appeal of film over digital?

[santino]

Nice iPhone pic 😉

 

[DownUnder]

I doubt that, if i posted photos and didn't include the tech info of their making, anyone here would ever be able to say which of them were made with a film camera or a digital camera.

G

To me this makes the most sense of (my disclaimer here =) almost all the posts I've read in this thread. Including mine...

 

[DownUnder]

Oh, my...

First I got a Yashica FX7 with a Yashica ML 50/1.4 the other day.

Then a Canon IID with a very nice chrome Canon 50/1.8 from the Christmas thread.

Now last night I ordered a Pentax PZ-1P as well to go along with the K-3 digital camera I bought at the beginning of the month.

Guess I like both! 🤣 🤣 🤣

Toys for boys.

Says me. And I should know...

 

[Bob Michaels]

my inquiry today is what are the attributes about a film image that others like as compared to digital. ..........................Is there a look with film that can't be reproduced with digital processing?

I resolved this question for me in 2006 when I saw the exhibit "On the Beach" a series of random beach portraits made over six years on California and Florida beaches. Amazon product ASIN 0978907205 I had met the two photographers and now own the book.

The exhibit was a collection of about 40 16x20 color prints (print size, not frame size) and knew that about half were shot 6x7 chrome and half digital. After being blown away at the opening, I returned the next week specifically to see if I could determine which prints were from 6x7 chrome capture and which were digital. I could not.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Funny, but when 35 mm film was king, I remember people's ideals being mostly about speed, efficiency, and speed. These prevailing attitudes shaped Leica M cameras at least through the M7. If anyone was speaking in favor of slowing down and being more contemplative, they were in the minority. Yet here we are, 2+ decades later, and some of those very same cameras are now upheld as examples of slowing-down and being more contemplative, what the heck?

We tend to forget that back in those days, those who shot a lot of film set shutter speed, aperture, and pretty much focused in an instant, like while bringing the camera up to your eye. There was no taking a light meter reading, seeing where the camera was set, and adjusting it. We knew where our settings were and knew if the scene needed a bit more or a bit less light, that it was a unseen click or two with assurance it was good. Focus was no rack in and out, finally settling when the RF was aligned. It was automatic instatenous tweak and click. We've become slow and lazy.

 

[Freakscene]

I'm not getting the point in this discussion about curves and digital - don't most raw conversion tools have curve adjustments? Or do you mean curves being applied in-camera before it even saves a raw file? How would you even know?

(That said I'm also a bit baffled by Affinity wanting to confirm certain kinds of adjustments before it will "develop" certain kinds of raw file and let you use the rest of the tools in the develop persona that you can use immediately on other kinds of raw files.)

We were discussing a camera with in-built capacity to edit curves from RAW files - essentially a camera with a RAW converter built in.

 

[Beemermark]

Why do my digital cameras have so many settings to duplicate film looks?

 

[yossi]

I use this app to make my iPhone pix look like film image. "Bring back the timeless magic of film." so it said. Quite silly I must say 😅


Real man shoots double-x.

 

[Freakscene]

I use this app to make my iPhone pix look like film image. "Bring back the timeless magic of film." so it said. Quite silly I must say 😅

View attachment 4853342
Real man shoots double-x.

The screen image looks gorgeous. In good light my iPhone is way better than 135 film in every measureable way, but I guess not in ‘timeless magic’ or ‘manliness’ 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[Godfrey]

Why do my digital cameras have so many settings to duplicate film looks?

Because camera manufacturers pander to the silliness of many of their customers.

I've never used a single camera's "preset looks" other than the ones I defined for myself. And that pretty rarely, since I most ordinarily capture exclusively raw format image files.

G

 

[Harry the K]

Because camera manufacturers pander to the silliness of many of their customers.

I've never used a single camera's "preset looks" other than the ones I defined for myself. And that pretty rarely, since I most ordinarily capture exclusively raw format image files.

G

Fuji Film Simulations often just nail what I want to achieve. Nikon Picture Control dito. Still I don´t feel silly.

That DIY attitude stemming from the days of home developing and darkrooms is as dubious as it was in former times.
Who mixed the chemicals, who wrote the software?
The majority used/uses prefabricated means to get results.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

Fuji Film Simulations often just nail what I want to achieve. Nikon Picture Control dito. Still I don´t feel silly.

That DIY attitude stemming from the days of home developing and darkrooms is as dubious as it was in former times.
Who mixed the chemicals, who wrote the software?
The majority used/uses prefabricated means to get results.

Harry the K, well said, bravo!

Mike

 

[Godfrey]

Fuji Film Simulations often just nail what I want to achieve. Nikon Picture Control dito. Still I don´t feel silly.

That DIY attitude stemming from the days of home developing and darkrooms is as dubious as it was in former times.
Who mixed the chemicals, who wrote the software?
The majority used/uses prefabricated means to get results.

Good for you!

DIY was never dubious except for amateurs who didn't bother to learn what they were doing. And what "the majority" uses/used points out why the "DIY" methodologies can be traced mostly to the exceptional photographers' work.

There's nothing wrong with being an amateur and taking advantage of all those film simulations. But they are silly in the context of working digital image capture and the extraordinary capabilities that image processing provides to go beyond what film is capable of achieving.

G

 

[Harry the K]

Good for you!

DIY was never dubious except for amateurs who didn't bother to learn what they were doing. And what "the majority" uses/used points out why the "DIY" methodologies can be traced mostly to the exceptional photographers' work.

There's nothing wrong with being an amateur and taking advantage of all those film simulations. But they are silly in the context of working digital image capture and the extraordinary capabilities that image processing provides to go beyond what film is capable of achieving.

G

Nothing against DIY, I love the concept.
But the ATTITUDE that an image is better just because you worked on the RAW yourself should acknowledge the limitations: Unless you wrote the code of the RAW developer, you go just one little step deeper as the "amateurs who didn´t bother to learn", who are using silly things like film simulatios.
Besides, the dividing line between amateurs and pros (seems simple- it´s earning a living or not) is not the same as between average shooters and exceptional photographers (a title that should be defined- can you?).

 

[Bob Michaels]

In good light my iPhone is way better than 135 film in every measureable way, but I guess not in ‘timeless magic’ or ‘manliness’ 🤷🏻‍♂️

So true. Right in line with my long term observation that 97% of the general public assess a photograph based on its visual impact. The other 3% are photographers who are more interested in technological details than what the photo actually says.

That is why you never want to pay too much attention to comments of other photographers about your photography/ They will influence your photography towards other photographers and not the general public.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

So true. Right in line with my long term observation that 97% of the general public assess a photograph based on its visual impact. The other 3% are photographers who are more interested in technological details than what the photo actually says.

I'm not so sure it's "visual impact" (and that term seems somewhat nebulous, itself). I think the general public assesses, and has the strongest responses to, photographs based on what they're "of" (which can be very different from content, i.e., what they're "about").
As an experiment, post a picture here on RFF, where we are all photographers, of a cat or dog. Any picture of a cat or dog. I guarantee it will get a huge number of "likes", regardless of the actual quality of the image. And I will confess right here, I'm a sucker for a kitty picture. Any kitty picture!

 

[Leon C]

I'm not so sure it's "visual impact" (and that term seems somewhat nebulous, itself). I think the general public assesses, and has the strongest responses to, photographs based on what they're "of" (which can be very different from content, i.e., what they're "about").
As an experiment, post a picture here on RFF, where we are all photographers, of a cat or dog. Any picture of a cat or dog. I guarantee it will get a huge number of "likes", regardless of the actual quality of the image. And I will confess right here, I'm a sucker for a kitty picture. Any kitty picture!

My daughter has done multiple tests over the years on Social Media and Cat pictures always get the most likes, post about something serious and it's tumbleweed....

And to add...personally I don't really care about the tech details of most pictures unless they are my own and I'm evaluating them for some reason so not sure the 3% thing applies here but then we all have different reasons for being a photographer, so nothing is definative.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

So true. Right in line with my long term observation that 97% of the general public assess a photograph based on its visual impact. The other 3% are photographers who are more interested in technological details than what the photo actually says.

That is why you never want to pay too much attention to comments of other photographers about your photography/ They will influence your photography towards other photographers and not the general public.

As far as the second half of your post, I do want to make photos for other photographers; any visual medium is very much about the dialog between its practitioners, over time, sometimes centuries! But just as much, I want my work to be accessible to the general public, people who don't know Edward Weston from Cecil Beaton, and don't care. People are eager to see their world presented to them with a fresh vision that makes them stop and think, even if for a brief moment, about their relationship with the world.
And Bob, your work (for example) does just that. I look at your photos with the trained eye of a photographer, and appreciate their technical excellence. Yet even more so, I appreciate the deep human insight and connection they offer. I don't have to be a photographer to appreciate that!

 

[Godfrey]

Nothing against DIY, I love the concept.
But the ATTITUDE that an image is better just because you worked on the RAW yourself should acknowledge the limitations: Unless you wrote the code of the RAW developer, you go just one little step deeper as the "amateurs who didn´t bother to learn", who are using silly things like film simulatios.
Besides, the dividing line between amateurs and pros (seems simple- it´s earning a living or not) is not the same as between average shooters and exceptional photographers (a title that should be defined- can you?).

That's completely incorrect. You certainly DON'T have to be a raw conversion app developer to be able to use and have a huge range of flexibility in the rendering of your data.. If you are operating on the raw image data (usually 12 to 14 bit depth), you can push it any way you want within a great range.

And there's something to be said for the fact that you can also use as many different raw converters as you like if you find that one or another does things so radically different that you find another to be a better pick for some particular data. I have not found this to be the case for the most part ... I have experimented with about a dozen different commercially available raw converters and found that I could achieve, to the limits of visual perception, the same results with all of them. I can measure differences in the output, but I can't see them in other words.

You see, many people treat a raw converter as a set processing algorithm and never explore their limits. They never define their own camera calibrations, they never explore modifying the raw converter defaults to tune a particular camera's output to be better for their desired results, etc etc. For such people, a film simulator may offer advantages because they have no idea how to achieve the result that they want, which some film simulation may do with a simple press of a button. The film simulations all rest upon manipulating the data with the raw converter in whatever app package they are included in.

Film simulations push the data in one directed way and output typically at 8bit compressed data ... leaving only very very small degrees of freedom to editability left without damaging the data. Remember that a JPEG file at full resolution represents a process that discarded more than 60% of the actual information in the original raw image data.

With regard to your philosophical questions about what divides amateurs and pros, or "average shooters" and "exceptional photographers" belong to some other discussion thread. I'm not in a particularly philosophical mood... I'm just working on some photos at present and don't want to be distracted too much by that stuff.

G

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (nikkor h auto 50mm f2) nikkormat ftn

Amsterdam, 1974