If you’re interested in more technical details about scanning film grain I can share an in-depth paper on the subject. That is timeless, and I don’t see why, because of technologic progress, it would be pointless to be inspired by these aestetics and apply similar techniques to our work. Sometimes nostalgia is overhyped, like all those “faded prints” looks for instance, but a well-exposed film, shot with a great camera by a great photographer, well lit, well developed has intrinsic aestetics to it that are deliberate and beautiful. It’s about aestetics, not about technology. I don’t agree with him that applying grain doesn’t make sense. When I apply grain, I always check for this kind of inconstistencies: if needed I use a lens blur tool to soften the original file a bit.
It looks like Kodachrome200 grain but hugely blown up and there are details that far exceed the resolution of the emulated film. This could be a bug btw.īeing a Lightroom user, I attenuate this (if necessary) with LR’s color noise reduction.Īs a side note, indeed doesn’t answer the question but he’s correct that applying this size of grain on such a detailed digital file doesn’t make sense and would be impossible if it was a real film scan. Especially Kodachrome200 is way to huge and focussed when applied in 24x36 format. Just a bit less intensity should be enough to get rid of that color noise which, indeed, does NOT show up in any of my personal film scans. But this can easily be mitigated by dialing back intensity and/or size.
#Kodak gold dxo filmpack update#
I believe these two grain layers were scanned too much “in focus”. open and process it with FilmLab I wish DxO would provide the necessary tools in a future update of FilmPack Joanna (Joanna Carter) July 11, 2021, 11:16am 13 There is a way that you can do it totally within PhotoLab (image taken from a dpreview article) This is only a jpeg file, RAW would work better. Hi there, I understand your concern, I have seen this too, but in my opinion there are only two grain simulations that do what we see in your test image and these are Kodak EliteChrome 400 and Kodachrome 200. I cannot achieve the same look using filmpack. I also have DXO Photolab 5 as part of my workflow (not my main workflow, but for some things) so if I did decide to use FilmPack, I think it would integrate with PhotoLab, but I'm not going to use that as a determining factor necessarily.When I scan negatives I usually apply noise reduction to reduce color noise but grain remains. I am using Adobe ACR (not so much LR anymore) so they would need to be compatible with ACR or Photoshop. I'm also looking at some of the others from Kodak, like Ektar 100 and some of the Portra line. I don't really need ones like the "cinematic" look, although I do like some of the vintage photo looks for portraits, and obviously some good black and whites (I grew up mostly with digital although am going back and experimenting with film shooting).
#Kodak gold dxo filmpack software#
The software introduces a new way of displaying creative and analogue renderings, separated into 14 periods illustrated by iconic images and famous photographic figures. I see that Mastin Labs seems to be geared towards wedding photographers so I might rule that one out, but what about DXO FilmPack and RNI? I mainly will be doing portraits and landscape and travel. DxO FilmPack 6 provides users with a true journey through time, offering an introduction to the history of analogue photography.
So I was thinking of getting into some of the film simulations, since I liked ones such as Fuji's Velvia for landscape and travel/urbex, among other.
0 kommentar(er)
