![]() ![]() Also I am aware that a 100% exact film simulation is not possible, I am already shooting physical film mainly but it has become a serious cost issue where I live so I started experimenting with digital. All I want is to approximate the colors which I love from my scanned film negatives somehow in my digital pictures, too. The unprocessed RAW files always look so flat and dull, and the Raw Therapee "Bundled profiles" (Contrasty, Pop.) which I found look unconvincing. I wonder if I can have profiles simulating Natura 1600, X-tra 400 etc. (*) By "free" I mean free-as-in-beer or free-as-in-open-source, both is fine. I normally use Lightroom but I've downloaded DxO to give it a try.Īnton, it's been awhile since I last used RawTherapee - over a year - but as I recall you can create your own custom settings, save them, and apply them as desired to your raw files. I encountered similar issues with Lightroom 4 when I first used it. Most of the standard and custom presets were only a rough starting point - usually the colors were way over the top for my taste. I dialed them back until I got the look I wanted, closer to portrait color negative films, and created my own presets. If you give Lightroom a try (there's a generous 30-day free trial, full featured), you may decide it's worth buying. I used RawTherapee for awhile because it was powerful and free. Then I used the trial version of Lightroom 4. Then I went back to RawTherapee for awhile. But by the end of 2012 I was frustrated with RT's resource hogging tendencies (especially the tools for sharpening and clarifying - those would actually kick my quad core CPU's cooling fan into overdrive), chunky looking noise reduction (I shoot at high ISOs a lot) and non-intuitive interface. Still very satisfied a year later, and will upgrade to version 5 for the much improved healing/cloning brush. ![]() I could play around a bit more with DxO Filmpack. The film simulation itself looks very good and there is a reasonably large and good selection of films, inbcluding my beloved Delta 3200 and funky stuff like Polachrome. However what this free "Essential" version lacks is batch processing, which makes it for my workflow and amount of pictures basically useless. The paid version does have batch processing from what I understand. Regarding Lightroom and LightZone, thanks for tips but I have absolutely no interested in fiddling around with parameters myself until I got the look of film approximated. I already tried this and it's extremely time consuming. Also I could do with Raw Therapee or basically any other post-processing software as well, so I don't see how these programs are of particular help. I am/was looking for software which has this pre-set, that's the whole point. I guess there is a lot of work involved with getting the right parameters, this is why there are no free options. I played around with that freebie version of DxO FilmPack 3 yesterday. Apparently it can interface with Lightroom - sorta - if you designate FilmPack for the exports. But it's clunky compared with Nik Silver Efex.ĭxO FilmPack 3 doesn't work with DNG or camera raw (which has been cussed and discussed extensively on this forum and elsewhere). So I had to export TIFFs or JPEGs.įilmPack 3 is very limited compared with Silver Efex but I actually liked the simplicity of the Essentials tools. They didn't look like Portra, Astia or most color films to me. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |