Fake Film

Griffin said:
I cannot find words to describe how ludicrous this really is. I've seen people spend hours trying to make their DSLR films look like 8 mm. Hey, I know a quicker way to get that look...
USE REAL FILM
Click to expand...

Your argument is fatally flawed in that you state it takes 'hours' to make a digital shot look like film - I can shoot a picture, get the picture into lightroom/silver effex and have it converted into a b&w preset all in about 90 seconds. Can you buy, shoot, develop and scan & edit a roll of film in 90 seconds?

I'm not saying either is better, just that one is significantly faster and more convenient, and that's why there's a place for this software.
 
well, here we are discussing digital and film while looking at one another's photos on a computer monitor. i hazard to say that most people look at others' photos that are somehow digitized/electronicized - whatever you want to call it - rather than in magazines/books or hanging in galleries. and even when we look at film photos in magazines/books, they are generations removed from the original wet print. so, except in galleries or in our own darkrooms, most of us never see first generation film prints of others' work. this leaves us judging the aesthetic merit of a photo without ever seeing the original. what are we missing? i suspect not so much ... :)
 
Mythology about Digital?

A lot of History, maybe.

But if you want Mythology...

picture.php


picture.php


Grace Hopper wrote the first image processing code for a Leica in 1946.
 
Keith said:
It appears to be pretty good software and without going down the digital V film route I have to make one admission as a reaonably happy digital user. Occasionally, the lack of dynamic range of digital really pi$$es me off but when sensor technology fills in this gap, as it eventually will obviously, there will be no limitations and comparisons between the the two mediums will become pointless.
Click to expand...

Oh no. Dynamic range is one important area where digital and film diverge, but there are certainly more. Shooting and processing film is so very different than the equivalent activities using digital. We should expect very different results when the experience is so different. Experience shapes the result, does it not?
 
Chris101 said:
Oh no. Dynamic range is one important area where digital and film diverge
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced, considering as long as I get the highlights in the correct range I can then lift the shadows as much as 3-5 stops without much IQ loss with my 5d.

If anything, I think the potential range of tones is larger in modern digital cameras - the new sony sensors for instance have a huge amount of flexibility. All my film photographs on the other hand have blocked up shadows and there's nothing I can do about it.
 
If you do a lot of dodging and burning and use the right film and developer, film has better DR than digital cameras of up to 24x36mm sensor size. If you just point and click, and especially if you do that using old technology films, digital has much greater DR. it's just about how you use it.

Chris points out why I still use film - experience, history and process.

Marty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom