Not the film look

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
DenWil
DenWil Veteran Member • Posts: 4,458
There is a wide variety to the 'film look'.

Barry Twycross wrote:

There's a lot of talk about the "film look", but it was never something I liked. I had no choice using film, so now when I'm scanning my old film, I'm using all the post processing I can to "fix" the film.

Anyone else?

Here's a couple I've just been working on.

That's an HDR merge of two negatives, with a lot of noise suppression and tone mapping, as well as perspective correction. It still needs a lot of work to fix some artifacts.

A lot of tone mapping, and average noise suppression.

Some attributes of the film look-  often associated with  35mm Tri-X  i.e.  high contrast / amped grain / blown highlights ,  I avoid completely. Like the plague.

I use only 100 ASA and slower  120 (67) film stock, carefully  moderated exposures, optimum lighting  and processed   with the aim of excellent  tonality and tight grain. That is the  film look for  me.

Other than manual dust removal ,  my  film work  requires  little  more than a quick tweaking in PS.  All single originals with no  extra revisions or major corrections. At a glance the color scans  on the screen  look identical to the  transparencies on the light box.  I have to account for the differences in viewing  the digitized medium  but essentially there   is nothing  to fix.

All 1990 and later.  All the B&W processed by me,  the E6 farmed out and delivered sleeved but uncut.  Same two labs (one in Irvine / one in Tucson)   during that entire period. All scans by me.

-- hide signature --

dw

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow