M. Valdemar said:
It's just that all this pontificating about how someone can instantly tell the difference between web images of "real film" and digital images gets old very quickly.
It's silly. Hubris and not a small amount of self-righteousness.
When someone makes a grand statement about something like this, I like to say "OK, prove it".
It's easy to make pronouncements on a forum, but the braggadocio fades quickly when someone asks someone else to back up their assertions.
Go back and read what I actually wrote. What you quoted.
How is it "pontificating" when someone points out you have the very same ability if you'd just exercise it? I am by no means claiming some special powers here. It's not self-righteousness when one states the fact that a difference exists that is not negated by any amount of skill.
I notice you haven't posted any images yet. Why is that? Go mock up a digital example of Tri-X pushed to 6400, and see if you are right and nobody can tell the difference. Post your faux Kodachromes. Show your point without trying to make it personal. But accept that it will be little more than a pleasant diversion. I am hardly going to give up film and cameras I like because some guy somewhere can imitate them passably well on his computer.
The basic equation is that by using film, I can take the picture, develop the film, and print it. And have the look I want. I don't have to allot additional time manipulating the image just to get the look of film. There's nothing wrong with digital shooting, just like there's nothing wrong with using 100 ISO color films or 50 ISO B&W or Kodachrome or Velvia. They're all different, is all. I could just as well shoot Kodak Gold 200 and fake every other film to my taste if I so desired. But it still wouldn't be anything other than Gold 200 manipulated to look like other films, and in a side-by-side, most people familiar with the faked films would see the difference.
I already know I can tell the difference between film scans and digital images. That's enough for me. You, on the other hand, have the point to prove, and yet aren't willing to do so unless someone is willing to pay you. Don't put this on me. As I see it, you are making all kinds of claims but are reluctant to put them to the test. Which is silly. If you are right or wrong is a moot point. IMHO, making a digital shot look like Kodachrome would be an improvement for the digital shot. Not so much for making it look like grainy Tri-X, IMHO, except as compared to normal noisy high ISO digital.
Pan F looks different than Tri-X. There really isn't any practical way to take a Tri-X shot and make it look like Pan F. That's why people use both. The idea isn't that there is some single film or medium that is best for everything. It's that there is a variety of films and mediums, and each has a strong suit, so one should play to the strengths of each and not worry if one has abilities the other doesn't. We can always change films or pick up a different camera if we need a special capability. There is no reason to try to make one look like another.
