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 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2304Image Height3456Scene 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-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width853Image 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-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width870Image 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 KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.60.031 (160615)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationRight-Hand, TopHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3130Image Height2075Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4077971Genuinely impressed OP are you gonna tell us your secrets?
>>4077976>NORITSU KOKI>EZ ControllerYes 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-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width853Image Height1280
>>4077979Aw 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.
The grain is too uniform, but otherwise looks pretty pimp.
>>4077971>>4077972>>4077974>>4077976>>4077983That's cool but next time try replicating a good photo haha ;o)
>>4077971lolreplicate velvia pls
>>4078011Slide film is 100% impossible for sure… sorry
>>4078007Pyw 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 noti 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
>>4078012here's what i can get trying to simulate slideblues look weird bc quick edit lolbefore: nikon jpeg vivid modeafter: ctrl+u sliders and contrast adjustment[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4078040That’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.
>>4078044It'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.
>>4078045Interesting, 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 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3130Image Height2087Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4078048Yes, I've been shooting film since 1996.
>>4078013But anon, I am le shitposting. Getting mad at me fuels my epic shitpostes thanknxxsYou've possibly already seen my shots anyway
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 Width6000Image Height3844Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2022:09:02 22:20:19Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width6000Image Height3844
>>4078055[spoiler] your still not posting you work pussy [/spoiler]
>>4078058Yeah 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 filmI think most of the difference is with vintage glass outside of halationI am kind of retarded though
>>4078060Naw 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.
>>4077983cinebloom something like tiffen black mist?
>>4078065No 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.
>>4078075Yep, I specifically used Moments 10% one
>>4077971>>4077972>>4077976etcyou'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 muchevery single photo is so obviously falling for the obvious bloom filter meme infecting photography nowthe grain you're applying is so fine and digital and isn't even close to silver crystal structuresthe 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 yourselfkeep trying anon but have some humility jesus, you're balls deep in dunning kruger
>>4078073I figured, hence le epic shitposting. Show us something with quality and skill so we can see how your film emulation works there
>>4078081It’s so funny cuz one of those is one film hahaha
>>4078081I 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 JPEGI 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 thishttps://grubbasoftware.com
>>4078118Tried 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?
>>4078363if 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.
>>4077971Grace my thread OOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPP>>4078207
>>4078120i 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 sharingi 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
>>4077971fuck off xt2nigger
>>4078367i was the one who replied, im working on it rn
>>4078048where is this?
>>4077971looks like flat pixelated shit anonyou're absolutely delusional if you think film looks like that
how is this
>>maximize grain>>maximize contrast>>Y-YOU GUYS WON'T BELIEVE THIS BUT...
>>4078608Too sharp. With grain that size, the image should be softer.
>>4077971You have No idea what you doin kiddo
>>4078608put a More Blur on the grain and i think itll look good
>>4078082get a room, fags
>>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:
>>4078676[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4078676>>4078678It’s such poor quality neither looks like film congrats.
>>4078702Stop 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 qualityIt's literally higher quality and resolution than what you would see in a magazine or book, you nigger-brained scrub
>>4078712>>4078779Sorry no one is falling for your bait
>>4078676Film>>4078678DigitalYour processing is cool though.
>>4077971it is beautiful. thank you for the share.
just shoot film[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 5.1 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2021:12:22 11:34:49Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4078837Too 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-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1277Image Height1280
>>4078873Another example[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1280Image Height1180
>>4078873And 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-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1169Image Height1280
>>4078873>>4078875Actually the grain is not added to these images, but you get the point.
>>4078817Also this is wrong
I really like TrueGrain. What I learned so farColor image should be neutral (I created camera neutral profile with color checker card) and default sharpening in Lr should be disabled.
>>4079031ya it really is perfected
>>4078868Generally,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:
>>4079115Are 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.
umm you guys know dehancer
>>4079157No WAY this is a digital photo
>>4079164[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiColor 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-7.3.0Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1500Image Height953Compression SchemeUncompressedHorizontal Resolution2400Vertical Resolution2400Image Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2022:01:22 15:36:22Image Width1500Image Height953
>>4079181This has to be a Sony
>>4079293x100v, but its edited to be very very flat and neutral (didnt wanna reset the file lol), cause resolve/dehancer like log-ish inputs
>>4078676The chair in the foreground is film, the one behind it is digital
>>4079473The fuck is this mess?
>>4079483greenhouse through truegrain
>>4078118Ok 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)
>>4078676Really telling that nobody could figure it out even though claiming his digital shots were "totally obvious"
>>4079157how do you use a video editor to edit stills?
I dunno what you guys are bugging about, it's generally not hard to emulate film grain on b&w.
>>4082779well 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 thereBoomVideo of a photo
>>4082717To 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.
>>4082912cool, thanks for the link. I was curious about the specifics and this clears it up.