If these simulations stated something like "PanF in Perceptol 1+20. The same negative would look very different depending on which paper you used, which contrast you chose, which developer you used. Then consider the final output, the print. On thinking of Rodinal, it produced different grain depending how how dilute it was, and how you agitated the developing tank - eg continuously, x seconds per minute. Consider the developer chemistry - the same film developed in Agfa Rodinal would have very different grain pattern from the same film developed in Ilford Perceptol, for example. Let's put aside how a coloured lens filter would change how the colours are represented as greyscale tones. If you've ever done B&W in the darkroom you'll know that the same film actually looks very different depending on your processing techniques. Just what is a typical look? Can you really define it or bottle this typical look? Really? And I do wonder how far developers (especially those expensive Lightroom presets) are just fleecing the gullible.īut it's mixed with other doubts that I think are less controversial if you think about the task. That's partly just personal preference, or gut instinct about the creative value of simulating a film you might never have used. To be frank, I feel film simulation is such a waste of money.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |