Breakdown this image please

[ywenz]

This image was shot on film. If the goal of a digital workflow is to make the image film-like, then for me, this would be the ideal end result. Never mind the distortion from the Holga lens, what about this image that is so unachievable (or is it?) in the digital domain?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thisiswhatisee/351096552/in/pool-film_is_not_dead/

 

[lubitel]

are you asking if you can recreate holga look digitally or are you talking generally about film?

 

[markinlondon]

I think a lot of its character comes from the Holga's flarey lens. Maybe a cheap old M42 lens on a Canon via an adapter would give similar results. Maybe noone is trying for this kind of effect, surely it's possible.

 

[ywenz]

are you asking if you can recreate holga look digitally or are you talking generally about film?

No, I said nevermind the distortion from the Holga lens, what about this image: its color tone, other intangibles that are so different than digital, and so hard to achieve with digital, even with a lot of post.

Just look at those orange slices... I can imagine them looking no where as good if it was taken with a digital camera.

 

[Sparrow]

The low angle the light’s coming in at and the transparent materials have a lot to do with it, same effect you get with a low sun on moving water, move round 180° and it wouldn’t look as good on either film or digital.

 

[RayPA]

maybe the dynamic range and the little sublties around the highlights as they are reflected on the tabletop would be difficult to reproduce exactly with digital.

.

 

[sf]

I could do this with my D200, an adapter, and some lens of sketchy quality. Or maybe a Lensbaby. Even just placing broken lenses in front of the taking lens would work - and with RAW and good photoshop skills, nearly anything can be done.

This is blasphemy, but I sincerely believe I am right.

I'm selling my digital to buy another film scanner...

 

[Sparrow]

maybe the dynamic range and the little sublties around the highlights as they are reflected on the tabletop would be difficult to reproduce exactly with digital.

.

Yes but generally good light, good pic whatever the gear,
having said that I’ve very little experience of digital so your opinion is probably more informed

 

[RayPA]

I don't know if I agree so much that the goal of a digital workflow is to produce film-like images. I think the goal is produce quality images. However, if we predicate/benchmark "quality" on a film-based standard, which we probably do, then I'd agree. But, when I work with digital exclusively, I don't consciously try to make a film-like images.

good idea for a thread.


🙂

 

[RayPA]

Yes but generally good light, good pic whatever the gear,
having said that I’ve very little experience of digital so your opinion is probably more informed

I can definitely agree with that. This image being an example. I don't know about being more informed, but I think there's a little loss between digital and analogl, kind of like what some folks claim is the difference between an lp and a cd.

.

 

[ferider]

Like George said, a lensbaby might give similar results.

In any case, it's hard for me to focus on anything else with the geometrical and focus distortions outside of the center - but that's just me. Not that they are bad, but they seem integral to the picture/composition.

Roland.

 

[furcafe]

I'm w/markinlondon & shutterflower. Given the same light & setting & using a uncoated lens, I think you could replicate the shot pretty closely w/a digital.

I'm pretty sure the Holgamod guy sells a Holga lens you can mount on the Canon & Nikon dSLRs. I wrote hime a while back re: making a LTM version, which would rock, but never received a response.

 

[charjohncarter]

Too bad you didn't take a digital shot at the same time, so everyone could try to come close. I have to agree with you, I don't think it would be that easy. Yesterday, I took some rich, saturated, warm, smooth, slides that were almost sensual to be scanned. I spent a couple hours last night trying to get the digital image to come close. And those started life as transparencies. I have yet to be satisfied in color and especially B&W with digital camera images. I use digital and have three digital cameras, but I only say 'wow' when it is film.

 

[kmack]

I don't know if I agree so much that the goal of a digital workflow is to produce film-like images. I think the goal is produce quality images.
...
good idea for a thread.
🙂

I'm with Ray here. You chose a Holga in this case. If you would have shot the same scene with a Contax 645 with a digital back, or a Bessa R , Pentax k100D, or a 4x5 monorail with Fuji Quickload ... etc then each photo would have the signature of the type of equipment used. The lens in question will have a greater impact on the image than the medium.

In addition. We are judging an image that has been digitized for the web. The capture medium will have less impact when viewed via the web.

The real test would be a 11x14 enlargment on paper. Then you would have to specify inkjet vs print ... on and on...

What really matters is the photographers vision and/or the clients wishes.
.

 

[charjohncarter]

By the way, I think your image is a 'wow'.

 

[kmack]

BTW: You have a great Holga there, nice flare and OOF, don't let that one get away...

 

[Nick R.]

I know what you mean, ywenz. In a studio setup, I took a group of portrait shots alternating between film and digital. When I showed the prints later to some people, they liked the look of the film prints better. (I didn't tell them that they were from different media. I just said they were different cameras. ) This is with the exact same lighting and model. I haven't scanned the film shots so I can't post them here, but when you see the film shots you know they're different. They seem to have depth -a depth I can't duplicate in digital.