Question - when an image is edited this much, how can we call it a “photograph”?
https://medium.com/hd-pro/does-editing-images-violate-the-rules-of-photography-98584afed6fb
When I edit my negatives in PL4, I feel that I am creating “art”, not a “better” photograph.
Maybe I should call the results “photo simulations”?
I also had a D200, together with a Fuji S3 Pro – and Silkypix …
After @platypus’ssss remark I thought to give it a try and transferred your versions into PS, used the overcooked one for details, brightened the train carefully and reduced the contrast of the background landscape to bring the attention more to the foreground.
From there I went to PL → Nik ColorEfex → Darken / Lighten Center (which I prefer to FP / Creative Vignetting). Back in PL, I brightened the engine’s front a little more (still too crunchy) and added some grain (FilmPack PlugIn).
And yes, at any time I prefer the (controlled) digital darkroom to the analogue world. With one camera
I can have Colour & B/W without restricting myself and concentrate on the subject.
Indeed. But I have been reasonably happy with the 36Mpx D810, which gives me something approaching MF sizes and that I can print to 24" x 16" without interpolation - double that using Genuine Fractals.
I must admit to being highly tempted by the new Fuji GFX100 camera but, without a commercial use in mind, I really can’t justify it.
Yup. It’s one long round of the latest and greatest and never being satisfied until you get to the kind of resolution that LF yields. And it does sound like you are suffering from a bad case of GAS 
If 500Mpx digital 5" x 4" LF cameras were available, with all movements, I’d snatch your arm off for one. But I would want the sensor to be removable (like a darkslide) because there is something so special about going under the cloth, seeing the image inverted and composing with movements that you are never going to convince me can be beaten by trying to peer at an LCD screen in bright sunlight.
No, at the moment, I am very content with the D810 for up to 32" x 24" prints and the Ebony for those 60" x 48" specials.
Since I end up digitally editing everything, film or digital, I personally see no advantage or satisfaction in taking 35mm film just to end up spending hours scanning and de-spotting it before I can get a decent print out of them.
I contribute occasionally to a B&W forum where some people are decidedly sniffy about making digital look like film, but then they are diehard Lr/PS users who don’t have any idea just how good the DxO FilmPack is. Phrases like, “you can always tell if an image is digital” tumble from their keyboards, not realising that they are publishing digital copies of scans or photographs of prints, thus making them digital anyway. Having eventually had to concede defeat on that front, they then progress to argue that they mean with a print - forgetting that, yes, a wet print vs an inkjet print maybe but, I defy anyone to tell the difference between a darkroom wet print and one produced from a digital file on a Lambda printer on silver halide paper, developed and fixed conventionally. I have nine such prints (27" x 20") framed on our walls and nobody who has seen them can tell that they were digitally processed, albeit from scans of 5" x 4" film.
Photography - drawing with light. Note it isn’t limited to only purist recording of a subject. I have seen all sorts of photo-realistic paintings that make me wonder why someone would go to that extent when they could have simply printed the picture they took to paint from.
Is a photo-realistic painting truly a painting, or is it a “light drawing” made with coloured inks or paints on paper instead of coloured light falling on photo-sensitive paper?
The article you quote talks a lot about integrity of an image but, surely, that is only relevant in cases of evidential integrity, not for every image that is ever taken?
So, you are saying that you would never have used variable contrast paper and multigrade filters when printing a negative in the darkroom?
The Zone System can’t work without changing the latent image on the negative by over-exposing and under-developing, then use multi-grade papers and dodging and burning. It might seem more “traditional” but it is, nonetheless, manipulating the photons that passed through the lens to achieve a desired result.
Here is an example of an image, taken on the Ebony, with 14 stops of range, compressed into the 10 stops that the film allows and then further compressed into the 7-8 stops of the paper by manipulation of the emulsion on the film and paper.
My D810 can do the same - compress 14 stops into a RAW file and then transform them into 7-8 stops on paper. The process might be different but the end result is the same. Not everyone who processes digitally is out to deceive, the majority are out to produce the best possible image. Or should artists also be pilloried for “interpreting” a scene instead of transcribing precisely what they saw before their easel?
What I personally draw the line at is all these fancy filters and other rubbish that people seem so struck on using to “enhance” their iPhone photos. Although I am totally gobsmacked at this photo…
… taken on my iPhone, handheld, lit only by moonlight, at midnight. You can even see the stars!!!
Yes, it’s a factual, unedited image but how much of it is real when you consider how much processing it went through in the phone?
Perhaps you need to read The Negative and The Print by Ansel Adams to see just how much “processing” he did to produce a final print.
What is GAS ?
I used to upgrade my digital cameras every one or two years, until I retired, and that was the end of it for digital. I still had my Leica M8.2, and wanted a full-frame Leica that would work like my film cameras, and I finally got my M10. Leica keeps coming out with new cameras, which I look at, and smile, but no thoughts of owning one.
On digital, I wanted the D800 long ago, and I had a choice of the D800, the lighter and smaller D750, or the Df, which I should have bought right then. A year or two ago I bought a Df body, and unless I think I need 24 megapixels rather than 16, I most enjoying the Df.
I got tempted about buying a new Leica film camera, but a “clean and lube” should make my M3 pretty much like a new camera, and better than the ones that Leica makes nowadays - none of the new models has a viewfinder as big and nice as the M3.
It’s great that you enjoy this choice. I guess I’m wired differently. I love the ability to bring out all the details my camera captured, but adding grain, and doing other things to make my digital images look like film images bothers me as much as using those silly (my opinion) filters that so many people love for posting on social media.
I’m not trying to say anyone is “wrong” in doing so, but I know it’s “wrong” for me, unless it’s to create something silly… I thoroughly dislike the idea of “replacing the sky”, but it’s a model railroad with walls and bookcases and stuff in the background, I enjoy replacing all that in a photo with an artificial sky. The model railroad itself is “artificial” in a way, and I love trying to bring it to life however I can.
Joanna - the D810 was the biggest and baddest Nikon at a time, but I was into sports and got the D2, then a D3, which were bigger, and badder (for sports) and heavier. Then I rebelled against the whole scene, and bought the much lighter D750. My Df was a special purpose Nikon, with manual controls, and was more like the camera I grew up with - plus it worked with ALL of Nikon’s lenses since day-one (with a very few exceptions). Other than my brother, I don’t know anyone else who even knows what a Df is or does.
https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/df/
Back to the media type, I feel about making a digital image into a film image about the same way I feel about making a digital image into an oil painting, or watercolor painting, both of which can be “done” with digital software. It’s not for me.
Does this do what you are after?
Digital back for 4x5 view camera
There is probably some “catch” I didn’t see, but it seems to be able to do what you are after?
Gear Acquisition Syndrome 
But, if the end result is a print on (analogue) Silver Halide paper, with all the sumptuous qualities that come with it, Is it still a digital image?
You are never going to produce an image that is exactly what you saw when you took it.
Are you shooting in Black & White? The world is in colour - you’ve corrupted what was in front of your eyes.
Do you really think that Ansel Adams wouldn’t have jumped at the opportunity to use digital? He even predicted it would arrive.
What if a digital camera produced files that already had the appearance of film? It’s already possible with some Fuji cameras.
If you zoom in on the picture, you’ll see that the digital back only takes images that are 54mm x 110mm or 54mm x 80mm.
1 - no, it is a print from a digital image. Or, it could be a 35mm color slide from the digital image.
2 - we all “corrupt” what we see in front of us, because people are only limited to certain frequencies of “visible light”. There is a lot more there, such as infrared light, but we don’t “see” it without special hardware to convert it to visible light frequencies that humans can see.
3 - I think Ansel Adams would have fully jumped into digital, and loved it, at least once it became useful and could capture images of the quality he demanded. Just think of what his “darkroom” (his computer) would be able to do, once he got into it!!
4 - Other than adding grain, what changes would someone make, to get digital images to look like film? I already have a Fuji X100f that does this, similar to this description of a Fuji X100v:
The Fujifilm X100V is like shooting with an endless roll of film. Actually, it’s like shooting with up to seven endless rolls of film. You can capture as many frames as you wish on each roll, and change the film anytime you want. Kodachrome 64? Yep! Kodak Portra 400? Absolutely! Fujicolor Superia 100? No problem! Kodak Tri-X 400? That one, too! Do I need to list seven films? Actually, I could list 80! You’ll just have to decide which ones you want. Once loaded, your supply will never run out. There’s no need to send it off to a lab, as your pictures come out of the camera already developed. Sound too good to be true? It’s not. This is what it’s like shooting with the X100V!
For myself, I have never seen any purpose in doing this, but I guess you’re right, it does offer that feature built into the X100 series cameras. From what I’ve read here, maybe this would be very important to many people.
On the other hand, I want to shoot my Fuji in ‘raw’ mode, even though this gets complicated for use with PL4, something that really annoys me.
Joanna, since you reminded me of it, what is the best way to shoot with a Fuji camera, and be able to use PL4 for editing? My best solution is to save the images as TIFF, and move those into PL4. Is there a better way to do this?
You mentioned all those simulations the the Fuji can do. Here’s a link of what is possible:
https://www.contenta-converter.com/browse.php?language=en&format=RAF&make=FUJIFILM&model=X10&output=TIF&service=convert
This is what I have been doing, but that cuts out many of the benefits of using PL4 and working with the original RAW files - but I suspect it will work fine with all the simulations you mentioned.
I’m not sure why I’m even asking, as PL4 doesn’t understand the sensor used in Fuji cameras…
I love my Fuji X100f, but I love my Leica and Nikon cameras a little more. I don’t like the newest Fuji X100v, because it means using a touch screen on the back. I prefer menus, and even more, I prefer knobs and wheels and buttons like my 25-year-old Nikon F4.
If you have any advice on how to make best use of a Fuji camera and PL4, I’d love to hear it.
Lock up all other cameras you own and go out and shoot!
Then use PL4 if you must.
You must be a mind reader. I (used to) travel to India twice a year, spending half my time here, and half in India doing volunteer work at an eye hospital. The Fuji, and my (almost pocket size) Canon G7X Pro Mk II almost always go with me, and most of my gear stays at home. So for all practical purposes, yes, my other camera are “locked up” on the other side of the planet.
Because of its small size, excellent optics, and that using it is almost like using a Leica (but with a vastly improved viewfinder) the Fuji is a better walkabout camera than my others.
I’m not going to go back to Lightroom and Photoshop, and losing the ability to use RAW files is made up for by doing my work in PL4.
I haven’t used the Canon in a year or two, and I’ve only used the Fuji once, rather than to just let it sit.
Joanna is completely right about Gear Acquisition Syndrome, as I’ve got it bad. I think that’s a good thing, not having to improvise. I can’t remember the last time I got a new camera (excluding a second F4 which I bought for very little, to get the smaller and lighter battery pack I wanted). Two years ago I bought the Leica M10, but that was after months of thinking about it and it was an “open box sale” that saved me $$ but still gave me a new camera warranty. And about that time, I bought an “open box sale” Nikon Df, as I think they are, or about to be, discontinued. …and I wanted that camera for five years before I acted on it. Most of my “stuff” I’m unlikely to use I gave to my brother, or to friends in India.
(…and I do buy things I think are awesomely cool, such as a Zeiss Contarex, with all the fittings, that I still have never used…)
Yeah, Joanna was spot on!
(And if most of you are right, I’m “wasting” a lot of time using film cameras again. On the other hand, I’m enjoying doing so a lot, regardless of how foolish I may be. I’ll be 78 in December, and I’d like to do these things while I still can.)
Well, let’s see if I got this image processed “well enough” to get a passing grade. This is most likely taken in the 1970’s, judging by other images taken roughly at the same time. I was in a train going one way (either a cab ride, or one of the streamliners with a window in the front) with the freight train going the other way. I used only the PL4 tools that none of you have complained about because of what they did to the grain and “noise”. Exposure on the negative was reasonable, and I didn’t do much to the image in PL4, other than try to eradicate a few million microscopic dust particles. Very little cropping. I thought it was finished, but the front of the engine looked too “dull”, so there is local adjustment to brighten it up, but only slightly. I’m pretty sure this photo was taken on a dull, cloudy day, which is how the processed image looks like to me. If I made it “prettier” it wouldn’t be what I saw that day. I’m very tempted to do so though…
2021-09-25-0007.tif (31.9 MB)
2021-09-25-0007.tif.dop (38.1 KB)
Note to myself - if I had my life to live over again, I would have kept better notes, filed away with my images. But at least I have the images - starting when I switched to digital, on very old Windows computers, as I upgraded computers I’m pretty sure I lost track of many of my digital files. Those that I do have, have the EXIF data, so if I set the date properly I can look it up. Not so with negatives.
