Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/05/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hehe, I think that ship sailed long ago. I don't use "film emulation" filter, but if someone wants to? More power to them. Me? I prefer to tweak the images to have the tones that I like. That's the important thing to me. I don't know whether it's more like Tri-X, or Acros, or probably none - I just push and pull sliders until they look good to me. I don't mind film grain, but it would be a cold day in Heck that I add any grain/noise to a digital image. Seems too much bother. On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com>wrote: > My point is not to say people are saying film is better. > But that its being said there is a discernable difference even at smallish > file sizes Between film and digital imagery. > And I feel strongly there is no tonality advantages to film unless the sun > is in the picture behind some clouds. Maybe. > They only way you know film from digital is where the noise lands. > Highlights for film, shadows for digital. > And you see those kinds of things only in real big pix. Not the stuff we > see > on the internet. Which tends in most cases to be the only stuff anybody > ever > sees. > > I'm against film emulation software which puts grain in the highlights and > gives a red over sensitive "tri x look". > Its baloney. And The inference is there is some advantage to the "film > Look". > Well there is no "film look". Not in the file sizes we see on the internet. > > If I and a lot of photographers I know thought that there was some > worthwhile film look we'd be shooting film to get that look. Not digital > and > hyper compensation for it. > > I Can't Believe It's Yogurt! > I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! > > I'm against doing one thing and pretending its another thing. > There's a real back stabbing passive aggressive element to it. > > > - - from my iRabs. > Mark Rabiner > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/springdays/ > > > > From: John McMaster <john at chiaroscuro.co.nz> > > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > > Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 17:46:24 +1200 > > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > > Subject: Re: [Leica] Shocking: MM images do not look like film! > > > > > http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/leica-m-x-r/37364-leica-m-monochromatic-proces > > sing-insights.html which links to > > > > > http://fotografz.smugmug.com/Photography/Jonos-MM-files/23016060_2TzGLp#!i=1 > > 851170263&k=swB4gbS > > > > john > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Mark, no one says film is better. If you look at the referred to images, > > they were quite flat. The author eventually admits that he could have > done > > more and indeed he passed the files to other people who did more and the > > images were 100% better. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>