DXO Launches FilmPack 7

[Canon Rumors Guy]

FilmPack 7, DxO Labs’ tribute to analog photography, includes new editing tools, film rendering an enriched Time Machine mode, and more a personalized workflow DxO Labs, creator of pioneering photo-editing software for over 20 years, is proud to present FilmPack 7, designed for digital photographers who love the timeless magic of film. It follows almost

See full article...

 

[justaCanonuser]

As one who likes both digital and film photography, I'd recommend: if you want the look of a certain film, go for the real thing. Many years ago I played for a while a bit with Silver Efex, it was fun but by far not as rewarding as shooting and developing film. It was more like watching cooking shows instead of real cooking and eating, at least for me.

 

[neuroanatomist]

As one who likes both digital and film photography, I'd recommend: if you want the look of a certain film, go for the real thing. Many years ago I played for a while a bit with Silver Efex, it was fun but by far not as rewarding as shooting and developing film. It was more like watching cooking shows instead of real cooking and eating, at least for me.

DxO seems to do a pretty good job, better than Nik did (before DxO bought that suite, perhaps they've integrated the films to improve Nik?...but more likely not, since FilmPack is a separate purchase while Silver Efex is just one part of Nik.

A couple of years ago, DxO developers were looking specifically for people currently shooting or with prior images from a specific type of film (I don't recall which) to better evaluate their recreation for FilmPack. That suggests a fair bit of effort.

Personally, I prefer digital. In the end, even shots on film are going to be digitized, most likely. Granted, I had fun in the darkroom years ago...but I have no desire to go back.

 

[Sporgon]

As one who likes both digital and film photography, I'd recommend: if you want the look of a certain film, go for the real thing. Many years ago I played for a while a bit with Silver Efex, it was fun but by far not as rewarding as shooting and developing film.

One of the secrets in producing a film-like image from digital is to start with a basic RAW file before a contrast profile is added.
I’m really not convinced that I can produce a better “quality” B&W image from B&W film (including MF) than I can from digital, other than the fact that with negative film we’re exposing for the shadows, and have (generally) huge highlight latitude, whereas in digital we are exposing to protect the highlights, which normally leads to a file that’s more closed down than a correctly exposed negative.
Ironically colour negative film is different, because of the above, but also the colour information that’s in negative film, when scanned well, with each pixel being scanned red, blue and green (unlike Bayer Array), does give more colour information, and this is very apparent in medium format.

 

[justaCanonuser]

One of the secrets in producing a film-like image from digital is to start with a basic RAW file before a contrast profile is added.
I’m really not convinced that I can produce a better “quality” B&W image from B&W film (including MF) than I can from digital, other than the fact that with negative film we’re exposing for the shadows, and have (generally) huge highlight latitude, whereas in digital we are exposing to protect the highlights, which normally leads to a file that’s more closed down than a correctly exposed negative.
Ironically colour negative film is different, because of the above, but also the colour information that’s in negative film, when scanned well, with each pixel being scanned red, blue and green (unlike Bayer Array), does give more colour information, and this is very apparent in medium format.

You didn't get me, my comment wasn't about technical quality. To illustrate what I meant I may quote Marshall McLuhan: "the medium is the message". It's about the whole process of shooting film: load your preferably vintage camera with a nice vintage lens (optically not up to today's level, but gives the images a special character), shoot by using your imagination only (no chimping), wait and develop the film - and then, sometimes after weeks, see the result for the first time. It is like slow food vs fast food. Or like an original Volkswagen Beetle compared with a VW New Beetle: the latter is technically superior in every respect, but the original Beetle is the real thing, no fake. It's a completely different and unique experience when you drive it.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Personally, I prefer digital. In the end, even shots on film are going to be digitized, most likely. Granted, I had fun in the darkroom years ago...but I have no desire to go back.

I respect that. A good friend of mine, a pro artist who studied photography, never wants to return to a lab either. I sometimes love to stroll along the old chemical way, it is still a bit like magic for me, but that's my very personal approach to photography, of course. It contrasts nicely digital photography, what I like, too. The nice thing is that the creation of images with light allows for so many different approaches, so for me it is always rewarding to see what other (good) photographers do their own personal way.

 

[Sporgon]

You didn't get me, my comment wasn't about technical quality. To illustrate what I meant I may quote Marshall McLuhan: "the medium is the message".

No, my reply wasn’t intended to suggest you had, I was just voicing my own experiences with the “look” of film and digital.
Generally there seems to be a belief ( on the net) that monochrome film produces “better” B&W than digital; in my experience this isn’t the case, and indeed monochrome specialists like Sebastio Salgado are shooting on digital now, then writing the file to 5x4 film, and printing from that. The results can be spectacular.
Colour on the other hand, is different.
I agree that if someone wants the ‘film look’ then try shooting film, but unless you’ve shot film before be prepared for disappointment as it will take time to achieve the ‘look’ you were hoping for.

 

[justaCanonuser]

No, my reply wasn’t intended to suggest you had, I was just voicing my own experiences with the “look” of film and digital.
Generally there seems to be a belief ( on the net) that monochrome film produces “better” B&W than digital; in my experience this isn’t the case, and indeed monochrome specialists like Sebastio Salgado are shooting on digital now, then writing the file to 5x4 film, and printing from that. The results can be spectacular.
Colour on the other hand, is different.
I agree that if someone wants the ‘film look’ then try shooting film, but unless you’ve shot film before be prepared for disappointment as it will take time to achieve the ‘look’ you were hoping for.

I know and love Salgado's work. In fact, if I would work as a pro, I wouldn't return to film as medium. Question is, what is a "better look"? It's always a matter of taste, it is like the question "what is art"? If you try to answer it, you stumble in a minefield.