learned a lot of what was possible in post. But ultimately I hung up the DSLR - I was weary of photography - I thought I had outgrown my love for it. One day someone dug out a shoebox of my old prints and watching their joy and looking at those old shots it hit me that something was different here. No one was scrolling thru page after page of digitized images on their phones or tablets. They were passing prints around the table over a bottle of wine and reminiscing. There was also a character in those shots that was very different thsn my digital crap. I dug up the old film bodies and havent looked back. And once again lI am enjoying what these images do for my family and friends. Here is what I’ve learned: The process of shooting digital ultimately devolves to one of “shoot, shoot, shoot!!” - throwing away the many garbage shots to get to the one keeper. Film isnt anywhere near as quick. I think about my shot. And the results are changed by that difference in approach. Its the difference between masturbation and making love …while the results may end up in a similar place the process of getting there is very different and for the participants - far more satisfying.
This looks like an amazing project. As someone trying to now learn film after a few years of doing digital it would be great to find a harmony with both worlds.
The options and baked in camera settings with film configurations (aside from nostalgic manual controls) is what made me switch all my equipment to Fujifilm.
I agree with the native profiles, but the beauty is that we can create our own, and Fuji X Weekly makes amazing research and collaborations to create film recipes that faithfully recreate the films in camera, no need for post processing and all for free :)
Awesome video too!
Agreed but sometimes there are just too many simulations and they don't really seem to get us all the way there. I love Velvia so much but can't quite seem to make that happen in the X-E3. I still have a lot of experimentation to do but not yet floored by the film simulations either in camera or from the community. I hope to change that!
Yes would love to see more about this process!
Thank you Ted!! Yes, please continue with your interesting project.
I’m not much interested in going backwards, I understand the interest in film and the look, but at this point in my life it’s more important to get the images!
Too many photographers I meet are all about gear and lenses and equipment and seem to have forgotten the photograph. I’m more interested in the subject matter and how I can make it stand out.
But good luck in your pursuits. 🖖
One of the reason many go over to analog, digital is too much gear talk where the photos turns less important. With an analog a $50 camera vs a $2000 camera uses the same "sensor" and gear is less important. I must add shooting analog is not going backwards. That'd be the same to say an artist are going backwards for drawing/painting on paper instead of digital. Now I can return from a vacation with 100 memorable photos instead of 3000 photos that I struggle to go through, ends up on a hard drive and never seen again.
@@dre400
I came from analog or should I say film, so I understand it quite a bit. It’s the same whether you were doing film or digital, how much time are you going to spend with technique and technology.
I know a few film photographers who still can’t even get a simple image to look good! It’s the same even with digital photographers, as too many don’t even know how to process an image, and their understanding of the technology is still subpar.
After a lifetime of taking images, the most important things to me are understanding your image editor and your camera gear. Only then can you start to get quality images of the photos you do take. and I’m not even talking about understanding it all, just a few simple basics. Contrast, color, shadows, highlights, composition.
I see so many on Flickr and Instagram who’s photos are too dark and muddy, making me wonder why they’re even posting?
Some of them are even better at composition then editing? It all goes hand-in-hand, and if you can’t even do these basics why do they keep talking about all the different camera and lens makers?
A lot of them would be better off just having an iPhone. At least technology has progressed to where you can get a half decent image without trying. I still prefer using a camera that has a viewfinder.
The preset pack you’re creating is exactly what I’ve been searching for. Definitely interested in more about the process
This topic has been my number one point of interest for last couple of years!
Whenever I would try working with RAW files the way I do with my negatives - I'd never get a result that would satisfy me. So definitely would be happy to see more content from you where you'd elaborate on the theme :)
Thank you!
The same process I do with my X series. Its what I love about Fujifilm. Exactly I adjust color channels to my taste specially on skin tones which I am particular. Thank you for sharing!
I'd be interested in learning more about your process. Any opinions on Really Nice Images (RNI)?
It’s interesting that many digital photographers are trying to get the “film look”. Maybe that’s why film photography is seeing a revival ?
I was hoping to find the presets in the description
Cool video! I learned a bunch! And heck yeah! Take us deep into the colour thing!
Yes, I'd like to follow along as you work through the process.
Definitely! Keep going with this new project. I'm definitely interested in seeing how some of the picture profiles for different "films" turn out.
Yes, I’d like to see more of the process.
Thanks
Hey Ted, thanks for the videos, I have been following you for a bit now. Where can I go or how can I find pictures to use as reference to make my own presets based on a specific film, and what do you recommend as a workflow for actually making those profiles in PS based on the film? I saw a lot of your videos on color grading and such, but I just cannot seem to get the look right, or even close enough to films to be used properly. For example, I absolutely love the oranges and warmth in Portra 400 (I know some say it is overused, I do not care, it is beautiful to me) but I cannot figure out a way to model that warmth and depth in post. Any tips or tutorials to look at would be appreciated!
Ted, I bought my Nikon F5 four years ago based on your review of the camera! She is still a beast and I shoot with it all the time. We do live in a digital world now but some of us just ain't going to give up on the celluloid! Lol!
I didn't see any mention about white balance on film.. white balance is only problem of digital camera?
Happy New Year! 🍻
Ted, I’ve loved your previous presets and have always shot film along with my digital work. Thus, I’ve recently been on a crusade to make my digital images as close to the film look as possible while still harnessing the strengths of digital files.
Yes please! I just found your channel and am watching video after video!
Really enjoyed this video and please make more. I love replicating a film look and rediscovering my images. Than you Ted. Lisa in the UK
What are your thoughts on dxo filmpack? I tend to use that to near finish off some of my images. Then bring them back into capture one to probably slightly tweak just a touch more.
I only recently began experimenting with styles and presets in C1. I shoot with an X-T3, so I've used the in camera simulations. However, I've also used raw files and added the simulations in post inside of C1. I would definitely be interested in learning more about this. One of the issues is learning the best simulations/styles/presets for any given shooting situation. Questions about C1: I'm currently using the free version of C1. How can you tell if a set of styles will work in that version? Which do you think is a better method, styles, presets or recipes in camera? It gets very confusing trying to make sense of all of these sometimes. Thanks for a detailed video!!
Ted, I just bought a Nikon Zf. Coming from Fuji. Thinking of getting your Lightroom presets. Will they work well with the Nikon files? I also have an X100V.
This video is amazing, btw.
Great video as always Ted 👍
Hello just a newbe question: have you looked at DxO FlimPack 6 as a starting point?
Another detailed articulate analysis. Great info and comparison! And I agree. For me, personally, it’s simply this. If I want the film look, I shoot with my Nikon F and load it with Kodak color or black and white 35mm film. For digital, my mirrorless cameras. Lots of fun to experiment with both! Thanks again.
Finally someone other than me finally speaking about this honestly. Much respect TED. Let me know if you are up for doing a collab on these subjects.
Great discussion Ted Forbes, certainly the technology of digital has advanced a lot so it seems as a natural progress to look back at film times and merge ideas that because the access and great work of technology are possible. Thanks for loving Photography so much and share so much in your wonderful channel!
I'm going back to digital for colour and film for B&W, colour too expensive, love the process of B&W
I stared off way back when shooting Kodachrome 64, and I’m always looking for ways to the the film look to my digital photos, so please continue with this series!
Yes, please do more videos about the process.
Great video!! I’m very interested learning about Ernst Haas’ analog workflow. Finally, do you have a release date for those Fujifilm presets/color profiles???
I'd certainly like to see where you can take the processing.
All in on the presets.....great idea!
Ted, fascinating video. Yes, by all means, I would like to see more.
This is why I shoot with Fujifilm. I like the film look. You can dial the saturation, shadows, highlights etc in the settings.
I fully support your project. Please keep us posted
I have been digitizing old negatives lately too and I have been using my Canon EOS r with my 100 mm macro lens and it works great. I sandwich the negatives between two pieces of heavy plate glass and place them on my light box and shoot away. I have a beautiful flatbed scanner but as you and others have mentioned, it's very tedious and time consuming and I'm pretty sure the digital copies I create with my camera are much better than even my very good scanner could give me. It's definitely the way to go. That Nikon rig looks pretty cool.
Thanks!, Yes, I am very interested seeing more like this
Ted love the preset Idea but I don’t use capture on or Adobe. Do you plan on making your presets to work ON1 Photo RAW
Fuji files also did not render correctly in C1, even if you set film profile in C1. Actual .jpg with settings in camera will look different. Maybe colors are similiar but thats it.
So i always shoot RAF/JPG because of that. When i figure that. Also different Fuji cameras render different colours even in same picture profile settings. Its not only based on sensor they use X-Trans I/II/III etc, but whole firmware settings.
Tell Ted how your presets differ from what Exposure Software offers?
I loved Velvia, use it for most of my colour work. The interesting thing is when I used it in Japan it was amazing, colours were out of this world and it looked like Japan, however when I used it in India the result was not so great, it did not have the same pop. I shoot landscape for most part and some street photography, I understand its due to the geography and the light you get in those parts of the world. Did anyone else have similar experience?
I always thought usa light was the best for Kodacroome never liked it in europe
Fascinating. This is exactly my workflow for moving images. Cinema camera - shoot raw - FilmConvert in Resolve - raw controls to expose, control contrast, colour temp, etc. I didn't consciously realise film had less latitude and increased contrast. Also, a raised black level. I spend all my time reducing highlights and lifting shadows to fit into Rec.709 box for display. Same with audio: squeezing and squashing dynamic range to hit loudness target. Seems a bit ironic. HDR monitors will be able to display the full dynamic range of the camera, but not sure how this will affect the film simulation🤔
Does your preset works in Lightroom mobile too?
Have you messed around with Fuji Recipes? I'd like to know your thoughts on those and how they match up to the original film stocks.
been trying to improve on black and white film.
Please share more of these. I find too many presets that are targeted at wedding/blogger photography. This is the approach I want to see.
I use presets of "really nice images" with LRcc. They are great but you have to do a little finetuning. Printed on fine art baryt paper it looks like film.
My second favorite F work lmao. Great video as always Ted!
Hi Ted, I'd love to have you explain WHY you use a certain slider in your creative process. What made you decide you wanted a part of the photo to be more blue, less contrasty, more saturated, ...
Most UA-cam clips just show you where the sliders are, what the abbreviations stand for, and that's it. I wouldn't even know where to start looking for improvements to my (mediocre, let's be honest) shots.
So my question to you, is: can you provide some of your creative insights in WHAT somebody should start looking at, and only then tell HOW to do it?
I know the H/S/L slider, but I wouldn't know when to use it apart from turning my portrait subjects into space aliens.
Thanks for all you've covered so far, Ted, especially the retrospectives on some of the best photographers.
Yes please. That would be fascinating.
I have spent a lot of time trying to recreate filmic looks in LR.