A film look? A digital look?

[Bill Pierce]

In a recent post, Erwin Puts states, "I prefer the different representations of the current slide and color films over the uniform reproduction of the digital post processing." He goes on to say that over the last five years he has intensely photographed with 3 digital cameras and that when he prints similar images from these different cameras hardly anyone will notice a specific Leica quality.

I think he is correct. But i don't think I am particularly interested in a camera quality as much as an individual photographer quality. Most people don't have any problem identifying a Gene Smith print or an Irving Penn print.

I know almost inevitably I am going to use a steeper curve and lower saturation than most people use with their digital images. That Photoshop "look" might compare with choosing a specific film in the non digital world. Eric Meola has a look, and he was one of the first "non-journalistic" photographers to turn to digital. I know very few digital photographers who just accept what comes out of the camera. Most tailor the image to their own particular tastes, often much more that they were able to do in the film world.

Any thoughts or comments?

 

[Al Kaplan]

When I think of a Gene Smith or Irving Penn image my mind sees a B&W image. Penn leaned towards very studied carefully lit compositions while Smith worked in much more fluid uncontollable situations. Smith's printing style was a lot more dramatic, with a lot of "post processing" under the enlarger and in the developer tray, the use of potassium ferracyanide to brighten highlights, just a whole different style than Penn.

Not much pro photography, whether journalism or studio, appears in print as black and white images these days, not even in the daily newspapers.

In color we had little choice. The publications, other than some newspapers who made their seperations directly from negatives, wanted chromes. Local manipulation of color or contrast wasn't an option with them. With B&W I think that a skilled printer working with a variable contrast paper can compete with the digital work flow in everything but the time required to get it to press.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Another part of the digital look is a sort of airbrushed smoothness which is much rarer in film.

Cheers,

R.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I assume Puts is just talking about pleasing himself. For most people, even discerning lovers of photography, the medium will be the last thing they notice about your work. But it's part of what gives the photographer pleasure--the process--the particular, if hairsplitting, differences among different capture methods. And an artist who is pleased by his process will do better work.

 

[edodo]

I believe spotting differences between a film or a digital image comes with eye education. But those differences are still more profound than this.
Movies engaging big budgets still shoot with film for a reason. People still prefer film against digital because IMHO everyone knows unconsciously they prefer film for that "it's like reality" feeling when watching a sunset filmed at the cinekino, it has something to do with old habits and confort reguarding the color definition and dynamical scale of light they have grown used to.
Black and white movies have a lovely rendering to them, still a good medium these days to make movies.
The cinema parallel with photography can apply to a certain extent in my opinion.

 

[Bill Pierce]

I can't make film look like digital. And I have to confess, I don't have any desire to. But I can make digital mimic film. Basically, I add grain and change the curve both to color and black-and-white.

I have mixed film originals and digital, silver and inkjet. I've shown prints to major curators, photographers who are excellent printers themselves and just regular folks. I've gotten in the habit, after they have looked at the pictures, of asking the curators and the photographers if they realized they were looking at the aforementioned mix. Admittedly, I did not ask this question before I showed the prints. But I didn't ask idiots. No one, not a single person, noticed a difference.

 

[macmx]

One can keep discussing film versus digital, and I will not make that mistake today. I think it is futile. However, I think film is more fun to shoot, more fun to print and is a fantastic medium. Some people love working on computers and editing images until they are absolutely perfect, which I can completely understand. I don't think either can objectively be preferred.

You can go fast around a race track in a Ferrari formula one car, and you can go fast around a race track in a 250 SWB - no one can determine which you, as the unique person you are, find more amusing.

I think film can look like digital, digital can look like film, film be noticeably analogue and digital can be noticeably digital. There a many other and more important parameters to consider when contemplating these options.

 

[Merkin]

I miss wet darkroom printing, but I don't regret switching to digital. I have maintained or even improved my ratio of hits to misses, but I am getting a lot more shooting, post processing, and printing done with digital. It may not be as fun, and it may not be as rewarding on a per print basis, but it is more rewarding on the whole. With film, I had to choose between quality and quantity, and with digital, I can have both. Someday I will set up another wet darkroom, just for fun, but even if I did, my 'serious' shooting would still get done with digital.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Some people love working on computers and editing images until they are absolutely perfect, which I can completely understand.

I'm not sure that's everyone's goal with digital, though. It isn't mine. It's possible to let serendipity and the particular qualities of the medium work for you, just like with film. Different strengths, perhaps, but shooting digital doesn't necessarily mean shooting for perfection.

 

[macmx]

Agreed. I do not flatter myself with notions of being able to asses what different peoples goals are. You are absolutely right. I was trying to point out two extremes. Some people love spending hours in the darkroom and some in front of the computer.

Mind you I spend a lot of time in front of the computer, but that's not all photo related (-;

 

[shadowfox]

One can keep discussing film versus digital, and I will not make that mistake today. I think it is futile. However, I think film is more fun to shoot, more fun to print and is a fantastic medium. Some people love working on computers and editing images until they are absolutely perfect, which I can completely understand. I don't think either can objectively be preferred.

Well said.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I would add that certainly when looking at most web-sized images, I'm almost NEVER struck by the quality "digital!" or "film!" And even if I think of that question, I can't tell which is which on the web. Only when I see highly processed images do I think of the source... HDR digital images for example, or super-pushed-or-pulled Tri-X. Then either one screams out "Look at this... I can manipulate the image!"

Big prints on a wall... maybe that's another matter, but I've actually never seen someone show side-by-side large prints of the same image... one done with digital, one with film. Until then, I'm with you Bill... the quality and character of an image comes almost entirely from the photographer, not the medium.

 

[ferider]

Given a blind test, I do sometimes recognize a photographer, out of my favorites, including maybe 5-10 here on RFF.

I also sometimes recognize a lens if used under the right conditions - the older the lens, the easier.

Impossible for me to distinguish digital vs film from web images, unless it's obvious (high iso, noise vs. grain).

For example, a couple of months ago somebody on the LUG did a blind test. I recognized that either Summilux pre-asph 50/1.4 or 75/1.4 was used, but had no idea which it was due to possible crop factor. A decently lit restaurant scene, in B+W. It turned out it was M8 + 50/1.4 pre-asph, but it could have been Neopan 1600 and the 75 as well, at least judging from the web image.

My 2 cents.

Roland.

 

[Roma]

I shoot mostly with B&W film and so far I haven't seen a good solid black in a digital print (part of which could be the ink or paper problem, but part of it is definitely the lack of deep shadow information in digital technology so far). When I see people add grain to mimic film on digital files, the bright highlights stay blank, unlike the bright highlights with grain on a darkroom fiber print.
As other people mentioned, I just prefer working with film from beginning of the process until the final darkroom print. It feels more hands-on.

 

[semordnilap]

Digital has been really great for me... Though I learned on film, I never got along so well with darkroom chemicals, while computers have always been second nature to me. SO... it's easier for me to achieve the look I want from digital than it ever has been from film. Not that it's a complicated look, but I have a control that I never had before, and I can experiment in ways I never could before. For me, that is really something special.

A computer takes up a lot less space and requires less dedication than a darkroom. At the same time, as Bill said, there are far fewer limitations with digital than with film, and that, I think, is why we see such extremity in processing: Because it's easy, because it's eye-catching, and because it eventually becomes a style. This tendency for people to process digital in a certain way: high saturation, high sharpening, makes for a uniformity of look. That style will surely change, as it has with film in the past, and we will see other ideas come along.

Regarding style, I think Bill is right: in looking at a photograph, we are looking for certain qualities that make it work for us as a photograph, not for the method of its production, unless we are overly interested in technical aspects or looking for a way to copy the technical quality in the photograph.

I think the idea of a film look versus a digital look can have something to do with the stance the photographer is trying to take, the overall feel they are trying to create, and the tradition they are attempting to place themselves within. Film seems to be associated with a reaction, a vintage look, and digital with the super-saturated look discussed above. From one side, those who disparage digital do so, at least in part, in order to differentiate themselves from the 'mass' of images out there. ***I don't mean those who use film, I mean those who actively disparage digital.***

Beyond these debates is a personal style. If that style has elements of a film or digital look, then so be it, but it cannot be defined by them–it must have qualities beyond.

 

[photogdave]

My interpretation of Erwin's point is that a film type can be a constant reference point no matter what other variables are employed to produce the image.
You can shoot with Velvia and overexpose, underexpose, sharpen your scans, increase contrast etc. but it will always be Velvia.
I can see the logic in that because it's kind of hard to look at an image and say "that screams Canon 20D" or whatever. (Although I feel I am getting fairly adept at identifying images from the RD-1/D70 sensor!)
I will question the desire to need to identify the particular sensor or film type, unless it's because one really liked the look and wanted to recreate it.
As usual, film, digital - whatever!

 

[dws21uk]

I think for me it's the crop factor in digital that makes the images look 'different' to film as it changes the DoF too. Have finally managed to afford a D700 and am liking the B&W images I can create from it using DxO film pack. A first effort:

35mm f/2.8 1/40 ISO 1000 (incandescent light)

 

[Al Kaplan]

It's more than film vs. digital. Stick the camera on a tripod and you'll get a different look just because you can't move the camera around so easily. Use a commercial view camera with swings and tilts and know how to use them (a dying art) and you'll get a different look.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

I agree with Mr. Puts that different films & different lenses produce different looks. With digital photoshop seems to intercede and present uniform "graphic" look. Sometimes utilizing the computer the image is so altered that it becomes an unreal image vis-a-vis computer generated movies. We may be speaking of early digital cameras and the excitement over photoshop. The more recent digital high end cameras are now made to perform more like film cameras, i.e. better black and white images and full frame and some returning to fixed focal length lenses.

 

[Bike Tourist]

Gene Smith and HCB and Ansel Adams and whoever used the materials and processes of their day to convey their respective visions. If they were practicing today they would use the materials and processes available today and would, no doubt, produce images with a different character.

Can you imagine Gene Smith submitting his Tri-X outtakes today to Magnum or even Shutterstock and being rejected for noise? No, he'd be using digital, probably color.

Of that, I'm pretty confident.