Virtual Studio, free standalone sofware

[gobs]

Virtual Studio

Part 1

 

Browsing the Internet for B&W “grain”, I found this little free standalone editing software here:

 

http://www.optikvervelabs.com/virtualstudio.asp

 

It’s called Virtual Studio and is very fast to download and install. Maybe you know it already, in this case you may skip the following posts…

Many usual tweakings are available, but also many presets and/or you can “emulate” by yourself B&W and color films and slides (but not mominally). It may add “grain” (a sort of…) as well, up to your taste. No HDR though, but hey!..

You can chose not to use the presets and do your own cooking…

It’s a funny little thing and easy to use. It works great on JPEG files and though it’s said to work for “some” RAW  files, it doesn’t open my Olympus RAW ones…

 

Ok, let me show you a bit…

Here is a casual JPEG street pic as it comes from RAW with no post editing.

Full pic:

 

Crop at 100%:

 

More to follow...

[gobs]

href="/monthly_2016_08/57b1f44d41c9d_CopyofMarchandeSlideWarm100asa.jpg.557b36fbec44cf5e374a0c6962ca6c04.jpg">

Virtual Studio

Part 2

 

The same pic on a slide preset I ajusted myself to my taste:

 

Crop at 100%:

 

More to follow...

[gobs]

href="/monthly_2016_08/57b1f56ed21fa_CopyofMarchandeNB100asa.jpg.81f7027bc6a96d3a415499fff1f77f74.jpg">

Virtual Studio

Part 3

 

Now some emulated B&W pics...

The same pic on a B&W 100 ASA preset I ajusted a bit myself with added “automatic” grain:

 

Crop at 100%:

 

More to follow...

[gobs]

href="/monthly_2016_08/57b1f61dd07ab_MarchandeNB400asaCrop.jpg.2956f6cdb631183a4d47d6c219777f5e.jpg">

Virtual Studio

Part 4

 

Now B&W 400 ASA slightly modified preset with “automatic” grain:

 

Same cropping:

 

More to follow...

[gobs]

href="/monthly_2016_08/57b1f6e625a01_CopyofMarchandeNB1600asa.jpg.b5f28cde9de72cef4cca8631626e42ae.jpg">

Virtual Studio

Part 5

 

Ending with B&W 1600 ASA with “automatic” grain:

 

Crop as above:

 

Obviously the “grain” is not the real thing, and too much (1600 ASA) is really over and quite ugly. But I feel this “grain”, if used with “attention”, and its strength can be ajusted when editing, can give some “consistancy” to B&W digital pics, at least on my screen (I didn’t try to print).

 

And, and, and...

[gobs]

href="/monthly_2016_08/57b1f87db208b_PortraitInstant800asa.jpg.2c59903b328fb5ba8b633341781d6c75.jpg">

Virtual Studio

Part 6

 

To finish and for fun, 2 presets on a portrait pic…

Original JPEG file (no editing, no preset):

 

The same portrait with preset called “Fluttered” (slightly adjusted with "grain"):

 

A preset called “Instant” (slightly adjusted):

 

Funny, isn’t it?

There are dozens of presets we may chose (or not) from. For my taste, many are on the “too much” side, but to each one its own taste.

It has to be noticed this software is not intented to be a pro one. So, please, take it easy…

 

Cheers,

Ray

[rhythmworx]

[rhythmworx]

I couldn't reply in the post, but does the image I posted look anything like Tri-X 400 ?

 

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by rhythmworx
multiple typos :-)

[gobs]

Thank you for your interest, Rythmnwork...

Though, I can't really judge the "TriX400" example you posted. Too many variables may impact the film rendition: light, exposure, lens and for sure the film and print processings.

I'm far from an expert but by my own experience, and apart the "grain" appearance, different films give first different global renditions on the whole picture.

Underexpose, overprocess or this or that a bit, and the film character changes...

 

BTW some years ago I made some B&W 400 ASA film tests to look at them a bit "deeper" if I may say...

So to give you an idea of the global rendition, here is the central part of a 12x16 (30cm x 40cm) scanned wet print from TriX400 film standard processed in Kodak D76 1+1 developer, then print at a standard contrast exposure in a standard Kodak D72 developer bath, well all standard in my book :

 

 

Then to show the "grain" structure a crop in the center of a 20x24 print (50cm x 60cm) of the same neg. This means the 24x36 neg wad enlarged 17 times:

 

 

Ok it's not as obvious as on the pic in real flesh, though one can see/guess the "grain" appearing and its distribution.

