>>The other difference with SFX is that it is not necessary to emulate the look
>>of wet darkroom. You’re
>>working on a new plane of black & white. You can go for the look you think
>>best fits the image.
>
> So essentially, SFX takes digital B&W beyond what is routinely possible with
> film/wet B&W. If so, then this sounds promising.
I'm going to answer a qualified "no" to this.
A raw file is an image file with no gamma or color bias applied. It's
very blah in every way. This blahness allows you to then take it
almost any direction. You can bias the color as though you are using a
red filter, a green filter a cyan filter, etc. It also allows you to
apply a contrast curve that mimics the "S-Curve" characteristic of
film and paper. To a point.
Once you load that file into your computer, the world is your oyster.
Provided that you know in your mind what the pearl is supposed to look like.
There are multitudes of photographers that never could stand TMax film
in any way, shape or form. The color response curves of TMX and TMY
were fantastic for studio photography, but less desirable for other
types of photography. Tri-X was the standard and is STILL the standard
by which all B&W films are compared to. Why is that?
So, why should we bother even trying to emulate a "classic film"?
Can't we come up with our own new standard of "look"? Well, yes, of
course, and at times you surely can. But in the case of Tri-X, it's a
classic and reference film for a reason. What it does for skin tones
in comparison to the surrounding scene is unique and none of the other
ISO 400 films do as good of a job. (Although Delta 400 and the final
version of TMax-400 are remarkably close).
What I have learned is that the more things change, the more they stay
the same. When you start with a clean slate and have a desired
outcome, chances are you'll end up very close to what one of the
classic films would have given you natively. You can either roll your
own each time or save yourself the grief and stick with the standard.
One can lament the loss of all the hundreds of types of films that
have disappeared over time. With a few exceptions, the reason why they
disappeared is because others were more popular. Why were they more
popular? Because they provided a "look" that most people preferred.
TriX became a standard because the masses made it a standard.
Feel free to invent your own "film" or "non-film" look if you want. It
might please you, but it might end up pleasing only you.
Side note on B&W conversions in post. I find that I get the best
results when I convert in PWP. Not only are the adjustments
effectively infinite, but the way the algorithm works reflects the
fact that the creator of the algorithm not only is a photographer but
has a wee bit of understanding of film.
BTW, it doesn't hurt to study the spec sheet response curves of your
"favorite films". That can help guide you in how to process the files.
AG Schnozz
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|