dualdflipflop:HI, I am currently experimenting to switch from analog to digital and trying to find the best film emulator for B&W. I got similar results when I was comparing my scanned tri-x negatives:1 grain. density and form: digital emulation can get very close to actual results (compared XTOL developer with tri-x 35mm film)distribution and detail: real grain distribution varies a lot depending on the exposure received; digital tries to take this into consideration but does not match the real result.The closest results I got from DXO filmpack4. (Silver efex structure although great at macro detail seems distructive on micro level)2 tonalitysilver efex S curve is far from what I get with real tri-x. the HP5 curve seems closer to reality.3 depth. I do not know if it is the combination of tonality and grain distribution or something else but film seem to have more depth and digital seems "flat"I haven't seen any digital emulation to get close to real film. Nevertheless I saw great B&W results from digital including silver efex that were more pleasing to my eye than my film results.the main advantage of digital is that you can shoot at iso 3200 and make it look like 400 iso film. push tri-x to 3200 and the results are seldom as good as digital with tri-x 400 simulation.Originally posted 116 months ago. (permalink) Rêves d'un Anonyme edited this topic 116 months ago.
analog efex pro 2 cracked
Rêves d'un Anonyme:silver efex S curve is far from what I get with real tri-x.Yes, too much contrast in the Tri-X. A bit too much grain as well. I make my own adjustments by comparing my digital image to an actual print I made from Tri-X film.116 months ago(permalink) 2ff7e9595c
Comments