jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
I caught myself trying to make digital files look film-like, and even I know its ridiculous thats the only way for me to make them pleasing to my eye. But this is just a example, of what we are doing: emulating. More and more things are just pretending, from milk to friends on the internet. After all, every experience is created by our brain, maybe the perfect lie is good enough?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes, I've been thinking about this one too. If I want the "look" of an Autochrome, why do I need to dye grains of potato starch, etc.? Why not just fake it in Photoshop?
One answer is that sometimes, the "look" is inseparable from the process: nothing looks quite like a print on Ilford Art 300, for example, or a Woodburytype. Even if you can fake the look, doing it "properly" is often quicker, easier, cheaper or any combination thereof. It may also be more enjoyable. Other times: well, you just want a particular effect, why not use another way, even if it is "cheating"?
As so often, therefore, the answer is a firm, unequivocal "It depends." Thanks for bringing the question up: I shall be intrigued to see others' reactions.
Cheers,
R.
One answer is that sometimes, the "look" is inseparable from the process: nothing looks quite like a print on Ilford Art 300, for example, or a Woodburytype. Even if you can fake the look, doing it "properly" is often quicker, easier, cheaper or any combination thereof. It may also be more enjoyable. Other times: well, you just want a particular effect, why not use another way, even if it is "cheating"?
As so often, therefore, the answer is a firm, unequivocal "It depends." Thanks for bringing the question up: I shall be intrigued to see others' reactions.
Cheers,
R.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I have thought much about our "emulated" world too... I've read that Leica has tried to emulate Kodachrome with the "look" that the M9 sensor produces... and tried to emulate the M9's "look" with the M240. I find all that really fascinating since we now have an entire generation of photographers who have probably never even seen a Kodachrome transparency.
Humans are slow to adopt change... especially in this new fast-paced technological world that has evolved in just the few years since the release of the first Apple II and IBM PC. Manufacturers and advertisers try to make their new and improved digital gizmos look and feel (well, mostly look) like the "real" mechanical device so people will buy them because they're familiar.
Remember the early digital cameras that were amazing forays into techno-design and bore no resemblance to a film camera? No? That's because they flopped in the marketplace big time because they were too different. No one bought them! The Fuji X-Pro1 has been successful because it emulates a "real" camera... a film body.
My Prius emulates the performance of a mechanical car, but the reality is that there are no mechanical connections between the driver and the car in it anywhere, except for the steering... and the drivetrain is nothing like the drivetrain in a conventional auto. There's no reason for any of the interface to look like it does, except that auto buyers want something familiar. So it emulates a 1960 auto dashboard layout... with updating. I drive a newer "emulator" version of the 1967 Toyota LandCruiser FJ-40, complete with manual transmission. I had several "real" FJ-40s and FJ-60s... and now I have the FJ 'Cruiser... because it's close enough to the "real thing" that I'm comfortable with it.
So... that's why we live in a world of emulation... we're just slow to adapt to "new." We want "new," but we just don't want it to be too new.
Humans are slow to adopt change... especially in this new fast-paced technological world that has evolved in just the few years since the release of the first Apple II and IBM PC. Manufacturers and advertisers try to make their new and improved digital gizmos look and feel (well, mostly look) like the "real" mechanical device so people will buy them because they're familiar.
Remember the early digital cameras that were amazing forays into techno-design and bore no resemblance to a film camera? No? That's because they flopped in the marketplace big time because they were too different. No one bought them! The Fuji X-Pro1 has been successful because it emulates a "real" camera... a film body.
My Prius emulates the performance of a mechanical car, but the reality is that there are no mechanical connections between the driver and the car in it anywhere, except for the steering... and the drivetrain is nothing like the drivetrain in a conventional auto. There's no reason for any of the interface to look like it does, except that auto buyers want something familiar. So it emulates a 1960 auto dashboard layout... with updating. I drive a newer "emulator" version of the 1967 Toyota LandCruiser FJ-40, complete with manual transmission. I had several "real" FJ-40s and FJ-60s... and now I have the FJ 'Cruiser... because it's close enough to the "real thing" that I'm comfortable with it.
