35mm Film to digital preset creation

blockend said:

Honestly, your best hope is to produce digital images you like the look of, that can be consistently applied to create a signature look.

Click to expand...

I think this is a great tip.

There are so many aspects to actually making a digital photo look like it was shot on film. It's been years since digital left 35mm film in the dust when it comes to quantifiable qualities such as sharpness and dynamic range but film has an esthetically pleasing quality to it that is hard to replicate, though many have tried. I don't know if this is because we're used to seeing photos printed from film or if there's something inherent in it that makes us like it. If it's the former it would be a generational thing.

What this means is that you can't just try to replicate colors and grain structure but you must also change the way you think when processing the digital image, recovering maximum shadow- and highlight detail for example and then slapping on your newly created film profile just won't look right. Ehat this means is that there's no one profile that fits everywhere but every photo must be treated separately.

I realize this is stepping into some hybrid discussion so to get back on topic. Any 35mm film camera with a somewhat common lens mount will do, there's always a cheap adaptor to be found for your S1. Then go out and shoot some film, choose your favorite B&W film and your favorite color film and photograph what you would normally photograph using your S1. Then go home and figure out what it is you like about each.

Who knows, maybe film will grow on you

Jumping back into "hybrid" thinking, if you can, try a Fuji X camera and its film emulations. See what that looks like (no, it's not film like in general sense). Then keep in mind the resources and insider information Fuji had for its films when they came up with those emulations. After that you may be better equipped to (or not) charge ahead with your idea of having own version. it might prove to be a fun project, but I am not so certain it will be a success you may be expecting.

Thinking about it, I agree with others that might not you get the result you want, but in terms of a camera, Canon Rebel 2000, cheap yet capable, Sigma Canon EF to L mount adapter, still under $200 U.S, for both then a 100 or so for mid range lens, maybe a 50 1.8 or 1.7 not sure what Canon made in EF mount, or a short zoom, 28 to 105. No matter what happens with you experiment you still have the adapter and a vast range of Canon lens for your Panasonic.

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.

Click to expand...

Sure, sharpness should not be a problem but color temp and color tone - especially using color negatives, will be a challenge.

Of course when using color negatives and b&w one film characteristic that will be very challenging to emulate with any digi will be the near infinite overexposure. Below you can see that even in RAW with post work they are completely blown out unrecoverable past +4 while Portra 400 goes well beyond. You can see that with the mildest of post work on the +10 frame, one can reasonably recover it even using white balance and levels. Obviously I didn't shoot enough frames to see where it actually ends as I didn't expect going +10!



What can you do with this info? Well let's say you encounter a scene that your camera's meter is recommending 1/60 and you need 1 second well you will have confidence knowing you will have something you can work with. This is what I did with this scene taken with Kokak Ektar 100 as I needed to smooth out the waterflow.



And while I'm on long exposure, clearly that is one aspect of film photography that can only be done with a film camera.

This one taken on Kodak Ektar 100 using aperture priority mode on my Pentax LX - the only camera ever that can do this, and the autoexposure was more than 40 minutes.



Anyway, good luck on your interesting project as you will have many things to work out. Maybe you'll find just shooting film to be the better option . . .

Les Sarile said:

Sure, sharpness should not be a problem but color temp and color tone - especially using color negatives, will be a challenge.

Of course when using color negatives and b&w one film characteristic that will be very challenging to emulate with any digi will be the near infinite overexposure. Below you can see that even in RAW with post work they are completely blown out unrecoverable past +4 while Portra 400 goes well beyond. You can see that with the mildest of post work on the +10 frame, one can reasonably recover it even using white balance and levels. Obviously I didn't shoot enough frames to see where it actually ends as I didn't expect going +10!

What can you do with this info? Well let's say you encounter a scene that your camera's meter is recommending 1/60 and you need 1 second well you will have confidence knowing you will have something you can work with. This is what I did with this scene taken with Kokak Ektar 100 as I needed to smooth out the waterflow.

And while I'm on long exposure, clearly that is one aspect of film photography that can only be done with a film camera.

This one taken on Kodak Ektar 100 using aperture priority mode on my Pentax LX - the only camera ever that can do this, and the autoexposure was more than 40 minutes.

Anyway, good luck on your interesting project as you will have many things to work out. Maybe you'll find just shooting film to be the better option . . .

Click to expand...

Interesting thanks!!! I didn't know film held so much detail the only reason I got rid of my 35mm camera equipment 20+ years ago was because I just couldn't afford it when I was younger and even looking at the prices now its got even more expensive. I was planning to shoot Ektar 100 I do have many presents for Ektar but I want to make sure they are accurate with my camera.
cheers

Justyjust said:

Interesting thanks!!! I didn't know film held so much detail the only reason I got rid of my 35mm camera equipment 20+ years ago was because I just couldn't afford it when I was younger and even looking at the prices now its got even more expensive. I was planning to shoot Ektar 100 I do have many presents for Ektar but I want to make sure they are accurate with my camera.
cheers

Click to expand...

Depending on camera equipment and application, 35mm film can hold quite a bit of detail.

Here is a shot on Kodak Ektar 100.


Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/B719EAE28042380/orig.jpg

As a point of reference, here's a comparison taken on Fuji Sensia 400 slide film and scanned with no post work compared to a shot taken with 24MP Sony A900 at ISO400.


Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/B6BF7BF83DA25A7/orig.jpg

I really doubt that you would will get anything meaningful out of the presets you want to make. The look that you are trying to replicate will be vastly down to the film/development/scanning process vs the choice of lens. I am very happy with The Archetype Process profiles for a film like look. I use those with photos from my phone and a Fuji X2 (when I had one till earlier this year). I retrospectively even went and applied them to a bunch of images I had from years past, various bodies all the way back to a Nikon D2H, they work really well. The profiles are not cheap but they're within your budget. I have used them to make a preset which adds a bit of grain etc and I get a pretty good Portra lookalike.

Justyjust said:

Or am I going a bit over the top.

Click to expand...

naaah, I don't think you are going over the top, just having a good time. why not just buy any camera that will suite your needs. I have been using a bare bones Pentax K1000 and a ME super for years. Pentax lenses are really nice ... and don't really cost too much, and if you have a mount. ...
my suggestion is instead of buying the camera body why not just use classic glass on your digital camera so you get whatever it is you like from the glass, instead of some sort or look like film pre-set. in the end film looks like film and it has a different je ne sais quois than digital, one can't look like the other so why not just roll down the window and enjoy the ride. after all its not really the gear/hardware that matters ( at least to me ) its the photographs you make. I understand what you are saying though film is a commodity and kind of expensive but if that is what you want in the end it is worth the expense ( I've been broke for years, I use expired film which is not too expensive, I use paper negatives ( even cheeper ) and I make my own emulsions ( even cheeper ), for me ( yes I shoot both ( film since I was given a Mickey Mouse camera around 1970, digital since the 90s ) its about something that's tangible, I even make digital negatives from digital files I like. I'm always worried about the next solar surge which we are due for soon, and will erase everything, might as well have things that you can look at after all the screens go blank.
don't forget to have fun !
John