Film Emulation

[bmattock]

Personally, I like film and I like digital. I don't mind that digital photos don't look like film.

However I notice that many digital cameras offer film emulator modes. Some software packages offer the same. Reviewers use terms like 'filmic' and film-like, etc.

I don't really find myself attracted to such things. If I want film-like attributes, then film provides that. If I shoot digital, I don't.

It's like my love of vinyl records. Some have surface noise. I live with it. That doesn't mean I want to hear scratches and pops on a digital music file. But they have such things. I don't understand the attraction.

How about you?

 

[charjohncarter]

I'm with you even the vinyl records. RAWtherapee has a huge set of digital to film choices, I've tried them but it isn't the same or even near.

 

[bmattock]

I'm with you even the vinyl records. RAWtherapee has a huge set of digital to film choices, I've tried them but it isn't the same or even near.

Frankly, I clench up whenever some millenial talks about the attraction to vinyl records being the surface noise. Uh, no darling. We tried our best to avoid that, and most of my records don't have any, because I took care of them. Surface noise not something I am nostalgic for. I like vinyl because I like the way it sounds without surface noise.

 

[brbo]

Yeah, when I want that film look I go to the nearest store and buy Reala, Portra NC, Provia 400X, Ektachrome or Kodachrome.






(I don't like film emulation software. Not because of the idea, but because they do not produce the result I expect.)

 

[bmattock]

How about a modern car with vapor lock emulation mode or brake fade emulator or bias-ply tire slide.

 

[brbo]

So it's really the film look that you don't like and not the software film emulation that tries to recreate the look.

 

[Trius]

Frankly, I clench up whenever some millenial talks about the attraction to vinyl records being the surface noise. Uh, no darling. We tried our best to avoid that, and most of my records don't have any, because I took care of them. Surface noise not something I am nostalgic for. I like vinyl because I like the way it sounds without surface noise.

Yes. Vinyl surface noise can evoke nostalgia but I am not nostalgic FOR it. There's a difference. Sometimes surface noise was serendipitous when it masked recording imperfections, but that was just luck.

 

[bmattock]

So it's really the film look that you don't like and not the software film emulation that tries to recreate the look.

I like film. I don't see the point of trying to recreate it artificially.

Film has grain, for example. I'm fine with grain, but it's not the reason I like film.

I think these digital film emulators are the incorrect answer to the question. Like a youngster thinking it must be the clicks and pops that vinyl lovers find important about vinyl, so hey, let's emulate it.

 

[brbo]

So, what IS the correct answer?

 

[bmattock]

So, what IS the correct answer?

I never said there was one. I was interested in how people feel about film emulation modes.

 

[Lss]

How about you?

I sometimes use some of the film emulations in post-processing. Usually I need to tone them down a little. The point for me is not to emulate a specific film, but to simply get the (digital) look I want. Just a tool among others.

 

[btgc]

I've never liked streaks'n'scratches effect put on amateur video. It doesn't look like an old movie.
To make visual sequence looking from old times, one has to recreate scenery, wardrobe, and adjust temp of event. Streaky images don't solve task.

 

[cz23]

This topic comes up regularly, and I always think it misses the point.

It's not that we digital shooter are trying to emulate film. It's that we like the aesthetic qualities that happen to be associated with film. The more natural, organic look that digital lacks. It the same reason we prefer stonewashed jeans, or scuff up new sneakers, or don't want a new haircut to look like a new haircut. Heck, even some great film users beat up their film.

It's an innate, aesthetic, Wabi-Sabi thing that sees something more pleasing in imperfection. My guess is, if film had never been invented and the world went straight to digital, we'd still be beating up our files. Because it looks better, and not because it look like film.

John

 

[shawn]

I sometimes use some of the film emulations in post-processing. Usually I need to tone them down a little. The point for me is not to emulate a specific film, but to simply get the (digital) look I want. Just a tool among others.

That would be my vote too. My X Pro 1 only offers film simulation modes for JPEG shooting. They are very good looking.

My Nikon D700 allows for many different "Picture Controls" to be added to it. When I am shooting JPEG I typically shoot that in a mode that tries to mimic the D2Xs colors. Though I also have various modes available that are attempts to mimic film tonality. I have some of the same available when processing RAW as well.

In post I find a number of the film emulations seems to overdo it quite a bit. My favorite at this point is the DXO Film pack. I can't speak to the accuracy of most of the film emulations but I like the results of a number of them. It also lets you do things like control the amount of effect (with regards to color/tonality) and the amount of grain independent of each other.

Shawn

 

[bluesun267]

My spin on this (and it may apply more to moving images than stills) is: why bother to put artifacts on a digital image when they could just shoot a little actual film and drag it through the dirt a bit? I think really what it comes down to is not about going for authenticity, but rather providing a facsimile; an easy-to-read visual 'cue' in otherwords. I mean, people must know it's fake film, right?

 

[bmattock]

This topic comes up regularly, and I always think it misses the point.

It's not that we digital shooter are trying to emulate film. It's that we like the aesthetic qualities that happen to be associated with film. The more natural, organic look that digital lacks. It the same reason we prefer stonewashed jeans, or scuff up new sneakers, or don't want a new haircut to look like a new haircut. Heck, even some great film users beat up their film.

It's an innate, aesthetic, Wabi-Sabi thing that sees something more pleasing in imperfection. My guess is, if film had never been invented and the world went straight to digital, we'd still be beating up our files. Because it looks better, and not because it look like film.

John

Ah, I see. OK I get that. Funny, I don't like stonewashed jeans. They wear out on their own, honestly. And I keep my sneakers as clean as I can for as long as I can. When they get dirty, they've earned it. My truck has dents, but I didn't hit it with a hammer, you know? All my scars have stories attached to them. They've earned the right to exist. Maybe that's why I don't get this. Thanks, you have explained a lot!

 

[Kent]

I must admit I like to play with film emulators and I have the NIK "Analog Efex", DxO Film Packs and some other tools in use, although I know that this is not the "real stuff".
They produce pretty decent and nice resulst, though.

I still love to use film and develop the rolls at home in order to get to the real feeling.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Personally, I like film and I like digital. I don't mind that digital photos don't look like film.

However I notice that many digital cameras offer film emulator modes. Some software packages offer the same. Reviewers use terms like 'filmic' and film-like, etc.

I don't really find myself attracted to such things. If I want film-like attributes, then film provides that. If I shoot digital, I don't.

It's like my love of vinyl records. Some have surface noise. I live with it. That doesn't mean I want to hear scratches and pops on a digital music file. But they have such things. I don't understand the attraction.

How about you?

That's all logical. But art/creative endeavors don't typically follow logic.

Good analogy, but Music isn't photography. Some things can be better with a vintage/retro approach, but all things don't need to be better — there needn't be a universal rule. I like analog and digital music. I don't like digital(-looking) photographs. I add simulated grain.

I think a more apt analogy is Painting. If, half way through his career, Modigliani had devised a means of painting without brush strokes and relief from paint buildup, would we embrace those works? I wouldn't. Part of painting's appeal to me is 'seeing the work.' Part of photography's appeal to me is the textural (and color) component of the analg process.

Take the m monochrom — still haven't seen a picture i like from thst thing. It was made to capture a million degrees of tone. But if i look at the photographs in all my books, prints from film do not look like that. The technically more capable technology is being used to do something different from what I embrace, just for its own sake, and people are buying this new aesthetic that is actually at odds with the inspirations that brought us into photography. And ironically Leica includes with that camera a software that essentially mimics non monochrom output.....

 

[E.M]

I agree with the OP 100% . It makes me think of the latest Triumph Bonnevilles , they have injection since 2008 , but they still make it look like having carburators , just to keep it having the classic look , it 's like cheating , it looks like something it isn't .

 

[airfrogusmc]

Personally, I like film and I like digital. I don't mind that digital photos don't look like film.

However I notice that many digital cameras offer film emulator modes. Some software packages offer the same. Reviewers use terms like 'filmic' and film-like, etc.

I don't really find myself attracted to such things. If I want film-like attributes, then film provides that. If I shoot digital, I don't.

It's like my love of vinyl records. Some have surface noise. I live with it. That doesn't mean I want to hear scratches and pops on a digital music file. But they have such things. I don't understand the attraction.

How about you?

Totally agree. If you want images that have a film look why settle for an imitation when you can have the real thing. I also like both. Digital for what it can do and film for what it does. The correct answer is what is right for you.