Re: Replicating the film look

on 2012-01-06 19:04 Paul Stenquist wrote On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Matthew Hunt wrote: It's not quite what you're after, but you know that you can interactively drag the picture to interactively brighten or darken that color? (Using t

Re: Replicating the film look

Having started the book, I can assure you the authors didn't mean to present these numbers as if set it stone; experiment to taste is their mantra; presenting the film chart numbers was just to offer a guideline--a starting point. The bigger problem for me is that I have no visual reference poi

Re: Replicating the film look

Thanks, Darren. I've heard of this software and mean to do the 15 day trial. The features look very interesting to me. I'm going to spend the next year really learning B&W, selective coloring, and desaturation of color stuff. I'll use the paw 2012 to give that study a focus point. Cheers, C

Re: Replicating the film look

Thanks, Cotty. Looks interesting. Might check it out. Cheers, Christine On Jan 6, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Cotty wrote: > Interesting Christine. > > FYI, I use this plug in for PS: > > Black and White Studio > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ >

Re: Replicating the film look

On Jan 6, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > If the instructions in the book are for Photoshop's Channel Mixer, > just be aware that you are working there with the RGB channel data, > post raw-conversion. This is close but not quite exactly the same as > applying channel modifications on

Re: Replicating the film look

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > I'd rather use my eyes ... they're my tools. It's really not all that > difficult a problem to see what adjustments are pleasing or useful by > tweaking things yourself. I don't need a specialized tool to do it. > I agree too; the film c

Re: Replicating the film look

On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Matthew Hunt wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM, steve harley wrote: >> >>> what i'm envisioning is a tool which works on a higher level than having to >>> calculate or experiment with color mapping val

Re: Replicating the film look

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Matthew Hunt wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM, steve harley wrote: > >> what i'm envisioning is a tool which works on a higher level than having to >> calculate or experiment with color mapping values; for example a user might >> point to a pair of colors in

Re: Replicating the film look

Tried it. Wasn't terribly impressed. On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Darren Addy wrote: > Y'all really owe it to yourselves to try Nik Software's Silver Efex > Pro 2 (plug-in for PS & LR) > http://www.niksoftware.com/silverefexpro/usa/entry.php > 15 day trial: https://www.niksoftware.com/site/ >

Re: Replicating the film look

Y'all really owe it to yourselves to try Nik Software's Silver Efex Pro 2 (plug-in for PS & LR) http://www.niksoftware.com/silverefexpro/usa/entry.php 15 day trial: https://www.niksoftware.com/site/ Videos: http://www.niksoftware.com/learnmore/usa/index.php/webinars/archives/advanced-architectura

Re: Replicating the film look

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM, steve harley wrote: > what i'm envisioning is a tool which works on a higher level than having to > calculate or experiment with color mapping values; for example a user might > point to a pair of colors in the image, or an select area with a color > transition; th

Re: Replicating the film look

on 2012-01-06 16:12 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM, steve harley wrote: a tool that would really be helpful would be at a level above channel sliders, a tool to help the user visualize those tone equivalences, and/or let the user specify areas where contrast between colors

Re: Replicating the film look

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM, steve harley wrote: >> The translation of color tone to grayscale >> tones is a subtle thing as you have to find ways to separate colors >> which would otherwise render to the same perceptual tone on luminance >> alone. > > a tool that would really be helpful would

Re: Replicating the film look

Interesting Christine. FYI, I use this plug in for PS: Black and White Studio -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@p

Re: Replicating the film look

on 2012-01-06 14:15 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote I'm not so much interested in getting a "film look" or emulating a particular film's spectral characteristics as in making a good monochromatic rendering. same here The translation of color tone to grayscale tones is a subtle thing as you have to fin

Re: Replicating the film look

If the instructions in the book are for Photoshop's Channel Mixer, just be aware that you are working there with the RGB channel data, post raw-conversion. This is close but not quite exactly the same as applying channel modifications on the raw data, which is what you're doing in LR normally. I'm

Replicating the film look

Hi Everyone: I bought an ebook entitled Black and White in Photoshop CS4 & Lightroom: A complete integrated workflow solution for creating stunning monochromatic images in Photoshop CS4, Photoshop Lightroom, and beyond by L. Alsheimer & B. O'Neil Hughes. It's good enough so far and helping to

Re: The "Film Look"

Don't worry. I seem to get it for you. :-( On 12/14/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cotty wrote: > > >On 14/12/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed: > > > >>jco. > >>you have made your point again. > >>I don't think I need further iterations. > > > >Mark! > > For full effect

Re: The "Film Look"

Cotty wrote: >On 14/12/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed: > >>jco. >>you have made your point again. >>I don't think I need further iterations. > >Mark! For full effect, I suppose I should put it in ALL CAPS and repeat it a hundred times... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pd

Re: The "Film Look"

On 14/12/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed: >jco. >you have made your point again. >I don't think I need further iterations. Mark! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML

RE: The "Film Look"

compare. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Film Look" BTW, what I find with these DSLRs is substantially better DR than a

Re: The "Film Look"

If you only shot 35mm (like the vast majority of people, including on this list), missing 35mm is all that counts. -Adam Who still shoots 35mm and MF film, and will go LF in the future J. C. O'Connell wrote: > OK, but to put it shortly, FILM STILL RULES > when it comes to top quality imaging a

Re: The "Film Look"

BTW, what I find with these DSLRs is substantially better DR than all but a very few films, of any format, either B&W or color. My old mentor/buddy who specializes in 'exotic process' 6x9cm and 4x5 inch B&W film work was impressed with the DR I was showing him when I visited with some portf

RE: The "Film Look"

Jostein Øksne Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:09 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Film Look" thanks, jco. you have made your point again. I don't think I need further iterations. Jostein On 12/14/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: &g

Re: The "Film Look"

d extremely critical on exposure for direct viewing. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jostein Øksne > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:53 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film

Re: The "Film Look"

hehe. That means I still have some way to go with my raw processing, Godfrey. Both depressing and encouraging... Jostein On 12/14/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:42 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: > > > From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that t

Re: The "Film Look"

On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:42 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: > From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the latitude > is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide > and colour negative film. I find 7-9 stops of useful DR with RAW capture on the *ist DS, similar to

RE: The "Film Look"

l doo doo...but it was a real hassle to develop and extremely critical on exposure for direct viewing. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jostein Øksne Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:53 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The &

Re: The "Film Look"

t;look" not available in slide films. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jostein Øksne > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:42 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" >

RE: The "Film Look"

14, 2006 5:42 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Film Look" JCO, maybe you were referring to neg film. You wrote only "film" in general, so I couldn't know, could I? :-) Your arguments has a flip side that goes: If you don't need negatives, there

Re: The "Film Look"

Behalf Of > Jostein Øksne > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > I take it you never shot slide film, JCO. > I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome increase. > > Jost

Re: The "Film Look"

I agree - for snow flake photos where grain and noise are killers, Velvia 50 can't hold a candle to the *ist-D. But for street photography where I want a certain, um, grainy, effect, there's not substitute for film. I like Microdol-X, a fine(r) grain developer. IMO with a grainy film it simply

RE: The "Film Look"

About 10-12 years ago I was applying for a job as a lab tech for an advertising company that did all it's own in house photography & printing. I remember being shown a 4x5 transparency that had been captured on a digital back, burnt to CD, sent to another company that then transferred the digit

RE: The "Film Look"

ailable in neg films IMHO... > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jostein Øksne > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > >

Re: The "Film Look"

> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > I take it you never shot slide film, JCO. > I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome increase. > > Jostein > > > On 12/13/06,

RE: The "Film Look"

available in neg films IMHO... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jostein Øksne Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Film Look" I take it you never shot slide film, JCO. I

Re: The "Film Look"

ednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some. > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > But the "look" is similar. I forgot to > >

RE: The "Film Look"

[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of graywolf Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Film Look" Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some. J. C. O'Connell wrote: > But the "look" is similar. I for

Re: The "Film Look"

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jack Davis > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: The "Film Look" > > > I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend &g

Re: The "Film Look"

As long as PS allows me to effectively reduce objectionable levels of grain (film like), I'll be fine. Jack --- Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, David Savage wrote: > > > I don't think they trying to make digital images look like film, > > rather they're goa

Re: The "Film Look"

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, David Savage wrote: > I don't think they trying to make digital images look like film, > rather they're goal is to try and have the high ISO digital noise look > more like grain as opposed to pixels. That's what I read in Ken's translation: film-grain-like noise. Kostas --

Re: The "Film Look"

I don't think they trying to make digital images look like film, rather they're goal is to try and have the high ISO digital noise look more like grain as opposed to pixels. Dave On 12/13/06, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital imag

RE: The "Film Look"

ember 2006 19:48 > Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Emne: The "Film Look" > > > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal > as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpre

RE: The "Film Look"

: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jack Davis Sendt: 12. december 2006 19:48 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: The "Film Look" Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal as having a "

RE: The "Film Look"

---Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of > Jack Davis > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: The "Film Look" > > > I've had the same experience. Stills,

RE: The "Film Look"

't capture as much range but there isnt a knee, its straight right up to the point of clipping... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Davis Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: The &qu

RE: The "Film Look"

I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend themselves to more scrutiny. Jack --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My interpretation of the "film look" is like > watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) > vs. a

Re: The "Film Look"

Bingo! Image handling is everything. Jack --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Jack Davis" > Subject: The "Film Look" > > > > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital ima

RE: The "Film Look"

My interpretation of the "film look" is like watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) vs. a high defintion live video broadcast ( more like the "digital" look ). jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The "Film Look"

- Original Message - From: "Jack Davis" Subject: The "Film Look" > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal > as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretat

Re: The "Film Look"

Have, for many years, been a big fan and user "essentially grainless" 25, 50 and 100 ISO films. These were/are the films that I have replaced with digital, not so much for its work flow advantage, but because I see a cleaner more detrailed image. If film is your thing, knock yourself out. Jack -

Re: The "Film Look"

Have, for many years, been a big fan and user "essentially grainless" 25, 50 and 100 ISO films. These were/are the films that I have replaced with digital, not so much for its work flow advantage, but because I see a cleaner more detrailed image. If film is your thing, knock yourself out. Jack -

Re: The "Film Look"

Jack Davis wrote: > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal > as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a > statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what > that means?

Re: The "Film Look"

o > what > >> that means? > >> > >> > > If you ask really, really nicely I'll tell you the secret to > getting > > the "film look". > > > > > > > -- > Things should be made as si

Re: The "Film Look"

t; goal > > as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > > Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a > > statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to > what > > that means? > > > If you ask really, re

Re: The "Film Look"

e a somewhat different interpretation of such a >> statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what >> that means? >> >> > If you ask really, really nicely I'll tell you the secret to getting > the "film loo

Re: The "Film Look"

. >> Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a >> statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what >> that means? > If you ask really, really nicely I'll tell you the secret to getting > the "film look". Yup, dea

Re: The "Film Look"

s there some general generic understanding as to what > that means? > If you ask really, really nicely I'll tell you the secret to getting the "film look". -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

The "Film Look"

Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what that means? Jack __

Re: The Digital Look vs. The Film Look

Ken Waller wrote: I'm not sure what the distinctive look is that you are referring to Albano, but I do notice most posted images, that were taken by a digital camera, exhibit great depth of field. Yes, they do, thanks to the small area of their imaging chip--a virtue that will not be shared by t

Re: The Digital Look vs. The Film Look

At 09:41 AM 4/26/2002 -0300, you wrote: >I've become a fan of photocritique.net. One thing that amazes me is how >easy is to know which pictures were taken with digital cameras. They have a >very distinctive look (that sucks, imho). >What do you think about this look? (or lack of?) Well... Most

RE: The Digital Look vs. The Film Look

ssage- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 9:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Digital Look vs. The Film Look On 26 Apr 2002 at 9:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, gang. > I've become a fan of photocritique.net. O

Re: The Digital Look vs. The Film Look

Someone I shot for wanted that look that current NHL photographs have, which is basically the digital look. I achieved it by blasting out the highlights and blocking up the shadows, throwing away much of the tonal range of the original transparency, to make the colours seem very clean and pur

The Digital Look vs. The Film Look

Hi, gang. I've become a fan of photocritique.net. One thing that amazes me is how easy is to know which pictures were taken with digital cameras. They have a very distinctive look (that sucks, imho). What do you think about this look? (or lack of?) Regards AG - This message is from the Pentax-Dis