Variations of what an actual physical combination of film, photographic hardware and darkroom process could achieve (that could be quite broad, since one can do a lot of unconventional things in and outside of the darkroom).At the end of the day, they are looks applied to images that didn’t start out that way. I may have said this before: the simulation depends on its author’s goal. I don’t remember the contents of the thread, but I would say, from your quote, that I used many shoulds. GitHub - pixlsus/RawTherapee-Presets: PP3 presets for RawTherapee.adds rawtherapee collection and several others.mentions: Fuji Film Simulation Profiles – Stuart Sowerby → sadly, no explaination about what those Fuji X-Trans III LUTs were based on.GitHub - cedeber/hald-clut: A collection of HaldCLUT.The Largest Collection of Presets/Profiles brought together – Open Source Photography which hosts several interesting articles.take your favourite colour checker, your film stock, shoot it in whatever conditions you want to approximate/replicate on digital, match it to your digital capture and create a new HaldCLUT. Now, apart from the scientific grounds for the previously mentioned collection, I’m also interested in HaldCLUT attempts that were made using this approach: The Peter Principle - Out of Focus: Emulating analog film digitally Part 2 - Emulation process Classic Chrome HaldCLUT like the X-T2 for RT.Film emulation/simulation, with contributions.Pat David’s answer suggests that the Portra emulation is not actually trying to match Portra particularly well, which might explain the OP’s observation. Portra 400 was likely a combination of multiple other efforts tweaked to something pleasing. The sources should be documented in the source code. We have lots of talented people who make these cluts, some with actual reference material. ![]() The simulations should match pretty closely. In The source of film simulations, was saying: ![]() how confident are the authors a given film simulation HaldCLUT is as realistic as possible?) of certain looks? Is there a place I should look at to find some documentation that will help assess the “validity” (i.e. Were you, contributors, working off of already inverted scans? Did it involve colour checkers (CC24, 48 or more)? In your source images, to what degree was the processing subject to interpretation? I’d be glad to hear what kind of images were used as a base for a given look. The number of film stocks available in the RawTherapee Film Simulation Collection is impressive. Unfortunately the RawPedia article about the module omits this part. With that said, I’m very interested in the process, the choices and the tweaks that were made to create so-called “film simulations”. And it’s only recently that I’ve started playing with the film simulation HaldCLUT module for my “purely” digital shots. Especially been shooting mostly film (and more recently scanning and inverting it in RT with the film negative module).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |