Film simulation/ emulation with digital RAW photography retouching.
Related links:
Retouching, film simulation, digital RAW photography by Lee Ruff, ffureel.
So one day a while ago now, I went out with 3/4 cameras to do as direct a comparison as possible between film and digital. For no other reason than to be a geek obviously. I wanted to know exactly what makes film, film. What digital looks like in a direct comparision. The idea being so that I could compare two identical photos and to figure out a digital workflow. This comparing and figuring it out has been going on for months and I can honestly say it is not as simple as a process as I would have imagined.
The main comparison was between a Canon 5d digital camera and an equivalent Canon 35mm film camera. The film used was negative, Kodak Portra 160 NC. The same lens, exposure, composition etc was maintained throughout as much as possible.
You would imagine the pictures to look pretty identical but it was not so. The “look” is completely different. I can not say one is better than the other, I guess overall film and digital both have their positives and negatives (oh pun, haha).
So on my mission of emulating film from digital, I have spent way too long infront of a computer. It would seem a pretty pointless mission, use film dopey if you want to use it. Use digital silly if you want to use it. Thing is I have a ton of digital archives that I will only be happy with if they looked as seamless as possible against film scans. There is no way I would try and emulate digital with film. I could obviously leave digital as digital and not too mess with the file at all, problem is digital “has” to be edited no matter what so I had might as well try and do it as well as possible.
Negative film just gives and gives, it never lets up. Especially in the highlights.
The pictures are in order of Negative scan first, my film emulation second and the straight RAW digital file third.
As you can see, there is no way you can get away with a straight RAW file. It looks awful. Yes, you could say underexposed, but even so the highlights are bungled to white saturation already. Digital gives nothing for highlights. Linear indeed.
My emulation looks pretty identical, there are some slight variances in tone/ colour but I can allow for that. It looks like a simple case of turning up the brightness but unfortunately it really is not that easy. It is made even harder due to the fact every picture needs something completely different to bring it to life. So once I cracked some techniques for one particular scene, those same adjustments just would not work on any other picture. It is definitely a case of every single picture is a totally different beast. There is no one preset. I guess it is due to digital being linear and film not. So film reacts differently every single time even in the same light, even for the exact same picture.
Negative film sees the world like my eye. It is even more so when you use larger film above 35mm. My world does not look digital.
Scanning film has got to feel like the most mundane chore, but at least it looks “good” straight out the box. And in fact is less time consuming than editing a digital picture. The scan is just a bog standard straight scan, absolutely no post processing at all. Compare that to the straight RAW digital file, there is no comparison.
My digital emulation is evolved from a lifetime with computers and many years, and many hours working with digital photography. It really is not as easy as it should be, and frustratingly curves or workflows can not be duplicated in a batch. Like I said every photo needs something totally different.
Another problem is, it is hard enough making a copy when you have the scan infront of you to copy. Without any reference it is impossible to know how film would have reacted in that light. I know it is not necessary to know how film would have seen the photo, but without the reference making a guess at it normally looks really bad. I have not totally figured it out, a bit hit and miss really. A bit frustrating really.
There are film simulator programs, but they are awful. Apparently all it takes is a few tiny S curves and a hue/ saturation adjustment and you can get any film “look” you desire. I wish is was that easy.
Even though I have got this photo to look mighty close to the film scan, there is still something lacking I can not put my finger on. The digital file still looks like a digital rendering of the world, whereas the film scan has a certain depth/ 3d/ realistic, real world look to it. Maybe not totally noticeable at web resolution but I can see it, or feel it.
Right click the photo and open in new window/ tab to compare. Once again, the pictures are in order of Negative scan first, my film simulation second and the straight RAW digital photo file third.
