[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




I can almost perfectly replicate black and white film texture.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2304
Image Height3456
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
go ahead zoom in
here are some examples:

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width853
Image Height1280
>>
looks nice, Capture One, Lightroom, Photoshop, Affinity? What are we using here?
>>
>>4077972

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width870
Image Height1280
>>
and here’s a real film photo I took
……….. Or is it really film?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.60.031 (160615)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3130
Image Height2075
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4077971
Genuinely impressed OP are you gonna tell us your secrets?
>>
>>4077976
>NORITSU KOKI
>EZ Controller

Yes its film
>>
I use a Fujifilm XPro-3 with a 10% cinebloom filter in front of a 35MM 1.4f but I also use vintage lenses sometimes but I’m sure it doesn’t matter what camera you use as long as it’s not dog shit, it's about the lens if anything ...

Color film is almost impossible without reference, and the grain is very complex but most of all the color itself is the hardest things to replicate, but that’s what they said about b/w film too, but I can honestly say I can make any b/w photo look like film.

The problem with most of these “make your photos look like film” articles and YouTube videos is they just layer randomized noise on a photo. Film grain is controlled randomness depending on the contrast of light. I make a duplicate copy of the photo in editing and basically make organic noise unique to the photo by generating it based off the photo, it’s like making the duplicate photo turn into little tiny grains, overlay it and blend it on the original photo with a lot of fine tuning (if that makes sense, I’ll show the process in detail later, I’m still figuring some things out)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width853
Image Height1280
>>
>>4077979
Aw damn I forgot about the EXIF, but zoom in on the film photo and then zoom in on the others. They literally are n the same texture.
>>
>>4077983
cool
>>
The grain is too uniform, but otherwise looks pretty pimp.
>>
>>4077971
>>4077972
>>4077974
>>4077976
>>4077983
That's cool but next time try replicating a good photo haha ;o)
>>
>>4077971
lol
replicate velvia pls
>>
>>4078011
Slide film is 100% impossible for sure… sorry
>>
>>4078007
Pyw or suck my dick whore
>>
>>4078012
: (

i did bought a d810 few weeks ago hoping that would find some lut etc that would get close to it but not

i do get close to it if i spend couple hours fiddling with hue/saturation/luminance per custom channel on photoshop (ctrl+u) but no way to automatize it
>>
File: slide-suculenta.jpg (2.18 MB, 4000x2508)
2.18 MB
2.18 MB JPG
>>4078012
here's what i can get trying to simulate slide
blues look weird bc quick edit lol

before: nikon jpeg vivid mode
after: ctrl+u sliders and contrast adjustment

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4078040
That’s looks great but I get more of a porta 400 vibe from it desu. Also I’m not familiar with slide film much honestly. But that looks very very good dude. I find color film hard to emulate because I always need a reference for the colors for every situation a photo is taken in.
>>
>>4078044
It's because the same subject shifts in color whether it's underexposed, exposed, or overexposed. Digital is very linear in how it handles color, but film is much more reactive. It's really hard to emulate digitally, but not impossible.
>>
>>4078045
Interesting, how do you know how the colors react in different exposures, is it just a very deep understanding of a film stock. Here’s my attempt of fuji superia

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3130
Image Height2087
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4078048
Yes, I've been shooting film since 1996.
>>
>>4078013
But anon, I am le shitposting. Getting mad at me fuels my epic shitpostes thanknxxs
You've possibly already seen my shots anyway
>>
File: DSC_0069.jpg (2.25 MB, 3000x1922)
2.25 MB
2.25 MB JPG
desu not sure why people have this line of thinking that film simulations must be as accurate to actual film as possible. i just use them cause grain is cool, don't really give a fuck if it's still obviously digital

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 23.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height3844
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2022:09:02 22:20:19
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width6000
Image Height3844
>>
>>4078055
[spoiler] your still not posting you work pussy [/spoiler]
>>
>>4078058
Yeah that's true. Check around for a thread of mine in some amount of time. We've reached an impasse because if I post photos now you're probably going to shit on them no matter what they're like. I know this because I can see the future and can manipulate it from the present.
Anyway, emulating film is cool, but it's wasted if you don't do something with it, in my opinion. That's why I flamed you
>>
its weird, the more i shoot with film the less I can recognise the difference between digital and film
I think most of the difference is with vintage glass outside of halation
I am kind of retarded though
>>
>>4078060
Naw bro, I’ll definitely be honest, I didn’t use any pictures with quality and skill, those pictures are for showing different types of lighting, situations and contrast of how this emulation reacts rather than actual pieces of art u dumb butt. Use your brain homie.
>>
>>4077983
cinebloom something like tiffen black mist?
>>
>>4078065
No no dude your right, I now look at film less exciting especially black and white. It’s really not hard at all that hard to get that look.
>>
>>4078075
Yep, I specifically used Moments 10% one
>>
>>4077971
>>4077972
>>4077976
etc
you've been staring at your photos so long you've lost objective reality.
to my eyes these scream forced fake. just like how if you see vignetting then you have used too much
every single photo is so obviously falling for the obvious bloom filter meme infecting photography now
the grain you're applying is so fine and digital and isn't even close to silver crystal structures
the fuji film sims are not just slider fiddling, the guy that developed the film stocks at fuji worked on the nonlinearities and chemical responses emulated in the jpeg engine. capture one, lightroom etc don't give the same output as using the camera internal raw engine --- compare and see for yourself
keep trying anon but have some humility jesus, you're balls deep in dunning kruger
>>
>>4078073
I figured, hence le epic shitposting. Show us something with quality and skill so we can see how your film emulation works there
>>
>>4078081

It’s so funny cuz one of those is one film hahaha
>>
>>4078081
I bet if I give you two photos where one of them is digital and one is Film you’d never know
>>
ok here it goes I’ll try to explain:

Most people on YouTube and in articles (and even Adobe) believe grain is just some randomized noise on film that you can just paste on an image to give it a “film” look. For the longest time I’ve noticed that was clearly wrong. So I tried to come up with a method that would generate a unique texture or grain that is made off the images balance between shadows, midtones, and highlight. So here is what I did, this method im still understanding and figuring it out, it works extremely well for contrasty images but you’ll have to fiddle around it out a bit more for less contrasty black and white. This requires photoshop and that’s all.

I use a Fujifilm X Pro 3 with a 35mm f1.4 with a moment cinebloom 10% filter in front. I also sometimes use vintage lenses which are also great (like image 4 was vintage lens). What’s most important is the lens than the camera as long as it’s not a dog shit camera.

I recommend shooting in raw, i haven’t tried to do this with a JPEG

I open photoshop and drop my raw file into it and it opens up camera raw and i do my edits as if it was Lightroom and open the file on photoshop. Then I duplicate the layer, set the duplicated layer to 66% opacity and switch it to overlay. This will add a bit of contrast to the image already. Now I go to filter gallery (this is still on the duplicated layer)

add graphic pen set it to:

stroke length: 1 (when fine tuning leave this as it is)

Light/Dark Balance: 78 (this is important for what kind of contrast you want, stroke direction doesn’t matter since you want it to be dots)

And then I add also Reticulation

Density: 3 (i do not change this, but maybe you can mess around with i)

Foreground level: 5 (like the others this depends on the image your going for, definitely fine tune it)

Background level: 24 (same as foreground)

I usually minimize the filter gallery window and try to get it next to the original image.

Click ok
>>
>>4078118
Sometimes the image is too contrasty, edit your values.

When u get a good image, go to filter and add “more blur” to the duplicated image with the grain.

And there u have it. You can either prep your raw file for the contrast before the grain, but I recommend you flatten the image and lessen the contrast to get it right
Also … to match a film scan u can also change the image size smaller. I usually do width 43 (auto the height) and resolution to 72. And it usually match’s my JCH 400 film scans absolutely perfect. I also just recommend using an actual film photo to compare the pixel texture to match, zoom in real close and try to get the same pattern by messing with the layers.
>>
or just use this
https://grubbasoftware.com
>>
>>4078118
Tried this on some pics with colours, it worked terribly.
Since you look like an expert do you have any suggestions when it comes to emulate film saving colours?
>>
>>4078363
if you read anything i said, color film imo is impossible almost,

the image already has to be in black ad white, it doesn't work on color images.
>>
>>4077971
Grace my thread OOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPP
>>4078207
>>
>>4078120
i was honestly ready to hate on this but this is probably the closest you can possible get to emulate black and white, far better than my method, it's basically perfect. Thank you for sharing

i emailed the creator and asked about if he tried color film and he said "We know how to do it, and we considered tackling it, but demand is insufficient and it’s like 3X more work than the black and white technology."

idk what world they live in where demand for accurate color film simulation isn't in demand but whatever. they could make bank doing it too
>>
>>4077971
fuck off xt2nigger
>>
>>4078367
i was the one who replied, im working on it rn
>>
>>4078048
where is this?
>>
>>4078420
Santa Cruz
>>
>>4077971
looks like flat pixelated shit anon
you're absolutely delusional if you think film looks like that
>>
File: DSCF2034_Acros100.jpg (3.32 MB, 3120x1755)
3.32 MB
3.32 MB JPG
how is this
>>
>>maximize grain
>>maximize contrast
>>Y-YOU GUYS WON'T BELIEVE THIS BUT...
>>
>>4078608
Too sharp. With grain that size, the image should be softer.
>>
>>4077971
You have No idea what you doin kiddo
>>
>>4078608
put a More Blur on the grain and i think itll look good
>>
>>4078082
get a room, fags
>>
File: photo1.jpg (213 KB, 1260x973)
213 KB
213 KB JPG
>>4078646
>>4078615
>>4078526
>>4078081

... riddle me this anons

which one is film and which one is digital

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: photo 2.jpg (228 KB, 1457x966)
228 KB
228 KB JPG
>>4078676

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4078676
>>4078678
It’s such poor quality neither looks like film congrats.
>>
>>4078702
Stop pixel peeping and use your dumb brain

Obviously if one was high def and the other lower you could tell which is which
>>
>>4078702
>It’s such poor quality
It's literally higher quality and resolution than what you would see in a magazine or book, you nigger-brained scrub
>>
>>4078712
>>4078779
Sorry no one is falling for your bait
>>
>>4078676
Film

>>4078678
Digital

Your processing is cool though.
>>
>>4077971
it is beautiful. thank you for the share.
>>
File: 000004530032.jpg (2.29 MB, 1358x2048)
2.29 MB
2.29 MB JPG
just shoot film

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 5.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:12:22 11:34:49
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: DSCF4020.jpg (641 KB, 2000x1333)
641 KB
641 KB JPG
first attempt
>>
>>4078837
Too much money + If I can’t do my own printmaking, color adjustments in a dark room with contact sheets, idc
>>
Another experiment I did with trying to emulate film but medium format.

Took around 5-8 photos of the subject and surroundings of the subject , stitched them together in photoshop for a higher resolution and a bigger image and I got a medium format kind of look. I hear people do this kinda of stuff with wedding photography. And then added my grain technique.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1277
Image Height1280
>>
>>4078873
Another example

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1280
Image Height1180
>>
>>4078873

And then I tired a color image, but I’m not really good at color sadly

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1169
Image Height1280
>>
>>4078873
>>4078875
Actually the grain is not added to these images, but you get the point.
>>
>>4078817
Also this is wrong
>>
File: DSCF1210_tmax400.jpg (2.1 MB, 2560x1440)
2.1 MB
2.1 MB JPG
I really like TrueGrain. What I learned so far
Color image should be neutral (I created camera neutral profile with color checker card) and default sharpening in Lr should be disabled.
>>
>>4079031
ya it really is perfected
>>
>>4078868

Generally,

Scans>Prints

Unless you're actually good but I doubt it. Stop making excuses, stop being poor.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 7.5.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4079115
Are u a dumbass? Scanning doesn’t even exist but on digital mediums that can render them, where a print last for for hundreds of years in the physically world. If you want to stare at your photos forever on your phone then do so. Cope and stop projecting that your work isn’t good enough to be on paper, cuz i promise I do not care.
>>
File: s7.png (1.23 MB, 1323x880)
1.23 MB
1.23 MB PNG
>>4079031
pretty cool
>>
File: s11.png (1.02 MB, 1314x873)
1.02 MB
1.02 MB PNG
>>4079134
>>
File: s5.png (716 KB, 1260x838)
716 KB
716 KB PNG
>>4079142
>>
File: 52294723969_cc47de99f8_k.jpg (1.07 MB, 2048x1365)
1.07 MB
1.07 MB JPG
umm you guys know dehancer
>>
>>4079157
No WAY this is a digital photo
>>
File: måka.png (1.23 MB, 1409x937)
1.23 MB
1.23 MB PNG
>>
File: 001-DSCF0291.jpg (646 KB, 1600x1067)
646 KB
646 KB JPG
>>4079164

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
Took this one last year on APX 400 exposed at box speed. It was my first roll of B&W film

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwaredigiKam-7.3.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1500
Image Height953
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Horizontal Resolution2400
Vertical Resolution2400
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2022:01:22 15:36:22
Image Width1500
Image Height953
>>
>>4079181
This has to be a Sony
>>
>>4079293
x100v, but its edited to be very very flat and neutral (didnt wanna reset the file lol), cause resolve/dehancer like log-ish inputs
>>
>>4078676
The chair in the foreground is film, the one behind it is digital
>>
File: drivhus8.png (1.48 MB, 1456x968)
1.48 MB
1.48 MB PNG
>>
>>4079473
The fuck is this mess?
>>
File: holyshitlmao.gif (659 KB, 220x220)
659 KB
659 KB GIF
>>4078007
>>
>>4079483
greenhouse through truegrain
>>
File: IMG_20190821_160217sml.jpg (4.4 MB, 3000x2040)
4.4 MB
4.4 MB JPG
>>4078118

Ok OP, i've followed all of those steps for what concernes the post-production. I was working on a JPEG shot with my phone and this is the result, honest opinion?

Also when you add the graphic pen and the reticulation, whats your foreground color setted? i've tried some and turns out that light grey looks better than plain white (imo)
>>
>>4078676
Really telling that nobody could figure it out even though claiming his digital shots were "totally obvious"
>>
>>4079157
how do you use a video editor to edit stills?
>>
File: a.jpg (1.13 MB, 2000x1333)
1.13 MB
1.13 MB JPG
I dunno what you guys are bugging about, it's generally not hard to emulate film grain on b&w.
>>
File: a.jpg (1.15 MB, 1333x2000)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB JPG
>>4082793
>>
>>4082779
well videos are basically just a bunch of stills, so... you can plonk jpegs into most likely any video editor and go wild (i use lightroom for all the "basic" adjustments and to make the files look like log - very flat - export them as jpegs and then go wild in davinci resolve)
anyway
>https://blog.dehancer.com/articles/editing-photos-in-davinci-resolve/
>>
>>4082779
>open video editor
>new project
>put the photo there
Boom
Video of a photo
>>
>>4082717
To be fair, much of the rendition of grain lies up to the way the film is digitalized. How soft/sharp it is, how densely it's rendered, and how distinct the pattern is all lies in the image capture and post processing. As long as in film simulation you get the basic properties of film right (correlation between exposure and grain level, halation of highlights, texture proportionate to image quality) it's not really going to be discernable enough for b&w unless someone is familiar with the particular system. The main difficulty is film simulation with color grain in a video format, which is still extremely difficult to render accurately frame by frame and shot by shot, and is a process that has to be planned around during the entire production process. If I had to make my best guess, photo1 looks more "filmic," but that's really just how the grain is rendered. If both were digital or film, I probably wouldn't be able to tell unless a film stock were specified.
>>
>>4082912
cool, thanks for the link. I was curious about the specifics and this clears it up.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.