Strange times of emulators

[nongfuspring]

I'm good with photoshop, with enough time I can pretty much emulate whichever film "look" I want, but ultimately film is (and should only ever be) an aesthetic point of reference, not a benchmark. There used to be a time when I would look at my digital files and wish I took that particular shot with a particular colour film stock, but increasingly as I'm better able to manage digital editing I find it the other way around.

I still shoot BW a lot though for the main reason that I find film grain very hard to copy using a digital file and I've yet to use or see any programs that have managed to do it convincingly. So far best I've done on my own is by using a semi-randomised benday dot algorithm. I actually think good control over grain algorithms are more than just about emulating film out of pseudo-nostalgia, they're also about the possibilities of expanding what digital can do.

 

[Vics]

The guitar players out there will know more than I do about "modeling" amplifiers that are solid-state, but "model" various tube amps such as Marshall, Fender, Vox, etc. One can plug in one's strat and just dial up Jimi with the twist of a knob. I think the solid-state/tube controversy is analagous to film/digital in every way.

 

[v_roma]

Two points:

1 - As Mark C essentially said, there's no reason why someone needs to be stuck with the particular look of a digital sensor. This is not exactly what the OP was asking, though.

2 - Regarding emulating the film look, I think many people may do it, myself included, because they grew up looking at film photos (and still do), and the look of film photos became part of our own aesthetic and what you expect a photograph to look like. Younger generations will likely not have that imprint. Of course, one could simply shoot film to get the film look and, though I do from time to time, shooting film exclusively is not something I can or want to do.

 

[mfogiel]

I don't think the problem of emulating is aesthetic. Re: photography, there certainly are things which look better on film, but there are others which look OK on digital. The core question is: faking.
Faking (particularly in art), which we could liberally translate as obtaining by fraudolent means a result, which was meant to be generated by the "original" process, is about pretending that creative and material effort has been put into an artifact, while in fact it has not.
This voids the artifact of its value.
Take a look at my post about it on the blog.
http://mondoinbiancoenero.com/on-value/

 

[35photo]

I think the key word is aesthetic..I was off put by the whole adding grain and film emulation thing with a digital image..That was like in 2002-2005 when I first playing around with digital camera and processing RAW files. Tons of trial and error sometimes I would get something I liked the look of. Played around with emulators just never liked the look they created, I was like if I want that look just shoot film..so that's what I did..went back to shooting film and scanning which worked well for me for awhile..

Then probably like 3-4 years ago I started feeling the urge to shoot digital again. I played around with friends digital cameras and learned things for people about how to process RAW files. The software and cameras had gotten much better since '02. I know I wanted something full frame digital camera one of the things I hated was the whole cropped sensor thing always felt it crippled I liked to use my lenses plus I just felt the bigger sensor yielded better quality images...

Being a Leica M6 shooter for 10+ years and I have shot SLRs in the past as well, so going to an SLR wasn't a biggie they shoot differently and I adapt to what ever really, but the size was a bit of an issue. After trying an M9 which was nice but it had issues with it that I didn't think justified the price..So I passed. Got a Nikon D800E when it first came out and I was off..while i enjoyed shooting it and working with images from that camera..Its size was a bit off putting for my, but the image quality was great. So I revisited the whole M9 thing and ended getting a nice used M9 at good price..

I enjoy creating images and working with images from those cameras. I worked the files to a nice point and was happy with them for the most part. But felt the need for something more.. So I ended up revisiting the whole film emulation thing and to much of my surprise things had gotten way better plus I could tweak the bit more to archive the look I like.. and believe it of not adding subtle grain to a digital image does make the image sharper..you have to try it and see with or without grain added..

Now I'm completely happy with the look I can create and shoot digital 90% of the time.. as a matter of fact I have fooled people believing an image that was captured digitally into thinking it was a film image.. So long story short whatever floats your boat..

Having good aesthetic base shooting film in the past and knowing what looks good what looks bad etc..applies heavily on my digital process..