Shot on film, edited with AI

[Tom Pinchenzo]

So I shot these with Kodak Gold 200 and when I got the scans back felt they were a bit flat - I didn't want to spend aged editing them all and just wanted to make some minor tweaks to contrast and vibrance. I found the AI portait enhance slider on Luminar seemed to do the job so I set the slider to about 60% and batch edited them all.

I also felt a strange feeling of, I don't know, irony? Shooting on film and then using the latest AI PP software to edit them. But actually, I feel they are better than if I hadn't post processed them, while at the same time, I don't think I could have achieved the tones and colours and general feel if I'd shot them digitally.

Is this a weird thing to do? Has anyone else done something similar?!

Here's some samples:
000074350027 by Tom Pinches, on Flickr

000074350018 by Tom Pinches, on Flickr

000074350021 by Tom Pinches, on Flickr

 

[Mr Badger]

So I shot these with Kodak Gold 200 and when I got the scans back felt they were a bit flat - I didn't want to spend aged editing them all and just wanted to make some minor tweaks to contrast and vibrance. I found the AI portait enhance slider on Luminar seemed to do the job so I set the slider to about 60% and batch edited them all.

I also felt a strange feeling of, I don't know, irony? Shooting on film and then using the latest AI PP software to edit them. But actually, I feel they are better than if I hadn't post processed them, while at the same time, I don't think I could have achieved the tones and colours and general feel if I'd shot them digitally.

Is this a weird thing to do? Has anyone else done something similar?!

Here's some samples:
000074350027 by Tom Pinches, on Flickr

000074350018 by Tom Pinches, on Flickr

000074350021 by Tom Pinches, on Flickr

No, there's nothing ironic there. When film was the only option people used to process prints in a darkroom, adjusting the colour filters on the enlarger to get the results they wanted, dodging and burning (lowering highlights or increasing shadow detail), etc. Photographic paper also came in different grades to give control over contrast, etc. So all you have done is do this electronically.

Furthermore, the scans you got back will have most likely been subject to at least some adjustment by the lab when they scanned the negatives, so probably won't be a straight 'flat' scan of the negative anyway. What you've done isn't weird or cheating, it's normal practice, whether done when wet printing in a darkroom or electronically on your computer. You've also kept the 'feel' of the film too, so no problem there either.

Lovely looking photos by the way, I do like Gold 200 (and it's not too expensive either) as it has that warm tone to it, which I think you've brought out very well in your tweaking of the scans. Do call in to the Film and Conventional section of TP and put some of your shots in the 'Show us yer film shots then!' thread.

As for constructive crit, I'd consider cloning out the thermos flask that's sitting on the lady's shoulder as it's a bit distracting. Other than that, I think they're very nice, natural-looking shots.

 

[Harlequin565]

I love Kodak Gold.

It's one of the big benefits to shooting film for me. No need to spend ages in software. If I want a warm tone that I really like, I shoot Gold. It keeps me in that frame of mind because with film you're actually pre-processing your images - hopefully taking them *because* of what's in the camera. With digital, everything looks the same until you process it.

Every image requires a degree of pp for me - but it's mostly contrast, sharpening and noise reduction and done. The same set of adjustments. Sure, I have "Kodak Gold Film Preset" in LR but it just doesn't replicate the look. And I don't see why I should replicate something in software, when I can do it quite easily for real! Same for black & white. When I shoot HP5 or Tri-X with a yellow filter, I get a look I really like. Shooting the same thing in colour then turning it B&W after the event really doesn't work for me. My perception of tone has been vastly improved since I started shooting B&W film vs colour digital & convert.

 

[Asha]

000074350027 by Tom Pinches, on Flickr



000074350021 by Tom Pinches, on Flickr

Absolutely love ^^ this ^^ capture.

Is this a weird thing to do?

You're asking someone who wanders around with an accordian that plays a carp tune!
Makes a decent photograph though

More seriously, nothing is wierd if the end result is what you want.

The methods involved are very personal to any individual tog, and if others find them wierd / strange then fair enough , let them see it that way....They're not processing your photos, nor a photo for you.

If we all exposed and processed in an ideantical manner then I wouldn't be part of this forum or indeed photography as it would, for me , simply be a bore.

 

[jerry12953]

To answer your original question as briefly as possible - yes, it does seem wierd!