This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I love the quality of light you get from slide film, more than any digital images I've seen. Colours are spot on and light and shade just seem to zing. No matter how much I play around with my digital images, I don't seem to be able to get close to that wonderful and instantly recognisable look of a slide photograph. Quite simply, there is more immediacy with a slide - I am IN the scene, not looking on as a spectator.
Anyone else struggling with this? Any ideas with post-processing?
Anyone else struggling with this? Any ideas with post-processing?
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
what monitor you using?
I have got 2 where 1 is a cheap one and any picture on that looks dull and boring.
what monitor you using?
I have got 2 where 1 is a cheap one and any picture on that looks dull and boring.
In reply to Mikkel:
I have a good monitor (NEC) and it shows images perfectly. I get all mine printed too and calibration is perfect. It's not that. It's the fact that slide film produces such punchy, realistic and evocative results.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=134430
Here's an example from my gallery. Not a brilliant shot I know, but you can see how the sunlit snow glows just like it does in real life. There is great depth and clarity too. I want to get results like that from digital but I don't know how.
I have a good monitor (NEC) and it shows images perfectly. I get all mine printed too and calibration is perfect. It's not that. It's the fact that slide film produces such punchy, realistic and evocative results.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=134430
Here's an example from my gallery. Not a brilliant shot I know, but you can see how the sunlit snow glows just like it does in real life. There is great depth and clarity too. I want to get results like that from digital but I don't know how.
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
That's a very strange light. It's as if you've used different white balance settings for different parts of the image. I wonder if that's the effect that's making the difference you're perceiving?
That's a very strange light. It's as if you've used different white balance settings for different parts of the image. I wonder if that's the effect that's making the difference you're perceiving?
In reply to john arran:
Maybe it's not the best shot to illustrate my point, the snow being very old and dirty on right, and fresh and blue on the left. It's the fact the image (and all slides) looks as though it is back-lit.
Maybe it's not the best shot to illustrate my point, the snow being very old and dirty on right, and fresh and blue on the left. It's the fact the image (and all slides) looks as though it is back-lit.
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
You're right Jamie, I got into my photography just as digital was taking over. I used to go down to Falkirk Camera Club and some of their projected slides just made me feel full of pleasure looking on at the image. I've never seen a digital projection that makes me think or feel the same as when I looked at a projected slide. I suspect it's something to do with the slide being the finished article, whereas so much work goes into digital that each image seems as if it's never finished, and learning lightroom and photoshop just never stops, well at least, not for me!
You played guitar the night I proposed to my wife in Duror bothy, and she said yes as you know. Frank, Jimmy, the guy from Atlas brewery (Neil?) and Gavin were all there too; then we went out to look at the stars. It's been great following your progress as an artist. Keep at it and all the very best.
Tom
You're right Jamie, I got into my photography just as digital was taking over. I used to go down to Falkirk Camera Club and some of their projected slides just made me feel full of pleasure looking on at the image. I've never seen a digital projection that makes me think or feel the same as when I looked at a projected slide. I suspect it's something to do with the slide being the finished article, whereas so much work goes into digital that each image seems as if it's never finished, and learning lightroom and photoshop just never stops, well at least, not for me!
You played guitar the night I proposed to my wife in Duror bothy, and she said yes as you know. Frank, Jimmy, the guy from Atlas brewery (Neil?) and Gavin were all there too; then we went out to look at the stars. It's been great following your progress as an artist. Keep at it and all the very best.
Tom
3
In reply to the abmmc:
Hi Tom! Ahh Duror Bothy. Dave Milsop was probably there too. I've got some photos somewhere. I had a very rough night there a couple of years ago - langoustines and Balkan vodka. Eurrrghhhhhhh. Never again.
Still playing guitar. You play too don't you?
As for photography, I'm going to sit down tomorrow and have another go at emulating the effects I'm talking about. I think it comes down to brightness and contrast, and also the reproduction of blues. Having said that, I've been messing around with Photoshop for years and never quite managed to get the desired result.
Hi Tom! Ahh Duror Bothy. Dave Milsop was probably there too. I've got some photos somewhere. I had a very rough night there a couple of years ago - langoustines and Balkan vodka. Eurrrghhhhhhh. Never again.
Still playing guitar. You play too don't you?
As for photography, I'm going to sit down tomorrow and have another go at emulating the effects I'm talking about. I think it comes down to brightness and contrast, and also the reproduction of blues. Having said that, I've been messing around with Photoshop for years and never quite managed to get the desired result.
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
You could always down load some free photoshop 'actions' that mimic film effect..ie Velvia, Provia, B+W etc... They are a bit so so though.
Or shoot film, and use your camera to 'digitise' them. It works quite well for copying 35mm, without the hassle of firing up the film scanner, and a lot quicker!
(Adam will be along soon to say its rubbish though!
http://petapixel.com/2012/05/18/how-to-scan-film-negatives-with-a-dslr/
You could always down load some free photoshop 'actions' that mimic film effect..ie Velvia, Provia, B+W etc... They are a bit so so though.
Or shoot film, and use your camera to 'digitise' them. It works quite well for copying 35mm, without the hassle of firing up the film scanner, and a lot quicker!
(Adam will be along soon to say its rubbish though!
http://petapixel.com/2012/05/18/how-to-scan-film-negatives-with-a-dslr/
In reply to the abmmc:
Could that be because of a substandard digital projector? I believe you need to spend an awful lot of money on a digital projector to compete with fairly standard slide projectors. Since digital photography came in the quality of projection at climbing talks I've been to has often been pretty disappointing. I delayed going digital for years partly because of the projection problem.
> I used to go down to Falkirk Camera Club and some of their projected slides just made me feel full of pleasure looking on at the image. I've never seen a digital projection that makes me think or feel the same as when I looked at a projected slide.
Could that be because of a substandard digital projector? I believe you need to spend an awful lot of money on a digital projector to compete with fairly standard slide projectors. Since digital photography came in the quality of projection at climbing talks I've been to has often been pretty disappointing. I delayed going digital for years partly because of the projection problem.
1
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
How I agree. I've had my slides scanned professionally but so often they just can't get the nuances of colour in the original. Unfortuately most who vote on photos have no appreciation of what was involved before digital cameras arrived where you simply shoot as many pics as you can and then manipulate them with modern technologoy while seated at home rather than having only 36 pictures which you try and compose as well as possible while trying to belay someone in a precarious situation!
How I agree. I've had my slides scanned professionally but so often they just can't get the nuances of colour in the original. Unfortuately most who vote on photos have no appreciation of what was involved before digital cameras arrived where you simply shoot as many pics as you can and then manipulate them with modern technologoy while seated at home rather than having only 36 pictures which you try and compose as well as possible while trying to belay someone in a precarious situation!
2
2
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
How do the images look on your monitor, are they just as'flat' as when projected? I've never seen decent digital projections which haven't lost something compared to the same image you see on the laptop you're projecting from.
How do the images look on your monitor, are they just as'flat' as when projected? I've never seen decent digital projections which haven't lost something compared to the same image you see on the laptop you're projecting from.
Post edited at 21:49
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
I have never shot on slide film, so can't comment if there is any quality difference between that and digital.
However, used to take lot's of 'normal' film and I would say that digital is as good, or if not better.
A couple of comments though.
What camera are you using? If it's a heavily cropped sensor, then that might partly explain the reason for your quality loss.
I assume that you're shooting in RAW and if so, you're using a proper RAW editor as opposed to just using Photoshop?
I have never shot on slide film, so can't comment if there is any quality difference between that and digital.
However, used to take lot's of 'normal' film and I would say that digital is as good, or if not better.
A couple of comments though.
What camera are you using? If it's a heavily cropped sensor, then that might partly explain the reason for your quality loss.
I assume that you're shooting in RAW and if so, you're using a proper RAW editor as opposed to just using Photoshop?
1
1
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
Agree entirely. Also used to love the fact that the slide "was actually there" with you at the time the image was taken!
A tangible piece of the experience, not just numbers
Agree entirely. Also used to love the fact that the slide "was actually there" with you at the time the image was taken!
A tangible piece of the experience, not just numbers
6
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
I don't shoot in RAW - I don't really know about what extra manipulation that would give me, and when I first tried RAW when I got my RX100, I found I couldn't open any of the files in Photoshop, so went back to maximum size jpegs. I will add that my computer and photography knowledge is pretty basic, but I know what I like, it's just achieving it that's the problem.
Chris Craggs scanned some of my slides some years back, and the files looked just like the slides - full of colour and depth and that wonderful glow that I love. The subsequent prints were no different.
Yes wercat, I agree - the slide really is the ultimate souvenir.
Will I go back to taking slides? Probably not. I will just have to try to emulate that look on Photoshop (maybe to no avail)
I don't shoot in RAW - I don't really know about what extra manipulation that would give me, and when I first tried RAW when I got my RX100, I found I couldn't open any of the files in Photoshop, so went back to maximum size jpegs. I will add that my computer and photography knowledge is pretty basic, but I know what I like, it's just achieving it that's the problem.
Chris Craggs scanned some of my slides some years back, and the files looked just like the slides - full of colour and depth and that wonderful glow that I love. The subsequent prints were no different.
Yes wercat, I agree - the slide really is the ultimate souvenir.
Will I go back to taking slides? Probably not. I will just have to try to emulate that look on Photoshop (maybe to no avail)
2
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
Shooting raw gives you an enormous amount of flexibility. You have more or less full control over white balance, the ability to push or pull by up to several stops (depending on the sensor of your camera), highlight/shadow recovery, precise control over sharpening, and more. No amount of processing will compensate for poor light but I think skilful processing can really make an image. I've been shooting raw for about a year and am only just starting to get the hang of it for my camera.
I haven't shot much slide film, but I do know that it's an unforgiving medium with comparatively little dynamic range. Highlights are easily blown out and getting a perfect exposure for the scene is quite difficult. It's also expensive. For these reasons I think shooting slide film requires far more skill at the point of capture than digital. The experienced shooter of slide film is likely to really hunt for that perfect light and composition before squeezing the shutter, whereas you don't have those constraints with digital. That's part of it, anyway! And, great as digital is (it *is* objectively superior to film these days), it still isn't quite possible to perfectly replicate the look of slide film with a digital camera.
P.S. My camera, the Fujifilm X-E1, has a number of 'film simulation modes' built in. One of them is Velvia: a contrasty, highly saturated JPEG mode with a compressed dynamic range compared to the raw file. But it doesn't quite look like real Velvia...
Shooting raw gives you an enormous amount of flexibility. You have more or less full control over white balance, the ability to push or pull by up to several stops (depending on the sensor of your camera), highlight/shadow recovery, precise control over sharpening, and more. No amount of processing will compensate for poor light but I think skilful processing can really make an image. I've been shooting raw for about a year and am only just starting to get the hang of it for my camera.
I haven't shot much slide film, but I do know that it's an unforgiving medium with comparatively little dynamic range. Highlights are easily blown out and getting a perfect exposure for the scene is quite difficult. It's also expensive. For these reasons I think shooting slide film requires far more skill at the point of capture than digital. The experienced shooter of slide film is likely to really hunt for that perfect light and composition before squeezing the shutter, whereas you don't have those constraints with digital. That's part of it, anyway! And, great as digital is (it *is* objectively superior to film these days), it still isn't quite possible to perfectly replicate the look of slide film with a digital camera.
P.S. My camera, the Fujifilm X-E1, has a number of 'film simulation modes' built in. One of them is Velvia: a contrasty, highly saturated JPEG mode with a compressed dynamic range compared to the raw file. But it doesn't quite look like real Velvia...
Post edited at 09:57
1
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
I remember using a grey card a lot when shooting slide film, it took quite a while to transition to digital as the amount of subtle tweeking after shooting that was required to bring out the best of digital was the opposite of the getting the right light at the right time from the right position with exactly the right exposure (usually the highlights)
I still miss the discipline of slide film and the excitement of getting the box of slides back
I remember using a grey card a lot when shooting slide film, it took quite a while to transition to digital as the amount of subtle tweeking after shooting that was required to bring out the best of digital was the opposite of the getting the right light at the right time from the right position with exactly the right exposure (usually the highlights)
I still miss the discipline of slide film and the excitement of getting the box of slides back
4
In reply to wercat:
Agree entirely. Also used to love the fact that the slide "was actually there" with you at the time the image was taken!
A tangible piece of the experience, not just numbers
What does that actually mean?
A photo is a photo. If I look at a photo taken with a digital camera, I get the same memories/recollections as I would from a traditional camera.
Agree entirely. Also used to love the fact that the slide "was actually there" with you at the time the image was taken!
A tangible piece of the experience, not just numbers
What does that actually mean?
A photo is a photo. If I look at a photo taken with a digital camera, I get the same memories/recollections as I would from a traditional camera.
2
2
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
I don't shoot in RAW - I don't really know about what extra manipulation that would give me, and when I first tried RAW when I got my RX100, I found I couldn't open any of the files in Photoshop, so went back to maximum size jpegs. I will add that my computer and photography knowledge is pretty basic, but I know what I like, it's just achieving it that's the problem.
Aren't you comparing apples and oranges?
The sensor on the RX100 is small compared to even a APS-C sensor found on most DSLR's, so straight away you're losing some quality.
To get the most out of a digital camera, you really need to use RAW and edit it as a RAW image.
I've got Photoshop/Lightroom on subscription, so all cameras will be covered as they become available. I'm pretty sure that there's a free 'plug in' available from Adobe that allows you to edit RAW in Photoshop and is continually updated. If there is (someone on here will know), download it and start playing...
I don't shoot in RAW - I don't really know about what extra manipulation that would give me, and when I first tried RAW when I got my RX100, I found I couldn't open any of the files in Photoshop, so went back to maximum size jpegs. I will add that my computer and photography knowledge is pretty basic, but I know what I like, it's just achieving it that's the problem.
Aren't you comparing apples and oranges?
The sensor on the RX100 is small compared to even a APS-C sensor found on most DSLR's, so straight away you're losing some quality.
To get the most out of a digital camera, you really need to use RAW and edit it as a RAW image.
I've got Photoshop/Lightroom on subscription, so all cameras will be covered as they become available. I'm pretty sure that there's a free 'plug in' available from Adobe that allows you to edit RAW in Photoshop and is continually updated. If there is (someone on here will know), download it and start playing...
2
In reply to FactorXXX:
But I'm not just talking about my photos, I'm talking about all digital mountain photos. I just don't see the same quality of light. I'm very happy with my photos generally, but I still look at my old slides (in print form, on a screen or projected) and feel that modern digital is not quite there when it comes to this 3 dimensional glow that I'm talking about.
I will try to narrow it down as to what I mean! (I realise I'm not being very clear here!)
But I'm not just talking about my photos, I'm talking about all digital mountain photos. I just don't see the same quality of light. I'm very happy with my photos generally, but I still look at my old slides (in print form, on a screen or projected) and feel that modern digital is not quite there when it comes to this 3 dimensional glow that I'm talking about.
I will try to narrow it down as to what I mean! (I realise I'm not being very clear here!)
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
Ron Layters posts a lot of Velvia mountain landscapes on Flickr ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/ronlayters/albums/72057594053947651 ). I know what you mean about the glow – and his photography is undeniably fantastic – but I do think it mainly comes down to quality of light at the point of capture. Looking at many of these shots objectively, white balance and colour reproduction isn't actually that accurate (but these characteristics are pre-selected by the slide film choice).
Edit: Wanted to clarify that I don't intend any disrespect towards the photography in the linked album – I'm a fan of his work! But I think it proves that the 'slide film look' is a subjective quality rather than an objective one, which is why it's so difficult to really nail down with digital.
Ron Layters posts a lot of Velvia mountain landscapes on Flickr ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/ronlayters/albums/72057594053947651 ). I know what you mean about the glow – and his photography is undeniably fantastic – but I do think it mainly comes down to quality of light at the point of capture. Looking at many of these shots objectively, white balance and colour reproduction isn't actually that accurate (but these characteristics are pre-selected by the slide film choice).
Edit: Wanted to clarify that I don't intend any disrespect towards the photography in the linked album – I'm a fan of his work! But I think it proves that the 'slide film look' is a subjective quality rather than an objective one, which is why it's so difficult to really nail down with digital.
Post edited at 15:54
1
In reply to Only a hill:
Nice link Alex! This is a great example - https://www.flickr.com/photos/ronlayters/2580625004/in/album-72057594053947...
Looks very much like a slide this one. It's got that glow, and it also has black black shadows. Although the eye sees a high dynamic range as digital images often do, maybe I still prefer the classical dark shadows with less detail, and bright highlights. Whatever, it's a personal thing.
Nice link Alex! This is a great example - https://www.flickr.com/photos/ronlayters/2580625004/in/album-72057594053947...
Looks very much like a slide this one. It's got that glow, and it also has black black shadows. Although the eye sees a high dynamic range as digital images often do, maybe I still prefer the classical dark shadows with less detail, and bright highlights. Whatever, it's a personal thing.
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
But I'm not just talking about my photos, I'm talking about all digital mountain photos.
UKC has a number of outstanding photographers. Here's two of them: -
http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=40136
http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=15737
If your slide stuff is better than their digital, then hats off to you and get them on UKC for all of us to enjoy!
But I'm not just talking about my photos, I'm talking about all digital mountain photos.
UKC has a number of outstanding photographers. Here's two of them: -
http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=40136
http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=15737
If your slide stuff is better than their digital, then hats off to you and get them on UKC for all of us to enjoy!
Post edited at 16:05
1
2
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
Yes, that's a good example and a great photo! It's a distinctive look, but I reckon I could have a decent go at imitating it in my Adobe Camera Raw workflow. I'll have a tinker...
Yes, that's a good example and a great photo! It's a distinctive look, but I reckon I could have a decent go at imitating it in my Adobe Camera Raw workflow. I'll have a tinker...
1
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
Nice link Alex! This is a great example - https://www.flickr.com/photos/ronlayters/2580625004/in/album-72057594053947...
Obviously personal taste, but to me that looks a little bit flat. It also appears to have a purple tint, but that might be the actual light?
Nice link Alex! This is a great example - https://www.flickr.com/photos/ronlayters/2580625004/in/album-72057594053947...
Obviously personal taste, but to me that looks a little bit flat. It also appears to have a purple tint, but that might be the actual light?
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
Here's a photo I took in March on the Grey Corries. Great light made the shot. It was taken on the Fujifilm X-E1 and processed from raw, but I think it has a similar quality to Velvia even if the exact white balance and colour isn't the same...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm5exbjwfsx6ilr/DSCF7781.jpg?dl=0
Here's a photo I took in March on the Grey Corries. Great light made the shot. It was taken on the Fujifilm X-E1 and processed from raw, but I think it has a similar quality to Velvia even if the exact white balance and colour isn't the same...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm5exbjwfsx6ilr/DSCF7781.jpg?dl=0
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
The blues are difficult to pinpoint. Yes they're purple-based, but that looks fine to me. Alex's shot is green-based, and that too looks fine, so it's not a case of one blue shade looks better than the other. Quite often a sky can be purple-blue and snow shadows can be green-blue, and vice versa too.
The blues are difficult to pinpoint. Yes they're purple-based, but that looks fine to me. Alex's shot is green-based, and that too looks fine, so it's not a case of one blue shade looks better than the other. Quite often a sky can be purple-blue and snow shadows can be green-blue, and vice versa too.
In reply to Only a hill:
I wonder if the love of the "slide film look" is a bit like the love of vinyl - "technically" both are inferior, but it's maybe the inherent failings that make it seem richer.
I'd be intrigued to see an example of this "slide film glow" - or is what people are saying is that it gets lost on the screen?
I remember when I had a brief foray into slide film - seeing them projected was quite something.
I wonder if the love of the "slide film look" is a bit like the love of vinyl - "technically" both are inferior, but it's maybe the inherent failings that make it seem richer.
I'd be intrigued to see an example of this "slide film glow" - or is what people are saying is that it gets lost on the screen?
I remember when I had a brief foray into slide film - seeing them projected was quite something.
Post edited at 16:23
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
I think you're right. I must persevere with RAW and sort out my computer knowledge. I'm sure that I'll then be able to adjust 'til my heart's content!
I think you're right. I must persevere with RAW and sort out my computer knowledge. I'm sure that I'll then be able to adjust 'til my heart's content!
1
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
Looking through Ron's mountain photos again, I reckon to replicate the Velvia look you need white balance somewhat warm and more purple than green, saturated colours, and reasonably high contrast. Something a bit like this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i7ulhpjly0blx0s/DSCF7942.jpg?dl=0
I wouldn't normally process images to look quite this vivid, but it's probably the closest you can get to the slide film look on digital.
Looking through Ron's mountain photos again, I reckon to replicate the Velvia look you need white balance somewhat warm and more purple than green, saturated colours, and reasonably high contrast. Something a bit like this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i7ulhpjly0blx0s/DSCF7942.jpg?dl=0
I wouldn't normally process images to look quite this vivid, but it's probably the closest you can get to the slide film look on digital.
1
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:
The more I've been thinking about this, the more I think you're right.
I've grown up reading Bonington and Doug Scott books and have always been mesmerised by their photography.
It's those results I strive for in my own pictures.
I've been playing around with colour balances and contrasts on several of my shots, and think I'm getting slightly closer to what I'm after. The adjustments don't seem logical though - big tweaks of contrast so shadows are almost black, but the effect is more like my ideal. I'm sure RAW images will allow me to change one aspect without changing others (which is the problem I'm having at the mo).
Apologies for my lack of direction here - I'm thinking out loud - but thanks for everyone's input. It's made me reassess my processes.
> I wonder if the love of the "slide film look" is a bit like the love of vinyl - "technically" both are inferior, but it's maybe the inherent failings that make it seem richer.
The more I've been thinking about this, the more I think you're right.
I've grown up reading Bonington and Doug Scott books and have always been mesmerised by their photography.
It's those results I strive for in my own pictures.
I've been playing around with colour balances and contrasts on several of my shots, and think I'm getting slightly closer to what I'm after. The adjustments don't seem logical though - big tweaks of contrast so shadows are almost black, but the effect is more like my ideal. I'm sure RAW images will allow me to change one aspect without changing others (which is the problem I'm having at the mo).
Apologies for my lack of direction here - I'm thinking out loud - but thanks for everyone's input. It's made me reassess my processes.
1
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
Well it is a scanned slide........
> Nice link Alex! This is a great example - https://www.flickr.com/photos/ronlayters/2580625004/in/album-72057594053947...
> Looks very much like a slide this one.
Well it is a scanned slide........
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
I think you're right. I must persevere with RAW and sort out my computer knowledge. I'm sure that I'll then be able to adjust 'til my heart's content!
You can get Photoshop CC on a month's trial.
Adjust away!
I think you're right. I must persevere with RAW and sort out my computer knowledge. I'm sure that I'll then be able to adjust 'til my heart's content!
You can get Photoshop CC on a month's trial.
Adjust away!
2
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
I was a film addict for years before I shifted to digital - Velvia was God if you could only expose it correctly and get it well processed and I often did get really memorable results.
My early digital pictures were dire until I discovered RAW files and learnt how to process them - a sort of digital chemistry. Having gone through the excesses of all the tools available including an affair with HDR I have now settled on a simple processing regime and realised that the best start is a great image. I am back to the considered image making of the film era - by using Timing, lighting & composition I work hard to get a good RAW image that is then much easier to turn into a great picture that I would have been pleased with in the film days. The picture is made in the camera not the computer.
I was a film addict for years before I shifted to digital - Velvia was God if you could only expose it correctly and get it well processed and I often did get really memorable results.
My early digital pictures were dire until I discovered RAW files and learnt how to process them - a sort of digital chemistry. Having gone through the excesses of all the tools available including an affair with HDR I have now settled on a simple processing regime and realised that the best start is a great image. I am back to the considered image making of the film era - by using Timing, lighting & composition I work hard to get a good RAW image that is then much easier to turn into a great picture that I would have been pleased with in the film days. The picture is made in the camera not the computer.
2
In reply to FactorXXX:
At the risk of raising the ire of whoever disliked my previous posting I think as you also say you are not comparing like with like. I don't know about the first reference you gave : merely to query quite genuinely whether he was out to photograph or happened to be on a walk in the hills and say, wow what a potential shot.
In the case of John Griffith I know rather more what I am talking about. I am a great admirer of his photographs and have not the slightest intention of denigrating him. He is both a professional climber and photographer. But as he himself says in the end you can always get your shot. If you look at most of his most popular photos they are all posed. He has positioned himself to get friends in turn to do a position that has real wow factor and I should be interested to know how many pics he shot off before getting what he wanted and Photoshopping them subsequently. I would genuinely be interested to know. My point is that in the days when you took slides you had perhaps half a dozen shots in your camera left and when you saw the picture you wanted you were probably belaying your mate in extremis. John Griffith has sensational photos and appeals particularly to those who have never been in such situations and deservedly gets their laudits. He is both a great mountaineer and a great photographer. But he is not the right example to hold out in answer to the OP.
At the risk of raising the ire of whoever disliked my previous posting I think as you also say you are not comparing like with like. I don't know about the first reference you gave : merely to query quite genuinely whether he was out to photograph or happened to be on a walk in the hills and say, wow what a potential shot.
In the case of John Griffith I know rather more what I am talking about. I am a great admirer of his photographs and have not the slightest intention of denigrating him. He is both a professional climber and photographer. But as he himself says in the end you can always get your shot. If you look at most of his most popular photos they are all posed. He has positioned himself to get friends in turn to do a position that has real wow factor and I should be interested to know how many pics he shot off before getting what he wanted and Photoshopping them subsequently. I would genuinely be interested to know. My point is that in the days when you took slides you had perhaps half a dozen shots in your camera left and when you saw the picture you wanted you were probably belaying your mate in extremis. John Griffith has sensational photos and appeals particularly to those who have never been in such situations and deservedly gets their laudits. He is both a great mountaineer and a great photographer. But he is not the right example to hold out in answer to the OP.
1
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
This thread has prompted me to look back at some of my own slide scans (mostly Kodachrome - Velvia, both on film and in the simulation on my Fuji camera seems over the top loud to me). Although the quality of the scanning isn't great, I think I agree that the better ones have a depth, "glow" and authenticity that seems hard to replicate digitally (maybe this sort of thing: https://www.flickr.com/photos/124082247@N06/14053696571/in/album-7215764441... ). All but the very best photographers seem to tend towards hypereality with their digital photos, though I don't know whether this is the medium itself or over zealous processing. Of the photographers on UKC, the only one who, for me, manages to to nail that authenticity of light consistently is Nicholas Livesey.
This thread has prompted me to look back at some of my own slide scans (mostly Kodachrome - Velvia, both on film and in the simulation on my Fuji camera seems over the top loud to me). Although the quality of the scanning isn't great, I think I agree that the better ones have a depth, "glow" and authenticity that seems hard to replicate digitally (maybe this sort of thing: https://www.flickr.com/photos/124082247@N06/14053696571/in/album-7215764441... ). All but the very best photographers seem to tend towards hypereality with their digital photos, though I don't know whether this is the medium itself or over zealous processing. Of the photographers on UKC, the only one who, for me, manages to to nail that authenticity of light consistently is Nicholas Livesey.