So... that's why we live in a world of emulation... we're just slow to adapt to "new." We want "new," but we just don't want it to be too new.
Steve M.
Veteran
I had a very interesting experience just now that related to this subject. After typing and typing and thinking and thinking, and trying to give my views on how the fake has replaced the real in society, the computer suddenly performed some sort of hiccup and it was all lost. It reminded me that if I had been typing on a typewriter or writing in longhand on paper..... that is, if I had real words written down on real paper, everything would still be here. The ersatz form of communication that I was using did what it does best. It made my words impermanent, as if they never really existed because they really didn't exist. They only existed in an ersatz manner. Anyway, yes, we live in a world of fake now where the real is devalued and the fake is worshiped.
I have to go back to reading some of the better publicans still around in print form like The Sun, Harpers, The Southern Quarterly, etc. They're real, they exist in the real world as printed thoughts and ideas, not shimmering pixels on a screen that disappear on their own, or when the screen is turned off.
I have to go back to reading some of the better publicans still around in print form like The Sun, Harpers, The Southern Quarterly, etc. They're real, they exist in the real world as printed thoughts and ideas, not shimmering pixels on a screen that disappear on their own, or when the screen is turned off.
zauhar
Veteran
Hepcat, my VW Jetta has 'throttle by wire', and while I have adjusted to it after many months of driving, the fact is that an electronic emulation can be a p-ss poor substitute for the real thing. And I am not alone - I have read of complaints of people with a manual transmission and electronic throttle frequently stalling the car because of the weird response of this 'mechanism'.
The fact is that we are very adaptable animals, and can eventually make up for any stupidity in design and execution. I wonder how much the manufacturers save by substituting a rheostat and wires for the cable?
I want a car with a carburetor again.
Randy
willie_901
Veteran
The final result of emulation can be heavy-handed and coarse. Or, it can be skillful and sublime.
The problem is an old one.
The problem is an old one.
zauhar
Veteran
Very nicely put. And I write this as someone who has done software development for more than half his life.
That said, even as a young man who was very enthusiastic about computing technology, I had an inner discomfort with it, and also with the reactions of people around me who who seemed too entranced by that empty virtual world.
Now I want my carburetor AND typewriter back!
lynnb
Veteran
screen-based viewing (and any digitising such as scanning) places people another step away from the original process and result.. in the end, how many people will be in a position to judge whether an emulator is accurate? I think most will neither know nor care - most will just like something because it looks cool or pleasing to the eye.
Most images are now viewed on a screen. Few are printed, and even fewer prints are viewed in galleries - or even in printed books.
In recent years I've gone back to shooting much more film, because although I find emulators useful for digital work, I still prefer, and enjoy, the look of film.
Most images are now viewed on a screen. Few are printed, and even fewer prints are viewed in galleries - or even in printed books.
In recent years I've gone back to shooting much more film, because although I find emulators useful for digital work, I still prefer, and enjoy, the look of film.
gns
Well-known
In photography, you don't really have a great deal of control over the picture. It's an automated process and to a large extent, you take what the dumb camera gives you.
I don't approach digital any differently than I did film. I don't think there is enough of a difference in the look of digital vs. film to warrant it. There is certainly no bigger difference than existed between many types of film. I accept what digital looks like just like I would accept what a given film process looked like.
SteveM. You hear the Real/tangible vs. intangible argument in many of these film/digital discussions. To me, a print is a print whether originating from a film or digital camera. Both are equally "real". And both exist in a less than tangible state at some point in their respective processes. Isn't the latent image of the exposed but undeveloped film pretty analogous to the digital file?
I don't approach digital any differently than I did film. I don't think there is enough of a difference in the look of digital vs. film to warrant it. There is certainly no bigger difference than existed between many types of film. I accept what digital looks like just like I would accept what a given film process looked like.
