How best to use film simulations in post processing

[ishwanu]

Ahhh... I see. Yes, I certainly can agree with you about using FilmPack simulations within a DxO Photolab environment. I believe that is a better overall solution to properly incorporating film simulations into the workflow.

You can also work on jpeg or tiff files in DxO as well, right? Are the FilmPack simulations available if you don't start with a raw file?

Yes.

But the results won't be an accurate simulation (though they may still be pleasing).

I assume they are and I guess I would assume that your answer would be that you aren't going to get the best film simulation output unless you start with the original raw file.

Apart from the best being somewhat subjective, it would be possible to test for differences. You could load a RAW source file and apply general editing changes and the film simulation in one pass, which is the usual way. Next, load the source file and apply only the same general editing changes and output that result to TIFF, then load the result and apply only the film simulation. Next, load the source file and apply only the film simulation and output that result to TIFF, then load the result and apply only the same general editing changes.

But I don't use Photolab and I don't think I want to change my entire photo processing software just to take advantage of film simulations.

Haven't you experimented on your own with applying the film simulation before and after other (presumably necessary) general editing changes to see how it goes? Obviously, I'm not talking about changes that would mimic or negate what the film simulation does - just changes that you subjectively think the image needs whether or not a film simulation is applied.

I've jut tried that. I've taken the same raw image, created a virtual copy, and then applied Leica Q colours (my norm) to one, and Fuji Velvia to the other. I then edited each to taste:

That's something to test, but it's not the test I suggested. I suggested applying the same film simulation and the same general editing changes, but at different stages. It's a way for the OP to answer his own original question.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Adobe Camera Raw already has a number of film emulations, under the Vintage profiles. These are fully integrated into the workflow, so what you see is what you get from the very start of editing. Edits are all done from within the context of the profile.

The main problem is that Adobe does not tell us what they are emulating.

 

[michaeladawson]

Haven't you experimented on your own with applying the film simulation before and after other (presumably necessary) general editing changes to see how it goes? I'm not talking about changes that would mimic or negate what the film simulation does - just changes that you subjectively think the image needs whether or not a film simulation is applied.

Yes, I can certainly do that and I can decide subjectively which I like better. But that doesn't answer the question I was asking. I was hoping to get some opinions from expert post processors on which produces the more accurate (not pleasing) accurate and faithful rendering of the film simulation as intended by the creators of the film sim.

I understand that accuracy is totally different from what is pleasing. And that accuracy may not be the desirable final output in all cases.

 

[michaeladawson]

Adobe Camera Raw already has a number of film emulations, under the Vintage profiles. These are fully integrated into the workflow, so what you see is what you get from the very start of editing. Edits are all done from within the context of the profile.
The main problem is that Adobe does not tell us what they are emulating.

Does calling it a Vintage profile necessarily mean it is emulating any specific film? On top of that, not all film is vintage. They make modern film.

But yes, I get your point. More importantly though, as you point out, they don't say what they are emulating. Just that you can choose from among 10 vintage looks.

 

[ishwanu]

Haven't you experimented on your own with applying the film simulation before and after other (presumably necessary) general editing changes to see how it goes? I'm not talking about changes that would mimic or negate what the film simulation does - just changes that you subjectively think the image needs whether or not a film simulation is applied.

Yes, I can certainly do that and I can decide subjectively which I like better.

What I said is that you subjectively decide what general editing changes the image needs whether or not a film simulation is applied.

But that doesn't answer the question I was asking. I was hoping to get some opinions from expert post processors on which produces the more accurate (not pleasing) accurate and faithful rendering of the film simulation as intended by the creators of the film sim.

Yes, those will be opinions - which are also subjective.

I understand that accuracy is totally different from what is pleasing. And that accuracy may not be the desirable final output in all cases.

I didn't say to judge the final result according to what's pleasing. You can of course judge according to what's 'accurate'. Are you going to decide that, or will you rely on experts to tell you what's accurate? There can be a difference of opinion, which will be subjective.

 

[michaeladawson]

Well... I didn't realize that when I bought the FilmPack 7 plug-in I wasn't buying just the plug-in. I just found out that I have the stand-alone package along with it.

So I tried it!!

The light bulb went on when I went to a folder of mine for an image to test with. I shoot all raw and of course Adobe Bridge shows me all my .NEF files with all my non-destructive editing in place. I opened DxO FilmPack Stand-alone and the image browser came up with all my raw files.

And of course the browser showed all my raw files without any ACR edits applied. So it doesn't matter what profile I may have applied in ACR... neutral, standard, vivid, Velvia, etc. FilmPack has it's own raw conversion engine and opens the raw file with no edits applied. It doesn't matter what I've done to the file in ACR. Everything starts out equal in DxO FilmPack if you open a raw file.

Now of course, I could have used the plug-in from Photoshop and I'd essentially be working on a tiff file with all the edits preserved. In my tests of working on an already edited file, some of the film emulations are downright ugly. Applying Kodachrome 25 to a tiff file that had Velvia previously applied in ACR? Ugh.

I'll have to play around a little more. But I think I have a better understanding of what goes on. At least with FilmPack 7.

 

[michaeladawson]

Haven't you experimented on your own with applying the film simulation before and after other (presumably necessary) general editing changes to see how it goes? I'm not talking about changes that would mimic or negate what the film simulation does - just changes that you subjectively think the image needs whether or not a film simulation is applied.

Yes, I can certainly do that and I can decide subjectively which I like better.

What I said is that you subjectively decide what general editing changes the image needs whether or not a film simulation is applied.

But that doesn't answer the question I was asking. I was hoping to get some opinions from expert post processors on which produces the more accurate (not pleasing) accurate and faithful rendering of the film simulation as intended by the creators of the film sim.

Yes, those will be opinions - which are also subjective.

I understand that accuracy is totally different from what is pleasing. And that accuracy may not be the desirable final output in all cases.

I didn't say to judge the final result according to what's pleasing. You can of course judge according to what's 'accurate'. Are you going to decide that, or will you rely on experts to tell you what's accurate? There can be a difference of opinion, which will be subjective.

All that you said above is true. It's all opinions, mine and the "experts". I simply wanted to hear what others thought about it.

As you can read in another response I posted just a bit ago. If you're actually applying DxO FilmPack simulations to raw files you don't have any choice in the matter. It's done at the start of editing. If you don't want to apply a film simulation to an image that you have already edited you have to export it as a tiff or jpeg first (or use the Photoshop plug-in which essentially does the same thing.

 

[Pixel8888]

Haven't you experimented on your own with applying the film simulation before and after other (presumably necessary) general editing changes to see how it goes? I'm not talking about changes that would mimic or negate what the film simulation does - just changes that you subjectively think the image needs whether or not a film simulation is applied.

Yes, I can certainly do that and I can decide subjectively which I like better. But that doesn't answer the question I was asking. I was hoping to get some opinions from expert post processors on which produces the more accurate (not pleasing) accurate and faithful rendering of the film simulation as intended by the creators of the film sim.

I understand that accuracy is totally different from what is pleasing. And that accuracy may not be the desirable final output in all cases.

 

[Digital Nigel]

Well... I didn't realize that when I bought the FilmPack 7 plug-in I wasn't buying just the plug-in. I just found out that I have the stand-alone package along with it.

Yes, you effectively get three products when you buy FilmPack:

1. The stand-alone one, which can work on raw or RGB files. It needs no other products, and can be used as a complete raw processor in its own right.
2. The plug-in, designed for Photoshop, but which also works in some other products that can use Adobe-type plug-ins
3. The FP tools already built into PhotoLab are switched on. These include several tools that are really nothing to do with film simulations, and should be turned on in every cooy of PhotoLab.

So I tried it!!

The light bulb went on when I went to a folder of mine for an image to test with. I shoot all raw and of course Adobe Bridge shows me all my .NEF files with all my non-destructive editing in place. I opened DxO FilmPack Stand-alone and the image browser came up with all my raw files.

And of course the browser showed all my raw files without any ACR edits applied. So it doesn't matter what profile I may have applied in ACR... neutral, standard, vivid, Velvia, etc. FilmPack has it's own raw conversion engine and opens the raw file with no edits applied. It doesn't matter what I've done to the file in ACR. Everything starts out equal in DxO FilmPack if you open a raw file.

Yes, the DxO raw engine ignores edits made in any other raw engine, and vice versa. It uses the DxO lens profiles, which with some wide angle lenses give you a wider field of view than ACR can render.

Now of course, I could have used the plug-in from Photoshop and I'd essentially be working on a tiff file with all the edits preserved. In my tests of working on an already edited file, some of the film emulations are downright ugly. Applying Kodachrome 25 to a tiff file that had Velvia previously applied in ACR? Ugh.

You should certainly get more accurate simulations this way.

I'll have to play around a little more. But I think I have a better understanding of what goes on. At least with FilmPack 7.

Yes, FilmPack is just a heavily cut down version of the full 'complete' PhotoLab product. So it has the DxO raw engine, but not the DxO DeepPRIME NR or the ViewPoint tools.

When you use the FilmPack and VP tools inside PhotoLab Elite, you get all the tools in one place, and can use them non-destructively in any order you like. You can obviously include them all in one preset, and I do.

So, when I first open an image, it already has my default settings applied in tools from all three products (which are really all just subsets of the 'complete' product that they don't market as such).

 

[Mentoryoby]

Oh my goodness, you recreated those colors.

Can you please share this Classic Chrome preset ? And can you please tell me if I can get a similar effect on Sony ZV-E10 (a6400 sensor).

 

[Cristir]

Is the film sim a profile or a LUT? If you're looking to use the Fuji film sims, you would apply them right from the get-go in ACR (along with any WB modifications) and develop from there.

Erik, I thought it was clear in my post. I said 3rd party film sims such as DxO Film Pack. I do not use Fujifilm film simulations. I obviously can’t with any Nikon camera. If DxO Film Pack plugged into ACR and was available from the Profile dropdown I obviously wouldn’t have this question.

You actually can use Fujifilm simulations with a Nikon camera, I do it with a Nikon Z7.

You need your cobalt-image camera profile and the cobalt-image fuji simulations pack. The resulting image processed this way is nearly identical with the fuji simulation image from a fuji camera (I tested it to verify).

What's more difficult to do is creating custom in-camera fuji simulations recipes (like at Film Simulation Recipes | FUJI X WEEKLY) and recreating them on other camera brands (I suppose it could be solved with LUT captures but haven't tried it).

 

[Az5]

Oh my goodness, you recreated those colors.

Can you please share this Classic Chrome preset ? And can you please tell me if I can get a similar effect on Sony ZV-E10 (a6400 sensor).

If you are using Capture one, try these: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4618703

Download from the last post.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

The main problem is that Adobe does not tell us what they are emulating.

Does calling it a Vintage profile necessarily mean it is emulating any specific film? On top of that, not all film is vintage. They make modern film.

But yes, I get your point. More importantly though, as you point out, they don't say what they are emulating. Just that you can choose from among 10 vintage looks.

Adobe also has a collection of “Modern” profiles. They seem to reflect contemporary editing styles rather than film