1
2
In reply to jcw:
In the case of John Griffith I know rather more what I am talking about. I am a great admirer of his photographs and have not the slightest intention of denigrating him. He is both a professional climber and photographer. But as he himself says in the end you can always get your shot. If you look at most of his most popular photos they are all posed. He has positioned himself to get friends in turn to do a position that has real wow factor and I should be interested to know how many pics he shot off before getting what he wanted and Photoshopping them subsequently. I would genuinely be interested to know. My point is that in the days when you took slides you had perhaps half a dozen shots in your camera left and when you saw the picture you wanted you were probably belaying your mate in extremis. John Griffith has sensational photos and appeals particularly to those who have never been in such situations and deservedly gets their laudits. He is both a great mountaineer and a great photographer. But he is not the right example to hold out in answer to the OP.
I totally agree that the likes of Jon Griffith have many advantages over other photographers.
He's a professional and probably plans many of his shots beforehand with regards to where the sun is, etc. He and all digital users do also have the massive advantage of not being restrained by the number of shots they have on a roll of film and can just blast away if they feel the need.
However, the reason that I chose his work as an example, is to show that digital photography can produce photo's with dynamic colour and contrast. People might not be able to shoot photo's in such dramatic scenery as Griffith, but they can certainly use the same post process techniques as him and therefore maximise the look of their photo's.
In the case of John Griffith I know rather more what I am talking about. I am a great admirer of his photographs and have not the slightest intention of denigrating him. He is both a professional climber and photographer. But as he himself says in the end you can always get your shot. If you look at most of his most popular photos they are all posed. He has positioned himself to get friends in turn to do a position that has real wow factor and I should be interested to know how many pics he shot off before getting what he wanted and Photoshopping them subsequently. I would genuinely be interested to know. My point is that in the days when you took slides you had perhaps half a dozen shots in your camera left and when you saw the picture you wanted you were probably belaying your mate in extremis. John Griffith has sensational photos and appeals particularly to those who have never been in such situations and deservedly gets their laudits. He is both a great mountaineer and a great photographer. But he is not the right example to hold out in answer to the OP.
I totally agree that the likes of Jon Griffith have many advantages over other photographers.
He's a professional and probably plans many of his shots beforehand with regards to where the sun is, etc. He and all digital users do also have the massive advantage of not being restrained by the number of shots they have on a roll of film and can just blast away if they feel the need.
However, the reason that I chose his work as an example, is to show that digital photography can produce photo's with dynamic colour and contrast. People might not be able to shoot photo's in such dramatic scenery as Griffith, but they can certainly use the same post process techniques as him and therefore maximise the look of their photo's.
1
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
The picture is made in the camera not the computer.
Maybe it's more, 'made in the camera and perfected on the computer'?
The picture is made in the camera not the computer.
Maybe it's more, 'made in the camera and perfected on the computer'?
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
Thanks, we don't disagree. I suppose it comes down to the intrinsic qualities of slides and digitals ( my auto correction keeps on wanting to say digitalis!).i have a real example of what Wee Jamie was saying. I have two superb slides taken on the Bionnassay in 1975 and gave them to the professional who scanned them. I took them back twice to ask him to try again and he said look at the scan what's the difference? The answer was the golden glow. Ive tried to photoshop them myself but they look artificial. I really wanted to put them up on my gallery but as scanned they simply don't do them justice. Likewise some of my best Dolomite shots at sunset. The question really is: is there a scanning technique that does justice to slides, which was the only system available to us old timers when we took photos when climbing?
Thanks, we don't disagree. I suppose it comes down to the intrinsic qualities of slides and digitals ( my auto correction keeps on wanting to say digitalis!).i have a real example of what Wee Jamie was saying. I have two superb slides taken on the Bionnassay in 1975 and gave them to the professional who scanned them. I took them back twice to ask him to try again and he said look at the scan what's the difference? The answer was the golden glow. Ive tried to photoshop them myself but they look artificial. I really wanted to put them up on my gallery but as scanned they simply don't do them justice. Likewise some of my best Dolomite shots at sunset. The question really is: is there a scanning technique that does justice to slides, which was the only system available to us old timers when we took photos when climbing?
In reply to jcw:
I have two superb slides taken on the Bionnassay in 1975 and gave them to the professional who scanned them. I took them back twice to ask him to try again and he said look at the scan what's the difference? The answer was the golden glow. Ive tried to photoshop them myself but they look artificial.
You could try putting them on a lightbox and take a photo of them with your camera.
I've been experimenting with doing that with colour negatives and I can get better results than the original print.
I have two superb slides taken on the Bionnassay in 1975 and gave them to the professional who scanned them. I took them back twice to ask him to try again and he said look at the scan what's the difference? The answer was the golden glow. Ive tried to photoshop them myself but they look artificial.
You could try putting them on a lightbox and take a photo of them with your camera.
I've been experimenting with doing that with colour negatives and I can get better results than the original print.
In reply to FactorXXX:
Yes perhaps it is. I really like the idea of a RAW file being a Digital Negative that can then be processed to produce a 'print' or 'screen' that conveys the result we want to achieve. It relates to the processes I would have used in the days of film.
Yes perhaps it is. I really like the idea of a RAW file being a Digital Negative that can then be processed to produce a 'print' or 'screen' that conveys the result we want to achieve. It relates to the processes I would have used in the days of film.
In reply to FactorXXX:
Tell that to Ansel Adams.
> Maybe it's more, 'made in the camera and perfected on the computer'?
Tell that to Ansel Adams.
1
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
The description you've given of your process to get them towards what you want (darkening your blacks, increasing overall contrast) does sound a bit like taking the wider exposure dynamic range of digital (as digital now has greater dynamic range than film) and redicign it down to what the likes of velvia had.
From what I've read and what others have said ( had no great experience with slide - just 10 or so rolls of film) with slide you had to "expose for the highlights" which, with less dynamic range would result in bigger areas of dark - far form the HDR, no shadows effect that many go for now.
It is easy to get seduced by the sliders in lightroom to make every photo WOW. I'm starting to realise that I prefer more subtle photos that draw you in and treat the eye, rather than slapping you in the face with saturation!
One more subtle landscape I took recently that I was quite happy with was: https://flic.kr/p/LxPMhC
P.S. just flicking through your gallery and very impressed with some of your mountain paintings!
P.P.S. Start working with RAW. I take all my photos in RAW and now have a single click preset that gets them most of the way to how I want them, then I do maybe 5 or 6 little adjustments for most shots. As others have said - the more you do "pre shot" the less you have to battle behind the PC. Now, if you do start with RAW you may initially be quite dismayed at how flat your photos look at first, pre-editing - the polar opposite to a Velvia slide!! - but this is where the works starts...
> The more I've been thinking about this, the more I think you're right.
> I've grown up reading Bonington and Doug Scott books and have always been mesmerised by their photography.
> It's those results I strive for in my own pictures.
> I've been playing around with colour balances and contrasts on several of my shots, and think I'm getting slightly closer to what I'm after. The adjustments don't seem logical though - big tweaks of contrast so shadows are almost black, but the effect is more like my ideal. I'm sure RAW images will allow me to change one aspect without changing others (which is the problem I'm having at the mo).
> Apologies for my lack of direction here - I'm thinking out loud - but thanks for everyone's input. It's made me reassess my processes.
The description you've given of your process to get them towards what you want (darkening your blacks, increasing overall contrast) does sound a bit like taking the wider exposure dynamic range of digital (as digital now has greater dynamic range than film) and redicign it down to what the likes of velvia had.
From what I've read and what others have said ( had no great experience with slide - just 10 or so rolls of film) with slide you had to "expose for the highlights" which, with less dynamic range would result in bigger areas of dark - far form the HDR, no shadows effect that many go for now.
It is easy to get seduced by the sliders in lightroom to make every photo WOW. I'm starting to realise that I prefer more subtle photos that draw you in and treat the eye, rather than slapping you in the face with saturation!
One more subtle landscape I took recently that I was quite happy with was: https://flic.kr/p/LxPMhC
P.S. just flicking through your gallery and very impressed with some of your mountain paintings!
P.P.S. Start working with RAW. I take all my photos in RAW and now have a single click preset that gets them most of the way to how I want them, then I do maybe 5 or 6 little adjustments for most shots. As others have said - the more you do "pre shot" the less you have to battle behind the PC. Now, if you do start with RAW you may initially be quite dismayed at how flat your photos look at first, pre-editing - the polar opposite to a Velvia slide!! - but this is where the works starts...
Post edited at 22:59
1
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:
As others have said - the more you do "pre shot" the less you have to battle behind the PC.
Too true, things like grad filters still have their use.
As others have said - the more you do "pre shot" the less you have to battle behind the PC.
Too true, things like grad filters still have their use.
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
Well, whatever, I love your gallery and that picture in Tasmania is a real work of art.
Well, whatever, I love your gallery and that picture in Tasmania is a real work of art.
In reply to jcw:
Me too - the irony of me giving advice to someone who's clearly a much better photographer is not lost on me...
> Well, whatever, I love your gallery and that picture in Tasmania is a real work of art.
Me too - the irony of me giving advice to someone who's clearly a much better photographer is not lost on me...
In reply to Robert Durran:
Thanks for the comments. Robert, I love your scanned slides you linked to - https://www.flickr.com/photos/124082247@N06/albums/72157644412394484/with/1...
Beautiful photos! They encapsulate everything I look for in mountain photography.
If I can ramble for a minute, for me the higher dynamic range of digital might actually reduce the starkness and boldness of mountaineering photos. It's certainly clever, but it makes them more tangible, possibly dulls the senses, leaves less to the imagination, when really I want to be shocked, frightened and appalled by what I see, but at the same time I also want to be drawn into the beauty on a heavenly level. This can be best described as The Sublime.
This shot of yours Robert, illustrates this well - https://www.flickr.com/photos/124082247@N06/14057271344/in/album-7215764441...
I do think though, that Alasdair is correct - I have been influenced by reading expedition books of the past, and I look to those as the benchmark in mountaineering photography. That goes for my paintings too really.
Thanks for the comments. Robert, I love your scanned slides you linked to - https://www.flickr.com/photos/124082247@N06/albums/72157644412394484/with/1...
Beautiful photos! They encapsulate everything I look for in mountain photography.
If I can ramble for a minute, for me the higher dynamic range of digital might actually reduce the starkness and boldness of mountaineering photos. It's certainly clever, but it makes them more tangible, possibly dulls the senses, leaves less to the imagination, when really I want to be shocked, frightened and appalled by what I see, but at the same time I also want to be drawn into the beauty on a heavenly level. This can be best described as The Sublime.
This shot of yours Robert, illustrates this well - https://www.flickr.com/photos/124082247@N06/14057271344/in/album-7215764441...
I do think though, that Alasdair is correct - I have been influenced by reading expedition books of the past, and I look to those as the benchmark in mountaineering photography. That goes for my paintings too really.
In reply to Jamie Hageman: Don't take that as a criticism - I think it's great for different photographers to have different styles. Not long from now pocket cameras will take perfectly sharp, detailed and correctly exposed images with very little input. Perfection may become cliché!
If your personal taste prefers deeper shadows then go for it!
If your personal taste prefers deeper shadows then go for it!
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
I meant simply that I personally like something that was there with me in the mountains, at that moment of my life, in the situation that carries the direct imprint of my having exposed IT (and not a sensing device) to the scene captured at that moment, perhaps with blood toil tears and sweat and maybe some hazard and apprehension involved. The processing of those mostly kodachromes did nothing special to them and therefore the slides are actual things from the moment, if you can understand that feeling of presence. If not then I'm wasting my time discussing it further.
I suppose that I also like the fact that in such simple capture there is no fiction or manipulation except perhaps choice of filtering and composition
I might well have stuck to slides and the beautiful mechanisms used to take them if they and their processing hadn't become prohibitive in cost and the products I liked withdrawn.
I meant simply that I personally like something that was there with me in the mountains, at that moment of my life, in the situation that carries the direct imprint of my having exposed IT (and not a sensing device) to the scene captured at that moment, perhaps with blood toil tears and sweat and maybe some hazard and apprehension involved. The processing of those mostly kodachromes did nothing special to them and therefore the slides are actual things from the moment, if you can understand that feeling of presence. If not then I'm wasting my time discussing it further.
I suppose that I also like the fact that in such simple capture there is no fiction or manipulation except perhaps choice of filtering and composition
I might well have stuck to slides and the beautiful mechanisms used to take them if they and their processing hadn't become prohibitive in cost and the products I liked withdrawn.
Post edited at 10:56
1
3
In reply to wercat:
I don't get it. Slide film was available in a wide range of specific 'looks'. Velvia was/is popular with landscape photographers because it produces vivid greens etc. I like it but I think it often looks a bit weird and if it was a digital image the photographer would probably be 'accused' of over-saturating the colours. I don't think there was anything 'neutral' about slide film.
You don't have to do any post-processing to a digital image if you don't want to. Just keep the image you took at the time. Just set it up to get as close to the look you want as you can, in the same way that people [such as me] bought the slide film with the look that they preferred.
I just cant see how a chemical process is any more 'real', 'authentic' or 'immediate' than a digital one.
I still use slide film btw. Agree it is pricey now though.
> I meant simply that I personally like something that was there with me in the mountains, at that moment of my life, in the situation that carries the direct imprint of my having exposed IT (and not a sensing device) to the scene captured at that moment, perhaps with blood toil tears and sweat and maybe some hazard and apprehension involved. The processing of those mostly kodachromes did nothing special to them and therefore the slides are actual things from the moment, if you can understand that feeling of presence. If not then I'm wasting my time discussing it further.
> I suppose that I also like the fact that in such simple capture there is no fiction or manipulation except perhaps choice of filtering and composition
> I might well have stuck to slides and the beautiful mechanisms used to take them if they and their processing hadn't become prohibitive in cost and the products I liked withdrawn.
I don't get it. Slide film was available in a wide range of specific 'looks'. Velvia was/is popular with landscape photographers because it produces vivid greens etc. I like it but I think it often looks a bit weird and if it was a digital image the photographer would probably be 'accused' of over-saturating the colours. I don't think there was anything 'neutral' about slide film.
You don't have to do any post-processing to a digital image if you don't want to. Just keep the image you took at the time. Just set it up to get as close to the look you want as you can, in the same way that people [such as me] bought the slide film with the look that they preferred.
I just cant see how a chemical process is any more 'real', 'authentic' or 'immediate' than a digital one.
I still use slide film btw. Agree it is pricey now though.
1
1
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
Thanks!
Like you, I've yet to start using RAW and just process jpegs on the Windows thing that came with my laptop. I find that almost always the first thing I do is to move a slider (blackpoint?) to stretch the histogram so that the very darkest shadows are black. I think this gives the bold effect (slide like?) we are talking about.
> I love your scanned slides you linked to.
Thanks!
> If I can ramble for a minute, for me the higher dynamic range of digital might actually reduce the starkness and boldness of mountaineering photos.
Like you, I've yet to start using RAW and just process jpegs on the Windows thing that came with my laptop. I find that almost always the first thing I do is to move a slider (blackpoint?) to stretch the histogram so that the very darkest shadows are black. I think this gives the bold effect (slide like?) we are talking about.
In reply to wercat:
I get that - the fact that all those tangible little bits of celluloid (or whatever it is) that I still have stashed away were actually there, exposed to the same light I was seeing - not that that necessarily makes the pictures any better!
> I meant simply that I personally like something that was there with me in the mountains, at that moment of my life.
I get that - the fact that all those tangible little bits of celluloid (or whatever it is) that I still have stashed away were actually there, exposed to the same light I was seeing - not that that necessarily makes the pictures any better!
2
2
In reply to wercat:
I meant simply that I personally like something that was there with me in the mountains, at that moment of my life, in the situation that carries the direct imprint of my having exposed IT (and not a sensing device) to the scene captured at that moment, perhaps with blood toil tears and sweat and maybe some hazard and apprehension involved. The processing of those mostly kodachromes did nothing special to them and therefore the slides are actual things from the moment, if you can understand that feeling of presence. If not then I'm wasting my time discussing it further.
What difference does the recording medium make to how you compose/expose the photo or how you came to be in a particular situation? Film and slide are still sensing devices stuck in a box and as with a digital sensor, you have absolutely no control over it.
It's totally up to the photographer how they process the photo. You don't have to go bonkers with the sliders - you can make it as near to as you remember it. When I was shooting film, that wasn't actually an option. If you took a photo and it came out with a colour cast, then that was it. In many ways, digital is actually better for 'reproducing the moment' in that you can adjust things like shadow detail, etc.
I meant simply that I personally like something that was there with me in the mountains, at that moment of my life, in the situation that carries the direct imprint of my having exposed IT (and not a sensing device) to the scene captured at that moment, perhaps with blood toil tears and sweat and maybe some hazard and apprehension involved. The processing of those mostly kodachromes did nothing special to them and therefore the slides are actual things from the moment, if you can understand that feeling of presence. If not then I'm wasting my time discussing it further.
What difference does the recording medium make to how you compose/expose the photo or how you came to be in a particular situation? Film and slide are still sensing devices stuck in a box and as with a digital sensor, you have absolutely no control over it.
It's totally up to the photographer how they process the photo. You don't have to go bonkers with the sliders - you can make it as near to as you remember it. When I was shooting film, that wasn't actually an option. If you took a photo and it came out with a colour cast, then that was it. In many ways, digital is actually better for 'reproducing the moment' in that you can adjust things like shadow detail, etc.
4
1
In reply to Robert Durran: Even if that is all you do - you'll still get a better photo especially on snow. As soon as you pull the slider in a jpeg, you'll risk posterisation. And, since you take snowy scenes too - raw makes life so much easier with white balance.
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Like you, I've yet to start using RAW and just process jpegs on the Windows thing that came with my laptop. I find that almost always the first thing I do is to move a slider (blackpoint?) to stretch the histogram so that the very darkest shadows are black. I think this gives the bold effect (slide like?) we are talking about.
That's what should be done in most photo's.
I think it's all too easy to use the full dynamic range available on a digital image and try and 'see' into the shadows by over use of the various adjustment sliders. Some deep shadow is needed to give the viewer a feeling of depth and perception.
Thankfully, the days of over HDR'd photo's seem to be over.
Like you, I've yet to start using RAW and just process jpegs on the Windows thing that came with my laptop. I find that almost always the first thing I do is to move a slider (blackpoint?) to stretch the histogram so that the very darkest shadows are black. I think this gives the bold effect (slide like?) we are talking about.
That's what should be done in most photo's.
I think it's all too easy to use the full dynamic range available on a digital image and try and 'see' into the shadows by over use of the various adjustment sliders. Some deep shadow is needed to give the viewer a feeling of depth and perception.
Thankfully, the days of over HDR'd photo's seem to be over.
1
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
I'm still not 100% sure that I know the "look" you are going for, but here's a fairly standard (and not very exciting) mountain scene, processed using my standard preset which aims to match the Olympus Em-5 JPEG output:
http://bit.ly/2c6e7T7
Another processed with a "Velvia 50" preset that I found online:
http://bit.ly/2buGYAE
And finally the same one with the black slider dragged along a bit (form -5 to -52):
http://bit.ly/2bArwjw
Not sure if that helps....but it certainly doesn't us packing to move flats....so I better get off here!
> If I can ramble for a minute, for me the higher dynamic range of digital might actually reduce the starkness and boldness of mountaineering photos. It's certainly clever, but it makes them more tangible, possibly dulls the senses, leaves less to the imagination, when really I want to be shocked, frightened and appalled by what I see, but at the same time I also want to be drawn into the beauty on a heavenly level. This can be best described as The Sublime.
I'm still not 100% sure that I know the "look" you are going for, but here's a fairly standard (and not very exciting) mountain scene, processed using my standard preset which aims to match the Olympus Em-5 JPEG output:
http://bit.ly/2c6e7T7
Another processed with a "Velvia 50" preset that I found online:
http://bit.ly/2buGYAE
And finally the same one with the black slider dragged along a bit (form -5 to -52):
http://bit.ly/2bArwjw
Not sure if that helps....but it certainly doesn't us packing to move flats....so I better get off here!
2
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:
That's a very good comparison, thanks. I'm not 100% sure what I'm on about either. It really is a matter of taste and comes down to everyone's personal interpretation.
I prefer the middle velvia 50 preset - it's kept the lighter rocks in shadow light, whereas the final image shows those rocks too dark I think. The first image is the type that usually comes out of my camera with no processing.
That's a very good comparison, thanks. I'm not 100% sure what I'm on about either. It really is a matter of taste and comes down to everyone's personal interpretation.
I prefer the middle velvia 50 preset - it's kept the lighter rocks in shadow light, whereas the final image shows those rocks too dark I think. The first image is the type that usually comes out of my camera with no processing.
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
You might get closer to the colour film palette you miss, by using a recent Fuji X camera...that's one of the main reasons they are so popular?
You might get closer to the colour film palette you miss, by using a recent Fuji X camera...that's one of the main reasons they are so popular?
In reply to dek:
Fuji X cameras are great (I have two!) but I don't think they can recreate the slide film look without careful processing. The Velvia JPEG preset is quite different to real Velvia.
One reason I like Fuji cameras is the stellar image quality in a compact and robust package, with all-manual controls. But I think the similarity with vintage film cameras is little more than skin deep and the various 'film simulation modes' are gimmicks when it comes to serious photography. I've never yet seen an out-of-camera JPEG that I've preferred to a carefully processed raw file.
Fuji X cameras are great (I have two!) but I don't think they can recreate the slide film look without careful processing. The Velvia JPEG preset is quite different to real Velvia.
One reason I like Fuji cameras is the stellar image quality in a compact and robust package, with all-manual controls. But I think the similarity with vintage film cameras is little more than skin deep and the various 'film simulation modes' are gimmicks when it comes to serious photography. I've never yet seen an out-of-camera JPEG that I've preferred to a carefully processed raw file.
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:
The third one certainly has a more 3-d look which I like, but I prefer the blue sky in the first which is darker and desaturated in the others (which seems odd for the "Velvia" one!)
> I'm still not 100% sure that I know the "look" you are going for, but here's a fairly standard (and not very exciting) mountain scene, processed using my standard preset which aims to match the Olympus Em-5 JPEG output:
> Another processed with a "Velvia 50" preset that I found online:
> And finally the same one with the black slider dragged along a bit (form -5 to -52):
The third one certainly has a more 3-d look which I like, but I prefer the blue sky in the first which is darker and desaturated in the others (which seems odd for the "Velvia" one!)
In reply to Jamie Hageman:
I could rattle on about this for hours but the short answer is you can't, and that's why there are surprising amount of landscape photographers still working on film. Since I started shooting digital I kept shooting film alongside as well, and haven't been able to stop. Although digital keeps getting better, and is miles ahead for ease of use, dynamic range and resolution, I still keep getting shots where the film just has a magic I can't replicate with a RAW file.
There are a few technical reasons why this might be so. Firstly almost all digital cameras cannot measure colour directly - they have to guess at it via interpolation of an array. There are obvious affects of this, such as red berries on a green tree disappearing, but generally film seems to be better at differentiating areas of complex colour detail.
Secondly the response of film to light is not linear - highlights don't suddenly blow out like they do on digital. This is why sunset shots on film are almost always winners whilst digital shots have colour holes - areas where one or more channels have become unable to record information.
Thirdly - and perhaps the most important in terms of 'look' - digital is additive whilst film is subtractive. Complex but good article here: http://www.dvinfo.net/article/production/camgear/what-alexa-and-watercolors...
Another important factor for many of us is what we've been exposed to all our lives. Digital images have only become prevalent in the last ten years. Whether you notice or not, if you're over 35 or so that is likely to mean your idea of what colour looks right has been subconsciously defined by a handful of Kodak and Fuji slide films used for the vast majority of photography for print in the last thirty years - Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Velvia, Provia. A combination of the last three factors is why blue skies never look quite right to me unless they've been shot on Ektachrome film - I use Lightroom to try to drag my digital skies in that direction against reference slides.
Most of these problems can and are being solved - the latest sensors and software are very good (oversampling is very useful) and far better than the bad old days when you could spot a Canon shot a mile off from the sickly green colour. Whilst perfecting digital repro most print houses have also forgotten how to repro film, and there are hardly any professional scanning outfits left. Which means film repro is generally terrible now and anyone under thirty is likely to wonder why you'd bother, never mind the fact that its about fifty times harder to get the shot in the first place. But still, in my shelves full of photography books it's the pre-digital ones that have by far the most satisfying images.
I could rattle on about this for hours but the short answer is you can't, and that's why there are surprising amount of landscape photographers still working on film. Since I started shooting digital I kept shooting film alongside as well, and haven't been able to stop. Although digital keeps getting better, and is miles ahead for ease of use, dynamic range and resolution, I still keep getting shots where the film just has a magic I can't replicate with a RAW file.
There are a few technical reasons why this might be so. Firstly almost all digital cameras cannot measure colour directly - they have to guess at it via interpolation of an array. There are obvious affects of this, such as red berries on a green tree disappearing, but generally film seems to be better at differentiating areas of complex colour detail.
Secondly the response of film to light is not linear - highlights don't suddenly blow out like they do on digital. This is why sunset shots on film are almost always winners whilst digital shots have colour holes - areas where one or more channels have become unable to record information.
Thirdly - and perhaps the most important in terms of 'look' - digital is additive whilst film is subtractive. Complex but good article here: http://www.dvinfo.net/article/production/camgear/what-alexa-and-watercolors...
Another important factor for many of us is what we've been exposed to all our lives. Digital images have only become prevalent in the last ten years. Whether you notice or not, if you're over 35 or so that is likely to mean your idea of what colour looks right has been subconsciously defined by a handful of Kodak and Fuji slide films used for the vast majority of photography for print in the last thirty years - Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Velvia, Provia. A combination of the last three factors is why blue skies never look quite right to me unless they've been shot on Ektachrome film - I use Lightroom to try to drag my digital skies in that direction against reference slides.
Most of these problems can and are being solved - the latest sensors and software are very good (oversampling is very useful) and far better than the bad old days when you could spot a Canon shot a mile off from the sickly green colour. Whilst perfecting digital repro most print houses have also forgotten how to repro film, and there are hardly any professional scanning outfits left. Which means film repro is generally terrible now and anyone under thirty is likely to wonder why you'd bother, never mind the fact that its about fifty times harder to get the shot in the first place. But still, in my shelves full of photography books it's the pre-digital ones that have by far the most satisfying images.
5
In reply to dek:
Since the last thread your posts did make me reflect that I hadn't actually given camera scanning a fair go on a modern sensor (and it as a good excuse to dig out my Zuiko 80mm 1:1 macro lens). I must admit with a modern FX 24MP sensor it was surprisingly good, with the dynamic range particularly impressive. But with my drum scanners developed and calibrated to deliver a look as close to film as possible out of the can, the colours were not so good. And there are other issues like flatness, squaring, dust etc. It was certainly good enough for web use. Plus it does give me confidence that by the time my scanners die there'll be better alternatives. The latest very high end scanners are just cameras with medium-format backs.
Since the last thread your posts did make me reflect that I hadn't actually given camera scanning a fair go on a modern sensor (and it as a good excuse to dig out my Zuiko 80mm 1:1 macro lens). I must admit with a modern FX 24MP sensor it was surprisingly good, with the dynamic range particularly impressive. But with my drum scanners developed and calibrated to deliver a look as close to film as possible out of the can, the colours were not so good. And there are other issues like flatness, squaring, dust etc. It was certainly good enough for web use. Plus it does give me confidence that by the time my scanners die there'll be better alternatives. The latest very high end scanners are just cameras with medium-format backs.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...