Through my eyes the "grain" it's a nice feature on B&W films. It gives texture, substance and volume to the pic. As I'm not found of pure resolution, it's why I only shoot 400 ASA films: delicate "grain", good contrast and tons of grays if well processed.

As well as hudge exposure latitude... that helps sometimes

 

Thanks again...

 

Cheers,

Ray

[gobs]

Grain, sort of…

Part 1

 

By chance I found shootings close to the above, I made some weeks ago, in my archives, but shot with my digital Oly OMD instead of film. Same lens, the soviet Jupiter 8, but a bit different target and light though not so much.

So, to compare, I tried to get some results with the Virtual Studio film and grain editings, from the original Olympus RAW file converted to a JPEG file with no post-editing.

 

At first, the 16 MP color file as a whole that will be used as a base for all the following editings:

 

Second, the B&W derivated from the pic above with no alteration (I just pressed the “convert to monochrome” button, nothing more):

 

Third, the 16 MP original color JPEG file above edited with Virtual Studio for B&W, settings on: Film 1 current preset, Original style current preset (no filter), and added “grain” at a “strong” preset:

 

Fourth, the 16 MP original color JPEG file above edited with Virtual Studio for B&W, settings on: Film 2 current preset, Original style current preset (no filter), and added “grain” at a “medium” preset:

 

As it is and due to the pics size allowed on the forum, there are no hudge differences between the three B&W pics, a bit punchier/contrastier pic maybe on the 4th B&W Film 2 VS setting though. Everything being ajustable in Virtual Studio, it’s not a big deal here where we are more talking about fake film grain…

Though, is it because I did it or because I'm a B&W film fan, it seems to me the two last "grained" pics exhibit more presence and more volume into them.

Or maybe I'm just a full naive and simple guy

 

Well, no matter: crops to come in the following post…

 

 

[gobs]

Connection problem solved it seems...

 

Grain, sort of…

Part 2

 

Now a look at a center cropped area on these digital B&W pics at 100%…

 

First, crop of the B&W pic directly issued from the “converted to monochrome” only JPEG file:

 

Second, crop from the B&W pic edited in Virtual Studio, Film 1, with a strong grain preset:

 

Third, crop from the B&W pic edited in Virtual Studio, Film 2, with a medium grain preset:

 

 

Here, one can notice the difference, between the 3 pics:

The first one, direct conversion with no added grain, is very sleek and “flat” (not a nice B&W rendition for me)*, meanwhile the second and third ones show more “substance/material” and more modeling, ie. the digital “grain” added.

At the end, I feel the “digital grain” rendition and distribution not so “wrong”, if used with wariness, compared to the real thing on film. Well IMHO of course and your taste may differ…

 

Out of curiousity I printed the three crops above on a average photo paper in my average Epson office printer and I must admit the results are rather surprising and pleasant though the paper has nothing to do with the wet print darkroom paper quality and its blacks rendition/deepness.

I guess if those above digitally grained crops were printed on a high grade photo paper through a photo enhanced printer, many friends hobbyist film photographers wouldn’t make any difference vs film.

And keep in mind the free Virtual Studio software is not a pro one. So imagine a pro one…

 

Oh! And as a note, and correct me if I’m wrong about the figures:

A 16 MP JPEG file (as above in Part 1) printed at 300 dpi resolution gives about a 12 x 16 (30cm x 40 cm) nice print.

A 12 x 16 (30cm x 40 cm) print from a half Full Frame sensor means a 17 times enlargement. So about the same enlargement as the crop shown in the post 9 in the center area of a wet print from TriX 400 ASA 135 film.

Now, look at the 3rd crop above with “medium digital grain” and compare… Nice film rendition, isn’t it?

 

For my part, I’m amazed by the B&W results I can get this way. Really, amazed, and I’ll give it more tries!

But I understand YMMV…

 

Cheers,

Ray

 

* I don't say here digital B&W is bad or ugly. I would say it's too good, too "clean", too "surgical" for me. It has something scientific in its rendition. Maybe is it because I come from B&W film...

Though, I do appreciate and do like to use digital color photography for its wide latitude to be distorted... or not.