No offense, but they look like digital photos rendered with too much contrast and a hot white point.
I find these kind of filters to be a lot of nonsense. While film types did vary considerably, the rendering was determined largely by exposure and development. For example, Tri-X rated at ISO 320 and processed in Microdol-X would yield a somewhat flat looking image with very little grain if it was printed on number 2 paper. Tri-X rated at ISO 400 and souped in straight up D76 wold yield a punch print with medium grain when printed on number 2 paper. Each film had a tendency, but the look was largely determined by what was done with the film. On Jan 16, 2012, at 2:38 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: > Hi Everyone: The link below provides one example of the 18 different *film > types filters* in the Nik Silver Efex Pro 2 software. The name of the film > type is below the frame. These are straight filter conversions with no > tweaking at all. The first shot is the original frame rendered in Lightroom. > My knowledge base for film types is very, very weak. I don't remember what > I normally used back in the film days. I'd be interested in knowing if you > think these examples do a good job of featuring the corresponding film types. > If something looks off, I'd be interested in knowing. Cheers, Christine > > http://www.caguila.com/nikfilmtypes > > > P.S. This frame is from a group of shots I took of a theater rehearsal of the > play, The Odd Couple. > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
