When done click on the small “file” symbol on the upper right and choose JPEG or compressed or uncompressed TIFF at 8 or 16 bit. Here I’ve chosen Fuji Acros 100 and deepened the blue sky and raised contrast on the yellow and magenta tone rendition using the Channel Mixer sliders. Click on one, choose side-by-side view in the upper left Nav area, and then modify as you see fit using the monochrome controls in the right side slider toolbar. Click on the preset tab, here I’ve chosen Black and White, and you get a set of “foundation” options across the bottom. The DxO FilmPack 3.1 workspace is straightforward. The right side has the slider options, which are numerous and interactive with the image on the screen.
The tabs include Color Positive, Color Negative, Black and White, Cross Processed, Creative Presets, and Custom Presets, the last being “emulsions of your own making.” Under each category you get numerous options, except for Cross Processed which seems somewhat bereft at only two options, and the ability to alter and modify the “looks” with a sidebar set of sliders. Once an image is opened you have a choice of tabs and previews at the base of the main workspace, which you can configure to see the image alone or as a before and after or split view. I tested the Expert edition and judging by the specs the Essential edition lacks many of the modifications and controls you’d want to use to get the most from the program’s potential, so my advice would be to stick with the Expert one.įilmPack 3.1 has a rather basic interface.
#DXO FILM PACK 3 PRO PC#
Working as a stand-alone or plug-in for the usual suspects with Mac or PC compatibility, the program runs $79 for the “Essential” edition and $129 for the “Expert” edition. In any case, I recently tested one such program, DxO’s FilmPack 3.1, to see if it offered up creative variations that could be used as is or as foundation images when interpreting subjects and scenes.
#DXO FILM PACK 3 PRO SOFTWARE#
Perhaps using film names is better than poetic fantasy terms, like “misty blue dawn,” but then again entirely subjective descriptors, rather than supposedly clinical ones used in these software programs, might be just as handy for today’s photography crowd. Half academic and half nostalgic, the programs use film brand names to describe saturation, contrast, color nuance, and grain structure variations that are then applied to an image. The question is-does anybody really know what a given image would look like if they shot it on Kodachrome 25, or Fuji Acros, or some obscure color negative film that even in film’s heyday was little used or appreciated? Perhaps the more pertinent question is-how many people have made photographs using film? But film references are what a number of so-called film emulation software programs use for describing presets that can be applied to a digital image.
0 kommentar(er)
