- Edit My Images
deleted by me
It's the wrong analogy IMO.Mr Badger has really good thoughts and his analogy (vegan food vs. top-quality bacon) makes perfect sense. You can use various effects or grainy photo filters but they won't make your digital look like you want them to. You can't fully replace sugar with sweeteners and claim that's the same because it's not.
more apt would be how do I make my modern reliable hatchback more like the tatty old rattling heap grandad owned and spent his evenings and weekend fettling with grease and ironmongering tools.
You have just described my 20 year old £200 banger to a tee ! The only thing is it's a £200 banger to go and spend £15,000 and then convert it to a banger would be some what more expensive to achieve and would take more effort !you could loosen a few nuts and bolts and get that reliable hatchback to break down twice a day and handle like a drunken cow being Tazered
There are few videos (by the developer of the Filmic module) explaining what it does and how to use it, here.I am about to get slaughtered by the purists but darktable has a filmic RGB module which might be worth trying.........?
I suspect most of the difference is in the head of the user, and that's not necessarily bad, but it doesn't help when perception is NOT reality.Does it matter. I visited an international B&W Salon that still had a separate Analogue sections. While they had some good entries given that those who won awards etc. were probably very experienced photographers anyway. I could not readily see the difference between the analogue and digital work and could certainly not suggest that one was better than the other. I then got a group of the analogue workers together and asked them to explain how the images are different. They all claimed that they could tell if the image was sourced from film bearing in mind that many of the film workers were scanning and printing on an ink jet. However, they were not claiming that one or the other was better but just different. When asked to show me what the difference was they did then suggest the the film based images were a little softer.
It is true that many digital images are over sharpened which may be giving them a bad name but to achieve anywhere near the dynamic range of a modern digital camera you would have to work very hard with film/processing to achieve that. I recall that we had a well know wildlife photographer to the club about 5 years ago who came with conventional slides. We had not seen slides at the club since 2005 so many older members were reminded just how bad 35mm slides were and many of the newer club member were seeing slides for the first time. We had lots of complaints about the poor quality images which was a pity as what the photographer had captured was very good but it was difficult for them to see past the poor quality.
Or maybe it was the camera users who were at fault ...? Given that 35mm slide film was a mainstay for many commercial purposes, and certainly capable of producing decent A3 prints (on Ciba or via scans). But yes, its exposure was a good discipline and one that is translatable to the realm of digital. Protecting the highlights was key.members were reminded just how bad 35mm slides were
The particular photographer was a professional with an international reputation but that is irrelevant. The fact is that typical 35mm slides were limited to 6-7 stops DR. As now, we tried to avoid burnt out areas so adjusted the exposure to just avoid this. Given that almost all scenes we photographed have a DR much greater than this, one had no choice but to accept blocked shadows. Of course this was why many preferred to use negative which were not so limited. For studio photography this did not need to be a problem as you could control the lighting. The size of any prints is irrelevant as I was not referring to resolution.Or maybe it was the camera users who were at fault ...? Given that 35mm slide film was a mainstay for many commercial purposes, and certainly capable of producing decent A3 prints (on Ciba or via scans). But yes, its exposure was a good discipline and one that is translatable to the realm of digital. Protecting the highlights was key.