Three Things
A mashup of topics of interest and a few follow-ups
Thing One
Way, way back, more than a year ago I posted a survey asking a question about the use of real, honest to goodness film. I was shocked to find slightly more than half of our readers either shoot film or are interested in doing so. I expected the results to be far less. Five years ago I shot half film and half digital. I frequently used both mediums on the same project. I’ve been doing that since the dawn of digital. As film prices have gone through the roof over the last five years and Fujifilm has abandoned film (except for Instax) I’ve shot a far less color film than I have in the past. Heck, I could buy a digital Leica M body for the cost of fewer rolls of film than you’d guess (and did exactly that). One of the problems with shooting film and digital on the same project (especially longer term projects) is matching the results so they are cohesive.
I have tried my own methods. I’ve gone way down the road on attempting to make that easier and quicker with home-grown methods. I’ve even sold various presets back in the Apple Aperture days that customers begged me to revive. I’ve never developed something of my own that was perfect, not even close. I’ve tried every single proposed preset or software that claimed to do it faster, easier, and more accurately. Yes, I own almost all of the products that proport to do what I wanted to do… quickly and easily match my film results to my digital results shot in similar conditions on the same project. All of them had flaws and were not as quick, easy, or as accurate as the purveyor’s claims. I should know better by now right?
Well, I should have known years ago there’s no silver bullet. I am not saying none of the solutions on the market are any good. It’s more that they broadly have similar issues. The pattern goes like this…
Far too much of the developer’s taste baked into the preset/software.
Only performs well (matching film results) in a very narrow range of lighting conditions.
What started out well turns into characatures of the original film, ludicrously over exaggerating particular characteristics.
So many variations, with so many esoteric naming conventions that it’s monkeys-banging-on-typwriters guess at one of the 4,203 variations might match your film shots and conditions… maybe with a dose of exaggeration or taste built in.
I am a morbidly curious beast so I invested yet again in another “match film to digital” product. At this point it’s more like a game of how far off they are under what conditions game I am playing. This time I was WRONG. Finally a product that is probably as good as it gets if you are literally looking to match your film results to digital shot in the same conditions rather than some “effect” or “style”. This is strait up near perfect. The product is crazy expensive but after my first purchase I bought them all. Here’s the big reveal; The Archetype Process or TAP is finally the real deal. I bought the “yellow pack” first. That’s what I actually use in 2024 (Ektar, Portra 160, 400, and 800). After testing my film results and the digital from many cameras, I immediately bought the “Green Pack”, meaning Fuji. Both are dead-on accurate. I purchased the black and white pack as well but have mixed feelings. I’ll discuss those another day, nothing really, more of a philosophical point of view as I develop and scan my own film rather than send it to a Frontier/Noritsu bulk lab.
Beware, these are not “look presets”. They are meticulously developed ICC profiles of the film shot, developed, and a baseline scan on two particular and ubiquitous scanners. They are a starting point with no “taste” built in. All of the things a particular operator may do and overall color balance (temp and tint WB settings) are up to you using your RAW processing software’s controls. It’s what you would generally expect from a baseline scan sending your film to a well calibrated lab.
I’ve tried to do this myself (not controlling the dev/scan process in-house) quite a few times with Ektar 100 and giving up because it was too much work and too variable based on lighting conditions. I would have needed to do all the dev/scan work in-house under more controlled conditions and decided not to years ago. The Yellow pack makes shortwork of matching my current film/digital projects and The Green Pack allows me to shoot 400H and 800Z (and other Fuji films) that are pretty much impossible to do as of 2024.
Disclaimer: I am not paid, nor do I receive free product from The Archetype Process. I have only tested them with Lightroom and ACR. I’ve not used them with Capture One (there is quirkiness with C1 ICC profiles I’ve experienced in the past as was not about to blow $200 on ICC profiles that were subject to that with no recourse, I’d be glad to test them if they asked me to as I usually work in C1 for personal work).
Thing Two
Unless you subscribed to this newsletter yesterday, you have to know how much we think paper selection and print execution are absolutely part of the art. Paper selection can be somewhat transparent but it can also be dramatic when it comes to shaping your art. I ran across SIDEWALK a short while ago. This photographer’s entire look is dependent on the output medium and process even though he shoots digital the final look is completely dependent on the print medium and process. This photographer’s work is interesting but his process is even more interesting. What’s more is that his output medium of choice is the opposite of what you’d expect from someone so print focused. Instead of the best photo printer with archival pigment inks, with the most gamut, and the highest quality, most expensive paper one would expect, it is in fact WalMart index cards and obsolete color laser printers. Have a look, it’s certainly going to give you a different perspective.
Thing Three
Our first “paid supporters" mini-contest submission deadline is coming up fast. If you’re interested the submission deadline is September 17th 2024. We’re overwhelmed at the quality of submissions so far. It’s going to be a tough job to pick a winner. There’s not one single photograph submitted anyone could disqualify for quality nor off-theme. This time the theme was “elegant”. Based on the response I’d like to ask you if you’d enjoy this type of quick contest as more of a “regular thing”.
By this type of thing, I mean:
Short term, lasting a month or so.
Themed submissions
Should they be sort of like an assignment
Focused on a particular paper and what assignment/theme would be well suited to printing on said paper.
The prize is small… a print on that paper as well as a write up in the newsletter.
Let us know in this quick survey and definitely let us know your thoughts in the comments. Once again a big thank you to all of our subscribers but especially those who’s generousity includes a paid subscription to help keep the lights on.
Thanks for mentioning my work this week! It certainly is all about the process, and having that process in mind from when I first click the shutter to when I hang up the final print. I’m also a firm believer in the fact that all photo printing (from the wet darkroom to high-end inkjet to the cheapest of laser printers) works on the same principals and the skills learned perfecting one method are easily transferred to any other method with practice. Print on what you have and learn it’s strengths!
Still searching for that elusive Kodachrome preset, but then it would need to incorporate different color casts for the highlights and shadows...such a difficult film to scan well