starless
Well-known
There are so many photographers, professional and amateur alike, who try to emulate a "film look" with their digital cameras. For example: converting to B/W, adding grain or any other effects that simulate analog capture, HDR (which always looks ridiculous anyway), the hipstamatic app craze, etc.
Isn't it better, and more effective, to just pick up a film camera? For the fraction of the price of an average digital setup they can get REAL film look.
So my question is to those who shoot digital and try to achieve an analog effect: why do you do it?
Isn't it better, and more effective, to just pick up a film camera? For the fraction of the price of an average digital setup they can get REAL film look.
So my question is to those who shoot digital and try to achieve an analog effect: why do you do it?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
This should go well then!
GSNfan
Well-known
They do it because its possible, and the difference is not discernible on the web and even in small to medium print -at least in the case of color.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
Easy answer: convenience. /thread
kshapero
South Florida Man
Each to their own.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
He he he, snicker yes.
To OP, I don't know as I have never tried to ape the film look with digital. They are what they are.
Bob
Well, since I would just scan the film and then use the image in lightroom anyway, shooting film hasn't appealed to me as much anymore. If I still was interested in being in a true wet darkroom for color & black and white, I would shoot film more for sure. 
For me, digital is safer, more convenient, and ultimately cheaper for my way of working... and I can do all my "darkroom" work in my apartment while multitasking on other things.
For me, digital is safer, more convenient, and ultimately cheaper for my way of working... and I can do all my "darkroom" work in my apartment while multitasking on other things.starless
Well-known
Ok, that makes sense. I also agree that once film goes through the scanner you end up with a digitally processed file anyway. So yes, some of the true 'film look' will inevitably be lost and you might as well shoot digital in the first place.
I guess my question is more about the aesthetics of a digital file that is post-processed to look like a film one. I don't want to post examples, but I've seen so many photographs that would have looked a lot better if no such effects had been applied.
Why do you go through all the trouble to alter a perfectly good capture in order to make it look like it's been shot on film, is the question?
Perhaps someone can post a few GOOD examples of such "film look" conversions?
I guess my question is more about the aesthetics of a digital file that is post-processed to look like a film one. I don't want to post examples, but I've seen so many photographs that would have looked a lot better if no such effects had been applied.
Why do you go through all the trouble to alter a perfectly good capture in order to make it look like it's been shot on film, is the question?
Perhaps someone can post a few GOOD examples of such "film look" conversions?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, since I would just scan the film and then use the image in lightroom anyway, shooting film hasn't appealed to me as much anymore. If I still was interested in being in a true wet darkroom for color & black and white, I would shoot film more for sure.
Or to put it another way, 'not concentrating'. Purely personally, I find that I do most things better (and enjoy them more) if I don't try to do too many things at once.
This isn't to say that your way or my way is better, just that we're sometimes tempted by others' ways of working, even when they are completely unsuitable for us.
Like you, I can't see much point in shooting then scanning colour, but wet-printed B+W is different, especially with Ilford's incredible new paper.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, yes, unless you're unable to handle film (brought up on digital), or don't care to print colour. For B+W there's just no contest for me.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
... and why, oh why, exactly, have people started capturing photographs anyway? cannot one simply take them? it was good enough for me! I just fail to what's the advantage, is whippersnapper still a word anyway ...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Stewart,
Well, perhaps some people use the word 'capture' because they torture them afterwards...
Cheers,
R.
Well, let me rephrase that. I'm not multitasking while editing / PP an image, but while printing a large print... it is nice to watch TV or go on the internet... while the thing slowly comes out of my printer.
kevin m
Veteran
Hey, I agree with Roger about something!
I have yet to read anything that adequately explains why digital B&W can't match the look of B&W film, but it many cases it truly is no contest. But I know a few photographers who SWEAR that "no one" can tell the difference between 35mm and medium format B&W film when printed smaller than 8x10, so maybe it's true that the general public really can't make these distinctions.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ah... you don't ENJOY watching paint dry, then.
Point fully taken, but partly, that's why I prefer the darkroom. You're constantly engaged with the process. Well, except with washing and drying, I suppose.
Cheers,
R.
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
Bingo! Comes down to this really...no other reason in my opinion.
back alley
IMAGES
after more than 30 years in the darkroom, i enjoy sitting on my butt and using photoshop.
btw, not everyone is trying to make digital look like film, many of us are quite pleased with the look of digital.
btw, not everyone is trying to make digital look like film, many of us are quite pleased with the look of digital.
PKR
Veteran
Sparrow
Veteran
I have someone else do all the boring bits ... in this last issue Zoom someone used the word bressonian, and I decided that was the way to go. Intresting artical btw on Alexey Titarenko.