SteveM. You hear the Real/tangible vs. intangible argument in many of these film/digital discussions. To me, a print is a print whether originating from a film or digital camera. Both are equally "real". And both exist in a less than tangible state at some point in their respective processes. Isn't the latent image of the exposed but undeveloped film pretty analogous to the digital file?
hepcat
Former PH, USN
In 1993 I restored a 1974 Datsun 260z 2+2 with twin SU carbs... Over the next three years, I rebuilt those carbs twice, and had to balance them pretty regularly. They vapor-locked frequently. I wisely traded that 260z for a '78 FJ-40 in need of restoration. At least the Toyota carburetor on the 2F engine was reliable. I think I'll stick with cylinder injection thanks.
back alley
IMAGES
i'm so glad that i like the look of digital...
gns
Well-known
So imagine that digital never happened, and instead, someone created a fast 35mm color film that behaved/looked like digital (say, a canon 5D)? Do you think that would have been popular? Do you think a lot of people would be cursing it as the devil's work?
back alley
IMAGES
i spent most of my film years trying to get delta 3200 to look like tech pan…well, not exactly but you know what i mean.
we all wanted clean non grainy images and fast speeds…and now we have them.
works for me.
we all wanted clean non grainy images and fast speeds…and now we have them.
works for me.
gb hill
Veteran
At least your photos aren't saturated with that HDR effect like some I see. More film like actually.
back alley
IMAGES
At least your photos aren't saturated with that HDR effect like some I see. More film like actually.
that hdr stuff looks like a cartoon to me.
with digital, very little has changed for me…i still shoot frugally, never wasted much film or sensor space…i focus and recompose, spot meter most of the time...
maddoc
... likes film again.
While I have no problem with emulated photography as such I am more concerned about emulated food because depending on the processing process it can do some real harm to the body ...
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I know... we tried for years to minimize or eliminate grain... while still shooting with high ASAs (ok, I'm showing my age but who cares...) and now folks want coarse and grainy? Go figure. <scratches head>
f16sunshine
Moderator
You can't fake satisfaction (at least you can't fool yourself in that regard).
Isn't satisfaction enough ?
Isn't satisfaction enough ?
Mark C
Well-known
Does digital have a natural look at all. What you see is always determined by the engineer who decides how to process the data from the sensor. Making that more or less like photographs have in the past is likely a good starting point.
Even photographic scientists in the film days often had ideas that were good on paper, but did not work well for all photographers. For instance the quest for straight line response "curves".
Still, if you are talking about emulating grain, or vignetting, etc. I usually find that off-putting and artificial. Then, sometimes it can look great. I'm much more put off by hyped up colors and what look to me to be overprocessed pictures, but that seems to be by far the popular style today. I'd rather look at stuff that emulates film than at that. There was a recent project that got linked a lot that was documentary in nature, but the pictures looks like cartoons and sucked every bit of believability out for me.
Even photographic scientists in the film days often had ideas that were good on paper, but did not work well for all photographers. For instance the quest for straight line response "curves".
Still, if you are talking about emulating grain, or vignetting, etc. I usually find that off-putting and artificial. Then, sometimes it can look great. I'm much more put off by hyped up colors and what look to me to be overprocessed pictures, but that seems to be by far the popular style today. I'd rather look at stuff that emulates film than at that. There was a recent project that got linked a lot that was documentary in nature, but the pictures looks like cartoons and sucked every bit of believability out for me.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
We as human beings, love textures, and our brains like the workout of piecing together fuzzy information to create images that are pleasing us.
This is why we like fabrics, paintings, murals, sculptures, etc.
With photographs, how to get there?
1. Use film, which already have grain and a good balance between imperfections and technical quality
2. Start with digital and add those
To me, both are valid processes, just pick the one you enjoy the most.
But please, don't do those super-obvious HDR -look. I'm still hoping that fad will go away soon ... (shudder).
This is why we like fabrics, paintings, murals, sculptures, etc.
With photographs, how to get there?
1. Use film, which already have grain and a good balance between imperfections and technical quality
2. Start with digital and add those
To me, both are valid processes, just pick the one you enjoy the most.
But please, don't do those super-obvious HDR -look. I'm still hoping that fad will go away soon ... (shudder).