What does "filmlike" mean?

[retinax]

It's not so hard - even with these examples. IIRC, the film was Ilford FP4. I only chose these two images because they were the same subject taken at almost the same spot. The digital image captured far more detail on the concrete surfaces. IMHO, the (2nd) digital image is far superior with better tones and higher contrast without sacrificing detail.

I believe your observation about scanning is a valid one, but there is no other way to post film images on forums such as this. The original scan is a high resolution TIF file (64 megabytes) - then converted to JPG.

I gotta disagree, it looks highly artificial to me and I suspect there's quite a bit of local image manipulation going on that makes it look so. Yes, all the detail is higher in contrast, but that's not a good thing necessarily. Apart from looking unnatural this also often robs an image of calmer areas and if everything is emphasized, nothing is. The film scan is a bit washed out in the highlights but otherwise much easier on the eyes.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I gotta disagree, it looks highly artificial to me and I suspect there's quite a bit of local image manipulation going on that makes it look so. Yes, all the detail is higher in contrast, but that's not a good thing necessarily. Apart from looking unnatural this also often robs an image of calmer areas and if everything is emphasized, nothing is. The film scan is a bit washed out in the highlights but otherwise much easier on the eyes.

Alright. The original images posted on page 1 of this thread were processed in order to get as much detail as possible from each file. The above images are both unprocessed (the 2nd image was converted to B&W only). They are more similar this way, but the first group demonstrates how much information can be pulled (or not) from the original files.

To my eyes the (2nd) digital image above looks similar to the processed film image on page 1, but with less contrast.

 

[Dogman]

It's really what you make of the image after all the work on the file or negative. Remember, Ansel called the negative (original Raw or JPEG, by extension) the score but the print (finished file) is the performance.

 

[Godfrey]

That was actually not grain.

Newspapers used rastering to print images. It's basically a fixed grid of black dots, where the size of the dots corresponds to where it lies on the grey-scale. It's different from grain, where instead the number of grains that have been hit by photons reflects exposure.

The process is called "halftone screening" and is used in far more than just newspaper printing, and for both B&W and color printing, with everything from coarse newsprint resolution to the finest art book rendering. If you want to learn more about it, this is a useful overview: A Crash Course in Halftones for Screen Printing

it has little or nothing to do with film or "film-like" ... 😉

G

 

[markjwyatt]

The process is called "halftone screening" and is used in far more than just newspaper printing, and for both B&W and color printing, with everything from coarse newsprint resolution to the finest art book rendering. If you want to learn more about it, this is a useful overview: A Crash Course in Halftones for Screen Printing

it has little or nothing to do with film or "film-like" ... 😉

G

Not completely true. Some people try and make digital images look film like by adding Gaussian noise. They say that mimics film grain. But that is the opposite of the truth. In digital images the "grain look" is noise. In film, the image is the grain. And, the grain (on a negative) is either opaque (black) or clear, in other words film images are rasterized similar to offset printed images. Unlike digital images where each pixel can have grey tonality from 0 (white) to 256 (black) in 8-bit, film negatives are 0 or 1 (e.g., digital). I hope that is clear now 🙂

 

[Godfrey]

Not completely true. Some people try and make digital images look film like by adding Gaussian noise. They say that mimics film grain. But that is the opposite of the truth. In digital images the "grain look" is noise. In film, the image is the grain. And, the grain (on a negative) is either opaque (black) or clear, in other words film images are rasterized similar to offset printed images. Unlike digital images where each pixel can have grey tonality from 0 (white) to 256 (black) in 8-bit, film negatives are 0 or 1 (e.g., digital). I hope that is clear now 🙂

Nope, not at all. Has nothing to do with the question "What is halftone screening?" or "What is film-like?"
I guess you didn't read the link I posted.

No matter. I have five rolls of film to process. I suppose my prints will look "film like"...

G

 

[Out to Lunch]

I have five rolls of film to process. I suppose my prints will look "film like"...

😊

 

[markjwyatt]

Nope, not at all. Has nothing to do with the question "What is halftone screening?" or "What is film-like?"
I guess you didn't read the link I posted.

No matter. I have five rolls of film to process. I suppose my prints will look "film like"...

G

I know what half-tone images are. Both silver B&W negatives and half-tones produce their grey tones with basically black (opaque for film) dots in varying sizes and densities against a neutral light background. That was my point.

I do like your last sentence! I was considering responding to the main topic of this thread, and what I was going to say was that I like the way B&W film looks, and that I find the easiest way to get that look is to use (drum roll please)... B&W film. Some digital B&W images can look film-like, but with my skill level of post processing at least, I cannot always get it when I try. But to your point (especially if you are processing B&W), I always get it with B&W film. I have a couple rolls (B&W) to process at this point, and I expect they will look quite film like.

 

[Godfrey]

Half-tone images are used in all offset web-press printing, for both B&W and color imaging. It doesn't matter whether the original is a film image or a digital image, what matters is that the print mechanism is creating a continuous tone image using opaque inks by turning area of color and density into a varying map of ink spots.

This has nothing to do with something looking "film like," regardless of the similarity of the imaging mechanism at some level or another.

What gives a film image a look difficult to achieve with a digital capture comes down to a few fundamental things.

1. Different response curves of the recording mediums.
2. How an image is rendered differently from original to finished image.
3. And ... a very subtle thing ... a film image always involves the transmission of light through the base and an emulsion layer of the original, either reflected back to the eye or projected onto a screen and reflected back from that. This creates a variable micro-scatter/diffusion of the light that your eye sees, and changes the nature of the image in very subtle ways.

I don't generally care all that much about making "film-like" photographs. I'm more concerned with making satisfying photographs that appeal to my eye and to my gut.

Shadow's Birthday - Mountain View 2022
Kodak Retina IIc
Ferrania FP30
EI 80, processed HC-110 @ 1:40, 8 min​

Technically very flawed, but aesthetically just right for me. 😉

enjoy! G