But if it’s an analogue print of a digital scan of a film original, is the resultant image digital or analogue? Given that the print is output by a digital printer using a scanning laser, does that mean that, unless I use an optical enlarger, it still can’t be a film image, even though it was originally shot on film? 
So what is less corrupting about shooting film and scanning it into a digital file than shooting a digital original? How about all the muck and bullets that lands on the film and has to be cleaned using a blade, spotting inks and brushes on an analogue print? Is the “muck and bullets” part of the original image, even though it attached itself to the film after it was shot?
Questions, questions, so many questions 
Hey Mike, when we get to that sort of age, who cares what everybody else thinks, but it can be fun to “argue” about things - it helps to pass the time
Going back to your question…
Having thought about this for a couple of days, I would definitely say that you are wasting your time shooting 35mm film. My good friend Helen and I both gave up on 35mm film as soon as the Nikon D100 came out. We found we could get images of a similar quality without having to spend a couple of hours setting up a temporary darkroom just to make a couple of prints, then having to dismantle the “darkroom” before going to bed.
Now, shooting 6cm x 7cm film is a whole other game. If you really want to make worthwhile film images, get yourself a Mamiya 7 II
To my mind, the most beautiful MF camera ever. It’s a joy to carry and use and the scans are big enough to give an “LF feel” because the lenses are sharp enough to cut your eyeballs (think Leica for MF)
Having said that, I only used mine on relatively few occasions, especially since buying the D810, which can make images virtually as good as the Mamiya but without the need to scan and de-spot.
I already spend far too much time in front of a computer screen. Having to spend an hour or two de-spotting each neg that I have scanned doesn’t come particularly high on my list, when I can get the same results from a “ready scanned” digital camera file. But, hey, if you’ve got the time and the inclination, go ahead and enjoy yourself anyway 
I suspect, for you, like me, it’s more about the nostalgia and the feel of older cameras that is strangely (yet understandably) comforting. I find such “machinery” takes me back to days when you didn’t throw out your old stuff just because something newer came along. but how does that explain your analogue Leica upgrade policy? 
Well, “something new” came in form of a few dollars worth of new film types every 10+ years. Now, we get “new film” bolted into new four-digit dollar cameras every few years.
I started with my dad’s Contax II, and at some point got a Contax IIa. I didn’t like external viewfinders, and I wanted to shoot sports, so I eventually got a Nikon SP (and still have it). At one point my brother got my SP and I bought a Leica M2 with one lens, the Summicron 50, which lasted me “forever”. After my M2 was stolen, I got a used M3 and an M2 Leicas, but preferred the M3 because of the viewfinder. As far as I can tell, there is no “upgrade” from the M3. The newer M-A is supposedly not built as well as the M3, and the viewfinder is much smaller because it needs to show the field of view for 35mm, as the M2 does.
Then my life got turned upside down when Nikon introduced the Nikon F. I could then even use a manual focus 200mm lens, which I quickly bought. The F eventually got updated into an F2, and I went along. I thought I was done with updates, until my company’s photographer offered to sell me his F4. He wouldn’t sell me his 4x5 LF system - I should have tried harder to buy it…
I thought my updates were finished, and to be honest, I didn’t like the F3 as much as the F2, and the F4 (which I could buy right now from KEH) was so much like Nikon’s D2 digital. I jumped into digital with both feet, and as I was then photographing radio control car racing at world championships all over the world, as the cameras got “faster” I updated, using my income to cover the substantial costs. When I retired, these big heavy cameras were no longer useful, so I went to B&H in NYC and checked out the D800, the D750, and the Df. The D800 was too big and heavy, and while my heart wanted the Df, I went with the D750. (There’s not a D780, but I’m done with the upgrades concept.). I did buy a Df body, as I realized that was “the end of the line” for that camera style. It was made to work Lin a manual Nikon F, but it also had all the electronics in addition to a full set of manual controls. Around ten years ago, I bought a Leica M8.2, Leica’s first attempt at digital in an M camera. Most people complained, but I was in heaven. It was for ME, and not for “work”. The biggest annoyance for me was that it had a small sensor, so a 35mm lens became my typical lens, and the 50 became an “85”, and rarely got used.
That’s where I’m at right now. Nikon’s new “Z” seres of cameras would be a logical step “upward”, but I lost interest - instead I took the $$ and bought a Leica M10. I guess that based on what you wrote, the M10 was an upgrade, but as I saw it, the M10 was just like the M3 except that it was digital.
Moving on, I was asking the guys in the Leica forum about the best way to shoot B&W with a Leica digital. If I put it in B&W mode, I’m getting JPEG images, which is a big step downwards. However, they suggested shooting in DNG (which works with PL4), and if I want, to also shoot a B&W jpeg image so I can visualize what I just shot.
I expect to try this when/if it ever stops raining in Miami Beach! 
I got curious - the only ones I could find are on ebay, which I tend to avoid. I looked up other models at KEH, and found a camera that sort of resembles a Hasselblad, with enough parts to maybe assemble a full camera. Then I read part of Ken Rockwell’s review. I see myself buying this, using it once, and then putting it away in storage. I also found this page:
https://www.keh.com/shop/search?q=view+cameras
No, I don’t think this would be a good idea for me.
I think I’ll stick to the cameras I already own, but thanks for the thought.
Besides, if I follow your advice, and use my digital cameras, I can shoot at high shutter speeds, high ISO speeds, and use all the PL4 tools without turning my photo into a picture of grain.
You know what I really don’t like about the Z series? It hasn’t got a “real” viewfinder and I detest using LCD finders because they can’t cope with low light or high dynamic range. It looks like the D810 might be my last Nikon if that were the case.
Why wouldn’t you use DNG? After all, it is Leica’s RAW file format.
Nah! Real photographers (film photographers) don’t need to look at the back of the camera. Why should shooting digital make any difference to that?
BTW, there have been rumours that DxO have finally “seen the light” and may be in the process of supporting Fuji X-Trans sensors - we’ll have to see what PL5 brings.
Unless you want to
So far, I have never enjoyed looking through a digital viewfinder as much as an optical one. My Fuji X100 cameras have both, and the digital view is like looking at a computer screen, while the optical view looks far more natural. If for no other reason (of which there are several) I have no interest in buying a new Z camera, which probably means I’m finished with buying new Nikons. Apparently there is a new D880 in the works:
https://www.dailycameranews.com/2021/03/more-insights-about-nikon-d880-camera-features/
Do I need 50+ megapixels?
Back to my Leica - the choices are DNG or JPG, so 99.9% of the time I shoot DNG. That’s what I have been doing, ever since the Leica M8.2, but PL4 doesn’t accept images from that older camera, so I need to convert to TIFF.
I remember seeing shapes with my very limited experience in LF. I didn’t really even think about this, but if you can clearly see colors, please disregard what I wrote.
If PL5 supports the Fuji sensors, that would be a big “plus” for me. While I have no desire to update my X100f into an X100v, I have no desire to sell it. I hope you’re right, but I’ll believe it when I see it. Last I heard, it was too much work for them, for too little of a benefit.
Enough… I’m going to try your suggestion, and create a B&W image with my M10.
Should be fun!
Excellent choice if I may say so.
Don’t forget to look for B&W subjects, not green animals on green grass
As my tutor would say: Form, Contrast, Texture
And, if you’ve got a deep red filter, take it with you to preview the lack of colour.
Oh, and you’re not allowed to look at the back of the camera
“Excellent” from your point of view, thoroughly confusing from mine.
I’ve taken the photo, just a straight photo looking at Miami from my balcony.
It (and the other files on that SD card) have been copied to my computer, and the image opens fine in PL4. I can open the image in PL4, but there is no reference to FilmPack on either of my docks. If I type in “FilmPack” in the search box for PL4, I see a lot of new choices, but no place does it actually say “FilmPack” on my screen. I’ve got Filter, Grain, Channel Mixer, Creative Vignetting, Blur, Frame, Texture, and Light Leak. Presumably these are the FilmPack controls?
But if I directly open “DxO FilmPack 5” on my computer, all I see is six samples. This makes no sense to me, so I’ll go back to PL4.
It seemed logical that I should search for a “how-to” description before I do anything, so I found this link:
https://www.dxo.com/project/convert-your-black-white-photos-with-dxo-filmpack-4/
Sounds great, but here’s one of the first things it says:
Unfortunately, I can’t find anything like this on my PL4 screen, and it wasn’t on my “FilmPack 5 screen” which only had sample images.
So, what thing(s) might I be doing incorrectly?
