Digital Images and Film Simulation

Paul Jenkin · Apr 30, 2010

As a long-term film user who previously had his own darkroom, I miss the fun of seeing the image appearing from the clarity of the exposed paper.

However, I recently started using a piece of software called "Silver Efex Pro" from Nik Software. Okay, it's never going to replace film, but it does a good job of simulating several well-known films.

Anyone else use it? Are digital images made to look like film allowed on here?

Ray Heath · May 1, 2010

G'day Paul

Why?

Why try and fake something?

Why not use traditional analogue methods for a traditional result?

Why not embrace digital as being a different medium and develop techniques that embrace those differences?

Paul Jenkin · May 2, 2010

Hi Ray.

Why? I think my opening sentence goes a long way to explaining. However...

For many years I had my own darkroom but I no longer have the space for one or the time to produce my own chemical prints. Also, for a brief period, I didn't even have a film camera. So, I decided to see how effective technology - in the shape of Silver Efex Pro - is at producing film simulations.

Incidentally, I have fully embraced digital as a different and "parallel" medium and thoroughly enjoy using both film and digital. I currently own three digital cameras: Nikon D300, D700 and Panasonic Lumix LX3, as well as Canon F1-N, EF and A1 film bodies, a Hasselblad 500 c/m, a Voigtlander Vito 35mm folder and Zeiss Ikon Nettar 518/16 120 folder.

I shoot a wide range of subjects from portraits/weddings to landscapes to travel to street and macro work on digital and also on film.

Nevertheless, there are some digital images I've taken with which I enjoy experimenting. I like the technology. I don't believe it will ever replace film but it's fun using it and seeing how the results turn out. That's my prerogative.

Since re-acquiring a number of film cameras, I am thoroughly enjoying using them. I still don't have a darkroom, however, so I use the services of a local pro photographer to develop the negs and trannies for me. I then scan them so I can post the results - either to my website (currently under construction / review) or to forums and galleries like this one.

Now - back to my original question:

Can anyone tell me whether digital images that have been manipulated to simulate film are allowed on this site, or point to the rule where they are disallowed, please?

Many thanks.

Paul.

ann · May 2, 2010

I think silver efex is a great piece of software and reminds me a bit of working in a traditional darkroom.

Years ago the following comment would have never come from my mouth, but an old dog can learn new tricks.

Who cares, it is all about the image and obtaining the results that one's creative mind can image.

cupcake_ham · May 2, 2010

Ray Heath said:
G'day Paul

Why?

Why try and fake something?

Why not use traditional analogue methods for a traditional result?

Why not embrace digital as being a different medium and develop techniques that embrace those differences?

I know. You've got a roll of Fuji Astia half finished in your camera. Now you have a shot you would love to have taken with Tri-X or Neopan 1600. You can now have it look that way with Silver Efex. Embracing each as their own means you have a color image instead.

Simple.

R Shaffer · May 2, 2010

Paul Jenkin said:
As a long-term film user who previously had his own darkroom, I miss the fun of seeing the image appearing from the clarity of the exposed paper.

However, I recently started using a piece of software called "Silver Efex Pro" from Nik Software. Okay, it's never going to replace film, but it does a good job of simulating several well-known films.

Anyone else use it? Are digital images made to look like film allowed on here?

I love my Silver Efex Pro and use it all the time. Most of the film presets come out too contrasty, IMO, for the initial conversion. SO I usually use APX Pro 100 or Acros 100 as a starting point and then adjust from there.

But the control point adjustments, toning and vignette tools are so easy I use it regularly for PP on my film scans.

Good stuff, enjoy it.

ann · May 2, 2010

Don't think i have ever used the film presets, but love the control points for burning and dodging.

cupcake_ham · May 3, 2010

R Shaffer said:
I love my Silver Efex Pro and use it all the time. Most of the film presets come out too contrasty, IMO, for the initial conversion. SO I usually use APX Pro 100 or Acros 100 as a starting point and then adjust from there.

But the control point adjustments, toning and vignette tools are so easy I use it regularly for PP on my film scans.

Good stuff, enjoy it.

I lower contrast when processing the raw file to get the film effect I want. You can however just make note of the grain intensity and softness settings of one film, and use them on another. I like Tri-X grain....but place it on the Neopan 400 contrast.

Ray Heath · May 3, 2010

So guys, how's about posting some examples?

livemoa · May 4, 2010

Ray, try the nik software site if you are genuinely interested, it has samples plus demonstrations of how it works

donbga · May 4, 2010

livemoa said:
Ray, try the nik software site if you are genuinely interested, it has samples plus demonstrations of how it works

You can also download a fully functional 15 day trial version.

Don

Ray Heath · May 4, 2010

Don Bryant said:
You can also download a fully functional 15 day trial version.

Don

nah, I don't think I'll bother, none of you will post example images so maybe it's not that good

donbga · May 4, 2010

Ray Heath said:
nah, I don't think I'll bother, none of you will post example images so maybe it's not that good

Whatever!

R Shaffer · May 4, 2010

Ray Heath said:
So guys, how's about posting some examples?

Here are a few from Zion Narrows & Antelope Canyon from back in August.

1of1 and 2of3 both use APX 100 film set & 1of3 uses neutral. Almost all the PP done in Silver efex with some initial contrast adjustments in LightRoom

Worker 11811 · May 4, 2010

There's no reason you can't process film at home then scan the negs. Lots of people do that.

You can process many films in the kitchen sink using a daylight tank. All you need is a dark closet to load the film in or, better yet, get a changing bag.

This is what got me back into using film. Then, the opportunity to pick up an entire darkroom outfit fell into my lap. Now, I am completely set up for film and prints.

I still use digital cameras but, once the image is imported to Photoshop via Camera RAW, the only adjustments I ever need to make are "Shadow Enhancement," "Curves" and sometimes the color adjustments. You can simulate grain in Photoshop pretty easily. (NOT using the "Noise" filter.)

I don't use many other programs for photo processing and output, mainly because I have never found the need. However, I occasionally use GIMP because it's got some things Photoshop doesn't. GIMP doesn't hide certain controls in order to make it "easier" for the user. That occasionally hinders the ability to do certain thing.

So, for me, if digital photography was a three-club golf tournament, Camera RAW would be my driver, Photoshop would be my iron and GIMP would be my putter.

cupcake_ham · May 4, 2010

Ray Heath said:
nah, I don't think I'll bother, none of you will post example images so maybe it's not that good

Or you could just check the site....download it, and try it with your photos. Then you'll know. If you're relying on others to do everything for you, then maybe it's best not to bother.

ann · May 4, 2010

Ray,

i am not against posting something, it is a matter of having the time to resize some very large images.

Why do you take such a negative view point?

And how does one go about determining the value of a product when viewed on a monitor that doesn't match the equipment that the images was produced upon.

donbga · May 4, 2010

ann said:
Ray,

i am not against posting something, it is a matter of having the time to resize some very large images.

Why do you take such a negative view point?

And how does one go about determining the value of a product when viewed on a monitor that doesn't match the equipment that the images was produced upon.

Ditto what Ann said. It's simple enough to download a functional trial copy and test it yourself.

As I said previously, Whatever! You are a hard guy to be nice too.

Don

pschwart · May 4, 2010

Don Bryant said:
Ditto what Ann said. It's simple enough to download a functional trial copy and test it yourself.

As I said previously, Whatever! You are a hard guy to be nice too.

Don

The OP said "it (Efex) does a good job of simulating several well-known films."
I don't think Ray is being negative, he is just saying "show me."
I played with an Efex trial some time ago but I didn't purchase because in my tests the conversions it generated were no better than what I was achieving with Photoshop and I just didn't have time to become really proficient with another piece of software. I also wonder about simulating specific films. If someone has mastered Efex and doesn;t mind sharing, I'd also be interested in seeing two identical images processed with Efex, one simulating a specific film, the other just visually tweaked (as one would do using Channel Mixer in Photoshop). I'm sure I will play with again but I don't have time right now ...

pschwart · May 4, 2010

pschwart said:
The OP said "it (Efex) does a good job of simulating several well-known films."
I don't think Ray is being negative, he is just saying "show me."
I played with an Efex trial some time ago but I didn't purchase because in my tests the conversions it generated were no better than what I was achieving with Photoshop and I just didn't have time to become really proficient with another piece of software. I also wonder about simulating specific films. If someone has mastered Efex and doesn;t mind sharing, I'd also be interested in seeing two identical images processed with Efex, one simulating a specific film, the other just visually tweaked (as one would do using Channel Mixer in Photoshop). I'm sure I will play with again but I don't have time right now ...

The killer test would be to shoot the identical scene using a digital SLR and a film SLR, then process the digital image in Efex, print it, and see how it compares to a scan/Photoshop/print or straight silver gelatin print from the film. I don't expect anyone has time for this kind of testing

ctscanner · May 4, 2010

This discussion is all very well and good, quite interesting as a matter of fact. However, I would like to see the question the OP posed regarding the use of this software with Digital Images answered. I personally couldn't see any reason why not, we are a site that incorporates digital processing after all, but Paul has asked a very specific question, and should get an answer.

George

Paul Jenkin · May 4, 2010

Ray (+ anyone else who's interested) please have a look at my Silver Efex Pro set on Flickr:

Dead Link Removed

As I said previously, I don't believe SEP will ever replace or compare with film - but it's great fun to use and the effects are interesting, at least to me.

Best to one and all. Paul.

pschwart · May 4, 2010

ctscanner said:
This discussion is all very well and good, quite interesting as a matter of fact. However, I would like to see the question the OP posed regarding the use of this software with Digital Images answered. I personally couldn't see any reason why not, we are a site that incorporates digital processing after all, but Paul has asked a very specific question, and should get an answer.

George

Are digital images made to look like film allowed on here?

Seems like a non-issue to me. I doubt anyone could know definitively whether most uploaded images originated on film or a digital camera anyway.

Ray Heath · May 4, 2010

Paul, Don, Ann, everybody,

I don't mean to be difficult, the OP made strong comments of endorsement, I asked for visual examples.

Is this not a photgraphy site?

Why are so many here reluctant to post photographs?

You guys "talk" a good image.

OK, original questions;
"Anyone else use it?"
I don't use it, or anything like it, as I have yet to see that this or any other other software package can do things better than Photoshop with a little practice.

"Are digital images made to look like film allowed on here?"
I vote no. Digital images made to look like something else is pushing the definition of "hybrid" just a little too far.

How about digital images made to look like cyanotypes?
Digital images with film sprocket hole frames?

So;
I'm sorry for being direct and not using smily faces and other crap to soften my questioning nature.

And sorry for being a visual person. Oh wait, that's why I'm here.

Marco B · May 5, 2010

Paul Jenkin said:
Can anyone tell me whether digital images that have been manipulated to simulate film are allowed on this site, or point to the rule where they are disallowed, please?

Many thanks.

Paul.

Paul, I don't think it is explicitly stated here on Hybridphoto, but the general consensus of what a hybrid workflow is, is that it MUST incorporate some aspect of the analog workflow, and "simulating film characteristics" digitally isn't that...

So, scanning original analog film to allow it to be digitally manipulated IS good. And making digital negatives from a digital capture to be used in an analog alternative process like a true (again not simulated) cyanotype or Pt/Pd print also.

But your suggested workflow doesn't have any analog part, all is done on a computer, it is like a applying a simple digital filter on a digital image... that is not a "hybrid" workflow.

Marco

Digital Images and Film Simulation

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency