If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:38:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2017-04-23 02:43:30 +0000, Bill W said: On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:26:21 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-22 08:21:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said: I wouldn't argue with any of that but this guy is saying that it must be done in the camera or not at all. Agreed. That is a silly position to take, particularly since most shooters are looking for more than SOOC Acros simulations. I am. My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a processor outside the camera can do it equally well. One would think that, and I have been trying to do that ever since the Fuji PR machine hyped the Acros in-camera simulation with the release of the X-Pro2, with the X-Trans III sensor and the new X-Processor Pro. My X-E2 does not have said processor, so I was only able to work with the in-camera Acros simulation once I got my X-T2. Up until then I got some pretty good results using Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, and NIK Silver Efex Pro. The Camera profiles in LR are camera specific, so Acros was not available for the X-E2 in LR. It is for the X-T2, so I have only been able to make that comparison over the last 10 days. The best of the third party emulations has been Exposure X2. However, when compared with the X-T2 SOOC rendering, there is a palpable difference which I have not been able to match, and even though I say so myself, I am not totally incapable when it comes to working with the software available to me. While the differences are subtle, I have yet to manage a tweak in any software to match the X-T2 SOOC in-camera Acros. I am sure that nospam, and perhaps even you could show me just how to do it, but I don't see you buying an X-series camera anytime soon, and I don't anticipate nospam showing us any results. All it needs is the right programming. ...and that might well be where the difference lies since Fujifilm is using a proprietary processor and proprietary algorithm. It is one of their films after all. Yes, but... I'm not arguing about this, but does the in camera emulation give you the results you like more than the others, or is it really more accurate? If you believe it's more accurate, what is there left to base that on? I have to assume you are not doing side by side comparisons, and are working from memory. Even if you have more or less recent film prints, they would be samples, and not the final word on what those film prints all looked like. Actually I can make side-by-side comparisons for the various digital images. It has nothing to do with accuracy, and this for me is only with regard to the in-camera Acros simulation. As far as comparing with prints from actual Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros film goes, I have never used it. Back in B&W film days I was a Tri-X shooter. When it comes to making the digital comparison there is a quality and character to the SOOC image in tone and grain (and you can set three levels of grain which is reactive to the camera's exposure settings) a quality which is not present in the third party simulations. As I have said, I can get pretty close with Exposure X2, but it is not quite there. I can understand that logic and common sense says that if Acros can be simulated by one processor, it should be a simple matter to replicate that with third party software on an external computer. I own and use most of the software capable of the task, and quiite simply I have not been able to match the job done in-camera. I would eventually like somebody in this group, other than the usual opinionators who don't use the Fujifilm cameras, or appropriate software, to see for themselves, and report back, to be able to voice their opinion. I am probably flogging a dead horse here since I don't believe there is another owner of an X-Pro2, X-T2, X-T20, or X100F in this group yet. In that case, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding around this. The way I was reading your comments, you seemed to be saying that only the in camera processing is an accurate emulation, but now I believe you are saying that none of the 3d party software can match the camera, regardless of whether the camera's emulation is accurate or not. Now that I can understand. And if that's the case, you could post an emulated photo, along with an identical one that is not emulated. It would be best if the second photo were RAW, but I can't remember if you said that 3d party software can open Fuji's raw files. Anyway, there are probably a few people here who would take a shot at matching the camera's processing. |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 4/22/2017 11:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-04-23 02:43:30 +0000, Bill W said: On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:26:21 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-22 08:21:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said: I wouldn't argue with any of that but this guy is saying that it must be done in the camera or not at all. Agreed. That is a silly position to take, particularly since most shooters are looking for more than SOOC Acros simulations. I am. My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a processor outside the camera can do it equally well. One would think that, and I have been trying to do that ever since the Fuji PR machine hyped the Acros in-camera simulation with the release of the X-Pro2, with the X-Trans III sensor and the new X-Processor Pro. My X-E2 does not have said processor, so I was only able to work with the in-camera Acros simulation once I got my X-T2. Up until then I got some pretty good results using Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, and NIK Silver Efex Pro. The Camera profiles in LR are camera specific, so Acros was not available for the X-E2 in LR. It is for the X-T2, so I have only been able to make that comparison over the last 10 days. The best of the third party emulations has been Exposure X2. However, when compared with the X-T2 SOOC rendering, there is a palpable difference which I have not been able to match, and even though I say so myself, I am not totally incapable when it comes to working with the software available to me. While the differences are subtle, I have yet to manage a tweak in any software to match the X-T2 SOOC in-camera Acros. I am sure that nospam, and perhaps even you could show me just how to do it, but I don't see you buying an X-series camera anytime soon, and I don't anticipate nospam showing us any results. All it needs is the right programming. ...and that might well be where the difference lies since Fujifilm is using a proprietary processor and proprietary algorithm. It is one of their films after all. Yes, but... I'm not arguing about this, but does the in camera emulation give you the results you like more than the others, or is it really more accurate? If you believe it's more accurate, what is there left to base that on? I have to assume you are not doing side by side comparisons, and are working from memory. Even if you have more or less recent film prints, they would be samples, and not the final word on what those film prints all looked like. Actually I can make side-by-side comparisons for the various digital images. It has nothing to do with accuracy, and this for me is only with regard to the in-camera Acros simulation. As far as comparing with prints from actual Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros film goes, I have never used it. Back in B&W film days I was a Tri-X shooter. When it comes to making the digital comparison there is a quality and character to the SOOC image in tone and grain (and you can set three levels of grain which is reactive to the camera's exposure settings) a quality which is not present in the third party simulations. As I have said, I can get pretty close with Exposure X2, but it is not quite there. I can understand that logic and common sense says that if Acros can be simulated by one processor, it should be a simple matter to replicate that with third party software on an external computer. I own and use most of the software capable of the task, and quiite simply I have not been able to match the job done in-camera. I would eventually like somebody in this group, other than the usual opinionators who don't use the Fujifilm cameras, or appropriate software, to see for themselves, and report back, to be able to voice their opinion. I am probably flogging a dead horse here since I don't believe there is another owner of an X-Pro2, X-T2, X-T20, or X100F in this group yet. Probably worth starting a new thread if you want to explore grain simulation algorithms. Anyway: Have you experimented with roll-your-own grain algorithms? I'm thinking if it can be done in-camera then it can't be all that complex or processor intensive. I did a few experiments in PS CS6 and can imagine creating grain simulation actions. There's a lot of parameter space to explore, but may be worth the effort to reach your artistic end. == Later.... Ron C -- |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-23 03:55:17 +0000, Bill W said:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:38:01 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-23 02:43:30 +0000, Bill W said: On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:26:21 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-22 08:21:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said: I wouldn't argue with any of that but this guy is saying that it must be done in the camera or not at all. Agreed. That is a silly position to take, particularly since most shooters are looking for more than SOOC Acros simulations. I am. My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a processor outside the camera can do it equally well. One would think that, and I have been trying to do that ever since the Fuji PR machine hyped the Acros in-camera simulation with the release of the X-Pro2, with the X-Trans III sensor and the new X-Processor Pro. My X-E2 does not have said processor, so I was only able to work with the in-camera Acros simulation once I got my X-T2. Up until then I got some pretty good results using Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, and NIK Silver Efex Pro. The Camera profiles in LR are camera specific, so Acros was not available for the X-E2 in LR. It is for the X-T2, so I have only been able to make that comparison over the last 10 days. The best of the third party emulations has been Exposure X2. However, when compared with the X-T2 SOOC rendering, there is a palpable difference which I have not been able to match, and even though I say so myself, I am not totally incapable when it comes to working with the software available to me. While the differences are subtle, I have yet to manage a tweak in any software to match the X-T2 SOOC in-camera Acros. I am sure that nospam, and perhaps even you could show me just how to do it, but I don't see you buying an X-series camera anytime soon, and I don't anticipate nospam showing us any results. All it needs is the right programming. ...and that might well be where the difference lies since Fujifilm is using a proprietary processor and proprietary algorithm. It is one of their films after all. Yes, but... I'm not arguing about this, but does the in camera emulation give you the results you like more than the others, or is it really more accurate? If you believe it's more accurate, what is there left to base that on? I have to assume you are not doing side by side comparisons, and are working from memory. Even if you have more or less recent film prints, they would be samples, and not the final word on what those film prints all looked like. Actually I can make side-by-side comparisons for the various digital images. It has nothing to do with accuracy, and this for me is only with regard to the in-camera Acros simulation. As far as comparing with prints from actual Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros film goes, I have never used it. Back in B&W film days I was a Tri-X shooter. When it comes to making the digital comparison there is a quality and character to the SOOC image in tone and grain (and you can set three levels of grain which is reactive to the camera's exposure settings) a quality which is not present in the third party simulations. As I have said, I can get pretty close with Exposure X2, but it is not quite there. I can understand that logic and common sense says that if Acros can be simulated by one processor, it should be a simple matter to replicate that with third party software on an external computer. I own and use most of the software capable of the task, and quiite simply I have not been able to match the job done in-camera. I would eventually like somebody in this group, other than the usual opinionators who don't use the Fujifilm cameras, or appropriate software, to see for themselves, and report back, to be able to voice their opinion. I am probably flogging a dead horse here since I don't believe there is another owner of an X-Pro2, X-T2, X-T20, or X100F in this group yet. In that case, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding around this. The way I was reading your comments, you seemed to be saying that only the in camera processing is an accurate emulation, but now I believe you are saying that none of the 3d party software can match the camera, regardless of whether the camera's emulation is accurate or not. Now that I can understand. Yup! I have no concept at all as to how the Neopan 100 Acros really looks, and I only have what Fujifilm and their X-photographers tells us with regard to how well the X-Trans III digital rendition matches the actual film. In the end, you know what is said about opinions, especially from those who are paid for their opinions. This is the Fuji article which started all the interest in Acros when the X-Pro2 was released. http://fujifilm-x.com/x-stories/the-newest-film-simulation-acros/ ....and a few others: http://fujifilm-x.com/x-stories/nordic-aftermath-part-4-the-x-t2-on-the-streets/ http://fujifilm-x.com/photographers/filippo-mutani/ http://fujifilm-x.com/photographers/don-craig/ And if that's the case, you could post an emulated photo, along with an identical one that is not emulated. It would be best if the second photo were RAW, but I can't remember if you said that 3d party software can open Fuji's raw files. Anyway, there are probably a few people here who would take a shot at matching the camera's processing. Lightroom and/or ACR can open the X-Trans III RAF files and the Acros options can be found in the LR/ACR Camera Calibration panel. Alien Skin Exposure X2 is available as a trial, all sorts of third party software can open RAF files. Once I get an appropriate subject I will post an RAF and corresponding SOOC Acros JPEG. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-23 04:32:37 +0000, Ron C said:
On 4/22/2017 11:38 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-23 02:43:30 +0000, Bill W said: On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:26:21 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-22 08:21:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said: I wouldn't argue with any of that but this guy is saying that it must be done in the camera or not at all. Agreed. That is a silly position to take, particularly since most shooters are looking for more than SOOC Acros simulations. I am. My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a processor outside the camera can do it equally well. One would think that, and I have been trying to do that ever since the Fuji PR machine hyped the Acros in-camera simulation with the release of the X-Pro2, with the X-Trans III sensor and the new X-Processor Pro. My X-E2 does not have said processor, so I was only able to work with the in-camera Acros simulation once I got my X-T2. Up until then I got some pretty good results using Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, and NIK Silver Efex Pro. The Camera profiles in LR are camera specific, so Acros was not available for the X-E2 in LR. It is for the X-T2, so I have only been able to make that comparison over the last 10 days. The best of the third party emulations has been Exposure X2. However, when compared with the X-T2 SOOC rendering, there is a palpable difference which I have not been able to match, and even though I say so myself, I am not totally incapable when it comes to working with the software available to me. While the differences are subtle, I have yet to manage a tweak in any software to match the X-T2 SOOC in-camera Acros. I am sure that nospam, and perhaps even you could show me just how to do it, but I don't see you buying an X-series camera anytime soon, and I don't anticipate nospam showing us any results. All it needs is the right programming. ...and that might well be where the difference lies since Fujifilm is using a proprietary processor and proprietary algorithm. It is one of their films after all. Yes, but... I'm not arguing about this, but does the in camera emulation give you the results you like more than the others, or is it really more accurate? If you believe it's more accurate, what is there left to base that on? I have to assume you are not doing side by side comparisons, and are working from memory. Even if you have more or less recent film prints, they would be samples, and not the final word on what those film prints all looked like. Actually I can make side-by-side comparisons for the various digital images. It has nothing to do with accuracy, and this for me is only with regard to the in-camera Acros simulation. As far as comparing with prints from actual Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros film goes, I have never used it. Back in B&W film days I was a Tri-X shooter. When it comes to making the digital comparison there is a quality and character to the SOOC image in tone and grain (and you can set three levels of grain which is reactive to the camera's exposure settings) a quality which is not present in the third party simulations. As I have said, I can get pretty close with Exposure X2, but it is not quite there. I can understand that logic and common sense says that if Acros can be simulated by one processor, it should be a simple matter to replicate that with third party software on an external computer. I own and use most of the software capable of the task, and quiite simply I have not been able to match the job done in-camera. I would eventually like somebody in this group, other than the usual opinionators who don't use the Fujifilm cameras, or appropriate software, to see for themselves, and report back, to be able to voice their opinion. I am probably flogging a dead horse here since I don't believe there is another owner of an X-Pro2, X-T2, X-T20, or X100F in this group yet. Probably worth starting a new thread if you want to explore grain simulation algorithms. That would be exactly what I will do. We seem to have drifted a long way from the OP regarding "Film scanners". Anyway: Have you experimented with roll-your-own grain algorithms? I'm thinking if it can be done in-camera then it can't be all that complex or processor intensive. With Lightroom and ACR Adobe gives you camera calibration profiles for the Fujifilm simulations. I did a few experiments in PS CS6 and can imagine creating grain simulation actions. There's a lot of parameter space to explore, but may be worth the effort to reach your artistic end. Sure, especially if you take care with the available tools with the B&W conversion. They are all there with the color sensitivity sliders, and the grain in the Effects panel. All stuff I am very familiar with, but LR/ACR does not do as good a job as Alien Skin Exposure X2 which is the best of the third party class. If you care to try, they have a trial. However, for now I can't do much better with Acros than with what comes straight out of the camera, with Exposure X2 as a close second. https://www.alienskin.com/exposure/ -- Regards, Savageduck |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:38:23 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: Lightroom and/or ACR can open the X-Trans III RAF files and the Acros options can be found in the LR/ACR Camera Calibration panel. Alien Skin Exposure X2 is available as a trial, all sorts of third party software can open RAF files. Once I get an appropriate subject I will post an RAF and corresponding SOOC Acros JPEG. I'll sure give it at try. No good will come from it for you, but I'll definitely learn something since I never do any film emulations. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-23 04:59:53 +0000, Bill W said:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:38:23 -0700, Savageduck wrote: Lightroom and/or ACR can open the X-Trans III RAF files and the Acros options can be found in the LR/ACR Camera Calibration panel. Alien Skin Exposure X2 is available as a trial, all sorts of third party software can open RAF files. Once I get an appropriate subject I will post an RAF and corresponding SOOC Acros JPEG. I'll sure give it at try. No good will come from it for you, but I'll definitely learn something since I never do any film emulations. OK! Give me a day or two and I will put the two files up. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article , Ken Hart wrote: that I will stack up against an equivalent digital print- not a screen image, but an actual print-on-paper, framed and hanging on the wall. you will lose. Show me. I'm in southwest IN, near I64 & I69. Bring some of your 20x24 enlargements and we'll put them next to mine. completely meaningless comparison. the proper comparison is to have everything matched except for the variable you wish to test, which in this case is film/digital. that means the same photographer shooting the same subject in the same lighting with the same camera settings using similar equipment (same format size, same lenses if possible, etc.), one being film and the other digital. it does *not* mean different photographers shooting different subjects under different lighting conditions with different cameras, lenses and settings. OK, we can do that test if you want. Last weekend of June meet me on PA74 at the top of the Tuscarora Mountain in south central Pennsylvania. Bring a 24X telephoto and a very good tripod. I'll be using a Canon 1200mm f/11 on a Sanford & Davis tripod. From there we can go down to the Juniata River and shoot on the Canal walk. A wide angle would be good, 35mm or 28mm. Finished comparisons will be based on wall-sized enlargements 16"x20" or larger. Prints from negatives will be optically printed. *whoooooooooooooooooosh* Come to think of it... This is a text based group 'n such and the topics ARE mainly technical and posting pictures is really not a requirement for posting and taking part in the discussions, but: WTF do you shoot? Care to share some info on that so that we can help you better? ;-)) -- teleportation kills |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-23 05:12:17 +0000, android said:
In article , nospam wrote: In article , Ken Hart wrote: that I will stack up against an equivalent digital print- not a screen image, but an actual print-on-paper, framed and hanging on the wall. you will lose. Show me. I'm in southwest IN, near I64 & I69. Bring some of your 20x24 enlargements and we'll put them next to mine. completely meaningless comparison. the proper comparison is to have everything matched except for the variable you wish to test, which in this case is film/digital. that means the same photographer shooting the same subject in the same lighting with the same camera settings using similar equipment (same format size, same lenses if possible, etc.), one being film and the other digital. it does *not* mean different photographers shooting different subjects under different lighting conditions with different cameras, lenses and settings. OK, we can do that test if you want. Last weekend of June meet me on PA74 at the top of the Tuscarora Mountain in south central Pennsylvania. Bring a 24X telephoto and a very good tripod. I'll be using a Canon 1200mm f/11 on a Sanford & Davis tripod. From there we can go down to the Juniata River and shoot on the Canal walk. A wide angle would be good, 35mm or 28mm. Finished comparisons will be based on wall-sized enlargements 16"x20" or larger. Prints from negatives will be optically printed. *whoooooooooooooooooosh* Come to think of it... This is a text based group 'n such and the topics ARE mainly technical and posting pictures is really not a requirement for posting and taking part in the discussions, but: WTF do you shoot? Care to share some info on that so that we can help you better? ;-)) iPhone -- Regards, Savageduck |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-23 07:25:45 +0200, Savageduck said:
On 2017-04-23 05:12:17 +0000, android said: In article , nospam wrote: In article , Ken Hart wrote: that I will stack up against an equivalent digital print- not a screen image, but an actual print-on-paper, framed and hanging on the wall. you will lose. Show me. I'm in southwest IN, near I64 & I69. Bring some of your 20x24 enlargements and we'll put them next to mine. completely meaningless comparison. the proper comparison is to have everything matched except for the variable you wish to test, which in this case is film/digital. that means the same photographer shooting the same subject in the same lighting with the same camera settings using similar equipment (same format size, same lenses if possible, etc.), one being film and the other digital. it does *not* mean different photographers shooting different subjects under different lighting conditions with different cameras, lenses and settings. OK, we can do that test if you want. Last weekend of June meet me on PA74 at the top of the Tuscarora Mountain in south central Pennsylvania. Bring a 24X telephoto and a very good tripod. I'll be using a Canon 1200mm f/11 on a Sanford & Davis tripod. From there we can go down to the Juniata River and shoot on the Canal walk. A wide angle would be good, 35mm or 28mm. Finished comparisons will be based on wall-sized enlargements 16"x20" or larger. Prints from negatives will be optically printed. *whoooooooooooooooooosh* Come to think of it... This is a text based group 'n such and the topics ARE mainly technical and posting pictures is really not a requirement for posting and taking part in the discussions, but: WTF do you shoot? Care to share some info on that so that we can help you better? ;-)) iPhone Oki... Kinda dunn, me thinks but there could be a challange in that! And that's soo totally inovative. You know shooting iPhones I mean: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=iphone&iax=1&ia=images&iaf=size%3Aimagesize-wallpaper So that's all that he shoots? -- teleportation kills |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-23 07:25:45 +0200, Savageduck said:
On 2017-04-23 05:12:17 +0000, android said: In article , nospam wrote: In article , Ken Hart wrote: that I will stack up against an equivalent digital print- not a screen image, but an actual print-on-paper, framed and hanging on the wall. you will lose. Show me. I'm in southwest IN, near I64 & I69. Bring some of your 20x24 enlargements and we'll put them next to mine. completely meaningless comparison. the proper comparison is to have everything matched except for the variable you wish to test, which in this case is film/digital. that means the same photographer shooting the same subject in the same lighting with the same camera settings using similar equipment (same format size, same lenses if possible, etc.), one being film and the other digital. it does *not* mean different photographers shooting different subjects under different lighting conditions with different cameras, lenses and settings. OK, we can do that test if you want. Last weekend of June meet me on PA74 at the top of the Tuscarora Mountain in south central Pennsylvania. Bring a 24X telephoto and a very good tripod. I'll be using a Canon 1200mm f/11 on a Sanford & Davis tripod. From there we can go down to the Juniata River and shoot on the Canal walk. A wide angle would be good, 35mm or 28mm. Finished comparisons will be based on wall-sized enlargements 16"x20" or larger. Prints from negatives will be optically printed. *whoooooooooooooooooosh* Come to think of it... This is a text based group 'n such and the topics ARE mainly technical and posting pictures is really not a requirement for posting and taking part in the discussions, but: WTF do you shoot? Care to share some info on that so that we can help you better? ;-)) iPhone Oki... Kinda dunn, me thinks but there could be a challange in that! And that's soo totally inovative. You know shooting iPhones I mean: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=iphone&iax...3Aimagesize-wa llpaper So that's all that he shoots? -- teleportation kills |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
film scanners | James[_3_] | In The Darkroom | 0 | October 8th 09 08:37 AM |
Film Scanners | Stephen[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | July 10th 09 07:56 PM |
Film scanners anyone? | Ted Gibson | Digital Photography | 15 | January 8th 08 03:31 AM |
Film Scanners | Gel | Digital Photography | 20 | February 21st 05 12:25 AM |
M/F film scanners - again? | Rod | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 17 | May 31st 04 04:14 PM |