35mm Film to digital preset creation

Justyjust · Nov 17, 2020

I currently own a Panasonic S1 full frame but I would like to create some presets specific to my camera.

I want to buy a film camera and lens shoot some different types of film, once done transfer the same film lens to my S1 shoot the same scenes then build some lightroom presets of that film.

The question is what lens and what camera would be most suitable to use? ,The camera mounts m39 and M have a short flange distance would thus be most suitable for beat results. or should I use any other mount. I do own some other adapters M42 PK FF MD.

Or am I going a bit over the top.

ic-racer · Nov 17, 2020

If you are buying a film camera and lens, why bother then to put the on a digital camera at all. You are done, you don't have to mess with the computer at all.

Donald Qualls · Nov 17, 2020

Sounds to me like you're asking us to help you commit blasphemy!

Seriously, this is the analog-only section of the forums, what used to be (A)nalog (P)hotogrphy (U)sers (G)roup. I'm pretty sure there are hybrid or digital forums in the other sections that can help with setting up digital presets. We can help with film and analog photography.

David A. Goldfarb · Nov 17, 2020

Though the project is hybrid, the question here seems to be analogue—

“What’s a good M39, M, M42, etc.-mount camera? I want to emulate it with digital, but that’s my problem, not yours.”

We’ll keep an eye on the thread, and if the discussion can remain analogue, it can stay here. Otherwise, it should move to a hybrid subforum.

Chan Tran · Nov 17, 2020

Justyjust said:
I currently own a Panasonic S1 full frame but I would like to create some presets specific to my camera.

I want to buy a film camera and lens shoot some different types of film, once done transfer the same film lens to my S1 shoot the same scenes then build some lightroom presets of that film.

The question is what lens and what camera would be most suitable to use? ,The camera mounts m39 and M have a short flange distance would thus be most suitable for beat results. or should I use any other mount. I do own some other adapters M42 PK FF MD.

Or am I going a bit over the top.

What kind of adapters available to your S1?

Donald Qualls · Nov 17, 2020

Well, yes, @David A. Goldfarb I guess that's true.

Assuming your budget doesn't run to Leica, some Zorkis (M39 mount) do a fine job of supporting either German or Soviet lenses. Almost any lens with Takumar, Nikor, Rokkor, or Sekor in the name is a good one, and a couple of those brands started on M42.

BradS · Nov 17, 2020

eh, don't fool around with all the endless iterations of buying, trying and selling (or worse, warehousing)....skip to the final answer....get a good Leica M6, a 50mm Summicron and a brick of Kodak Tri-X and get to taking photos. It may seem expensive but you'll be saving money in the long run.

cerber0s · Nov 17, 2020

I'd get a Nikon F mount adaptor for you S1, that would give you a huge selection of lenses including some high quality but dirt cheap ones (some of the non Ai lenses, like the 105mm f2.5, 24mm f2.8 or 55mm f3.5 macro).

There's also a huge amount of good but cheap cameras to go with these lenses. I'm completely ready to get stomped to the ground for this but the analog camera makes no difference whatsoever when it comes to image quality, it has one job and one job only and that is to expose whatever film you choose for the correct amount of time. As long as the exposure times are correct you're golden and if you don't intend to use the camera on a daily basis you can disregard ergonomical aspects and extra bling such as mirror lockup etc.

Justyjust · Nov 17, 2020

ic-racer said:
If you are buying a film camera and lens, why bother then to put the on a digital camera at all. You are done, you don't have to mess with the computer at all.

It was to avoid having to develop film constantly and avoid film costs in the long ring, it's not that I have anything against film but it is an expensive commodity.

Justyjust · Nov 17, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
Sounds to me like you're asking us to help you commit blasphemy!

Seriously, this is the analog-only section of the forums, what used to be (A)nalog (P)hotogrphy (U)sers (G)roup. I'm pretty sure there are hybrid or digital forums in the other sections that can help with setting up digital presets. We can help with film and analog photography.

I just wanted some advice on selection of analogue hardware camera and lens. Cheers

Justyjust · Nov 17, 2020

Chan Tran said:
What kind of adapters available to your S1?

I currently have this selection of mounts M42 PK FD MD, cheers

Justyjust · Nov 17, 2020

David A. Goldfarb said:
Though the project is hybrid, the question here seems to be analogue—

“What’s a good M39, M, M42, etc.-mount camera? I want to emulate it with digital, but that’s my problem, not yours.”

We’ll keep an eye on the thread, and if the discussion can remain analogue, it can stay here. Otherwise, it should move to a hybrid subforum.

I didn't notice the hybrid section I really just want advice on the analogue hardware camera body and lens not how to create a preset

cerber0s · Nov 17, 2020

Justyjust said:
I didn't notice the hybrid section I really just want advice on the analogue hardware camera body and lens not how to create a preset

What's your budget?

Paul Howell · Nov 17, 2020

Canon EOS, EOS 1 are pro level in the day, not that expensive, then a MC-21 Sigma Mount Converter allows for full function on your L mount camera. Wide range of lens from 80s kit lens to L glass.

Justyjust · Nov 17, 2020

cerber0s said:
What's your budget?

£300 max cheers

Chan Tran · Nov 17, 2020

Justyjust said:
I currently have this selection of mounts M42 PK FD MD, cheers

In that case I think I would go for the Pentax K body.

cerber0s · Nov 17, 2020

Justyjust said:
£300 max cheers

That'll get you a Nikon F to Pentax adaptor, a Nikon F2a body and one or two good lenses.

If you don't want to go for the (arguably) best mechanical 35mm camera ever made (Nikon F2) you can get a Nikkormat for $40 and a bucket full of excellent lenses or a ton of film. All within budget.

Craig75 · Nov 17, 2020

I dont think it matters what you get to be honest.

Everyone could make a very good 50mm but whatever you put on that panasonic is going to be such a "downgrade" compared to new lenses designed for 40 to 60 mp sensors that any decent 50mm will do.

Just get a cheap burner camera with a 50mm and youre good to go.

Paul Howell · Nov 17, 2020

I agree with Criag75, the few legacy lens that will do justice to a 40 to 60mp sensor are going to run a lot more than 300 pounds, Leica, Zeiss, Sigma Art, Swiss Alpa are up there in price. A number of years ago I tested all my 50mm, Pentax M42, K, Yashica, Mamiya, Miranda, Kowa, Minolta MD, and Konica with the last of my Microfiche film. All were good performers, the 2 that stood out were the Miranda 50 1.4 EE and Konica Ar 50 1.7, over all I think Konica has lens for lens the best glass of that time. I would get a Konica T3 with either the 50 1.7 or 40 2.8 pancake. If you stretch your budget then a Canon EOS body and 50mm lens. A really big stretch would be a EOS body with a Sigma 50 1.4 art lens, but the lens runs around $900 U.A and you need the adapter.

Les Sarile · Nov 17, 2020

For your first pass, I say buy the cheapest - but fully working, film body that will work with the lenses you would use for your camera.

Are you planning on using color slides, true b&w or color negatives?

Obviously, translating color slides and true b&w films into digital is relatively easy as you have the source material as reference. But if it is your goal to do so for color negatives, then I am afraid you will go down a rabbit hole - really more like a black hole, as translating the results to realize the true character of it will not be easy to say the least.

Just to give you a glimpse of this, consider these results from the same frame of Kodak Gold 100 scanned by my Coolscan and a mini lab Noritsu machine which most people use. You would think they were from two different frames but they are in fact from the same frame. You may have a preferences for one vs the other but the point is they are not remotely the same and when you look at the frame of film on a lightbox most people won't know including most mini lab machine operators.

BTW, in the Color Film forum we recently had a discussion of this because someone asked why their results from a color negative didn't look right and wondered what was the reason for it. Most of the time it is the scanner or the operator.

blockend · Nov 18, 2020

If I have understood your needs correctly, there are enough images on the internet, taken on every conceivable combination of camera, film and lens, to avoid buying film kit. Flickr is the obvious starting point. Generally speaking, every colour negative film resembles every other col-neg film more than any other stock. Ditto for transparencies. The hard part is getting your digital output to resemble film. The exact stock is a question of tweaks.

There's also various aspirations of what the "film look" is? For some it's vintage Kodachrome, for others faded and under-exposed prints in their parents albums, or high contrast pushed Tri-X of photojournalism or street photography.

Deleted member 88956 · Nov 18, 2020

You will NEVER emulate

Justyjust said:
It was to avoid having to develop film constantly and avoid film costs in the long ring, it's not that I have anything against film but it is an expensive commodity.

You will never be able to emulate film in digital, not now, not ever in the future. There have been millions invested in trying to come up with digital movie camera that gives film-like results. One could argue how close that fake "film" got to real thing, but is clearly has not happened. So what your'e trying to do is fool mother earth that it doesn't exist. I would rather find some already really good film-like filters available, or by a Fuji X camera with ready Fuji film filters in it.

I don't mean to put you down, but reality is analog does not fully transfer into digital environment. It took a few decades for people to realize vinyl music is not CD music (and vice-versa), same goes for imaging products. Perhaps one day a microscope will be need to prove this point in court, which will certainly also prove it cannot be done.

Justyjust · Nov 18, 2020

Les Sarile said:
For your first pass, I say buy the cheapest - but fully working, film body that will work with the lenses you would use for your camera.

Are you planning on using color slides, true b&w or color negatives?

Obviously, translating color slides and true b&w films into digital is relatively easy as you have the source material as reference. But if it is your goal to do so for color negatives, then I am afraid you will go down a rabbit hole - really more like a black hole, as translating the results to realize the true character of it will not be easy to say the least.

Just to give you a glimpse of this, consider these results from the same frame of Kodak Gold 100 scanned by my Coolscan and a mini lab Noritsu machine which most people use. You would think they were from two different frames but they are in fact from the same frame. You may have a preferences for one vs the other but the point is they are not remotely the same and when you look at the frame of film on a lightbox most people won't know including most mini lab machine operators.

BTW, in the Color Film forum we recently had a discussion of this because someone asked why their results from a color negative didn't look right and wondered what was the reason for it. Most of the time it is the scanner or the operator.

i did notice the difference in scans of negatives, from what i've looked at camera shot scans highly resemble the noritsu HS-1800 output i was planning to do it that way. seems to me there are so many variables but if i can do most of it with the same lens and camera i would be happy with the output, i think there will always the colour temp issues but not so much sharpness and colour tone.

blockend · Nov 18, 2020

Justyjust said:
i think there will always the colour temp issues but not so much sharpness and colour tone.

Other things to think about are contrast, black levels, saturation, the emphasis of some hues and neglect of others and, most importantly, how noise translates into grain. Honestly, your best hope is to produce digital images you like the look of, that can be consistently applied to create a signature look. Slavishly mimicking film can be hugely time consuming and, as others have said, is mostly doomed to failure.

Deleted member 88956 · Nov 18, 2020

Justyjust said:
i did notice the difference in scans of negatives, from what i've looked at camera shot scans highly resemble the noritsu HS-1800 output i was planning to do it that way. seems to me there are so many variables but if i can do most of it with the same lens and camera i would be happy with the output, i think there will always the colour temp issues but not so much sharpness and colour tone.

Well, my main point is that pixels are not grain particles, as digital is becoming ever more sterile, placing any kind of digital after all filter to make it look like shot on film is not going to change that. I'm trying to keep you from experimenting. To me these are two entirely different recording mediums and trying to make one look like the other is no different from trying to mate a pig with an owl.

35mm Film to digital preset creation

Moderator

Deleted member 88956

Deleted member 88956

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency