hyalinejim

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I keep running out of time to make edits To illustrate my points about contrast, the only difference in this comparison is the RGB curve. Here's Adobe Standard with linear curve from ACR: And here's the same shot with a Fuji 400H box speed curve applied so that middle grey remains middle grey. Watch what happens with the shadows and notice highlight roll off on skin is softer: (The shadows are also warmer, but that's just the nature of the shadow colour cast for that particular film stock).

And I think this is one of the ingredients in "image thickness"... but probably not the only one. Anyway, a very interesting discussion with some great examples and a lot to think about here. Another difference I've noticed between film and digital (photos) is that the contrast curve tends to be different. Film has more contrast in the shadows and less in the highlights compared to digital. This makes sense when you consider that film has about four stops under middle grey when shot at box speed, and many more above. For digital it's the opposite: about four stops above middle grey (it va

The situation with film is complex, as so many things in life are. From my tests, the midtones of a scene shot on negative film are most saturated when exposed at +1 or +2 above box speed, and then brought within range when scanning. Nevertheless and regardless of under or overexposure, a comparison of the same scene shot on film and digital will show that the film has more saturated shadows and more desaturated highlights than the digital, when the contrast of the digital is made to match the film scan and when the global saturation of the digital is altered so that midtone saturation matches

Yes, it's this transformation in action, as a lut: So there are hue transforms going on as well as saturation transforms. But the saturation aspect of it you could totally do in Resolve. Art Adams came up with this for matching F55 to Alexa And my point is to do something similar for digital to film, the leftmost point on that curve should be raised to boost the shadows. But I don't know if that curve is Log to Log or whatever, in which case it might be right. I think Rec709 to Rec709 it might possibly need to be more like this: But I haven't tested it extensively,

Here's a pair of images that illustrates my point about shadow saturation more clearly. This is the same digital still with Adobe colour versus film emulation colour. default: film emulation: The highlight roll-off is just about observable on the foreheads in the second image compared to the first, and it's very clear that there is a shadow erm..... roll-on?

Don't forget about shadow saturation! It often gets ignored in talk about highlight rolloff. The Art Adams articles kye posted above are very interesting but he's only concerned with highlight saturation behaviour. Here is a photo taken on film (Kodak Pro Image 100, the same as used in my example above) Here is the same scene shot as a digital RAW still with Adobe default colour but with contrast matched using RGB curves in ACR. You'll notice that at first glance it's more saturated: Now here is the same digital shot with a LUT added to match the saturation

Yes please, this would save a lot of scrolling!

Is this little hand symbol to show that the member is new?

Let me ask a question! These are ColorChecker patches abstracted from -2, 0 and +2 exposures using film in one case and digital in the other (contrast has been matched). Which colour palette is nicer? Open each in a new tab and flick back and forth. ONE: or TWO:

This harks back to deezid's point: From my investigations film does seem to have much more saturated shadows than what a digital image offers. If you match the saturation of the midtones of digital to film, then the shadows will need a boost to also match... maybe by around 25-50% at the lowest parts. It's a shockingly huge saturation boost in the shadow areas (and the highlights would need to come down in saturation slightly). I'm not talking about log images here, I'm talking contrasty Rec709. The digital capture is probably closer to being an accurate representation of the leve

Is the "link audio and video" timeline button deselected?

1980s Kodak test image from linked article

Colour is a tricky one to talk about for sure. Nevertheless, there's been some interesting discussion in this thread. Thickness of an image is a term that originated in reference to the density of a film negative. It's still used by some people when talking about digital images, where its meaning is unclear (qualitative rather than quantitative). Perhaps a more useful avenue is to ask about characteristics of digital colour that are desirable. These could be - Subjectively pleasing colour - Objectively accurate to reality colour - Objectively accurate to a film stock c

Actually from reading that link it turns out that, for good or ill, DXO doesn't take colour accuracy into account in their "portrait" rating. They say all DSLRs score similarly for colour accuracy. There's a lot on that page I don't understand. But I have the sense that their portrait rating has a lot more to do with quantitative than qualitative issues. In short, numbers are compelling but in reality I'd be hesitant to use their rating in deciding which camera to buy to take photos of people in a studio.

Wow, no love for IBIS today? I couldn't go back to a non-IBIS camera. I shoot lots of B roll of people who've never been on camera before and will be gone away in a minute, doing things. IBIS means I can shoot handheld and get three different steady shots from different angles while directing the person(s) in the same amount of time it would take me to get one shot on a tripod. I don't use it as a substitute for a dolly, slider or gimbal. I still remember my horror at the shaky jello of my first handheld shots on the 5D Mk 2!