You know that plasticky, digital look...?

[emraphoto]

for some folks the logistics of shooting film and it's complications make digital cameras a sound choice.

I adore film. Currently though I shoot in a region where photography is extremely tricky. Photography of any sensitive nature is down right dangerous. With digital capture I can back up to offsite locations, file my work with the respected outlets and burn and courier orignals home. This one set of paramters far outweighs the desire to shoot film. I also use an emulator. So it might seem easy to call folks who do so down but there are often very logical reasons for said decisions.Realize of course that I am being very diplomatic.

Film is beautiful, no arguement.if you take the time to read the responses carefully though you will see that digital is a medium some folks need to work with for a variety of reasons.

I as well generally use the emulator as a starting point. I don't spend a LOT of time on post as I learnt in the days of film and prefer getting it as close to right at exposure as possible.

I work 99% percent of the time in b+w conversions so color isn't really my game but I have been happy with the b+W work!

 

[Pablito]

I guess there are times when it's not practical or it's impossible to shoot film although we managed quite nicely for a few years when that was the only option. We used to get along quite nicely without electricity.

Yes, but now in the digital age, a client can tell you he wants you to shoot digital. That is, you get hired with that expectation. I have been in that situation plenty of times. If I had insisted on shooting film, the client would have found another phtotographer! At the same time, you get hired because of the uniqueness of your work and film-emulating software can contribute to that. As folks are so fond of saying about cameras, software is just another "tool".

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

OK, let me be less diplomatic. I think it's idiotic to spend hundreds of dollars (or your currency) on software to replicate the look of film when you can simply buy film and get it straight out of the can from the start.

And I think it's idiotic to have a roll of B&W film in the camera just to find I want a shot in color.

....I also think it's idiotic to be trolling for a fight.

 

[philipp.leser]

My take on it: If you're shooting RAW (and everyone shooting digital should be, no excuses), you're ending up with (appropriately) raw data - all the information in all the channels picked up by the sensor. That's not something that happens with film because of the various sensitivity curves, color response, etc. ...

I'm not sure about that. The sensor has its own characteristic curve, color response etc, too, just like film has. The RAW file gives you that. You still have to decide on the color temperature, black and white point and all that.

The effect of different films might be more obvious, but that might just be the case because you don't regularly change your digital camera's sensor (and the variety of different sensor is a lot smaller compared to the multitude of different films you can choose from).

Also, the negative is in a way also a "RAW" file: You still have to set the black and white point in the darkroom when chosing the right paper grade.

Regards,
Philipp

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

I'm not sure about that. The sensor has its own characteristic curve, color response etc, too, just like film has. The RAW file gives you that. You still have to decide on the color temperature, black and white point and all that.

The effect of different films might be more obvious, but that might just be the case because you don't regularly change your digital camera's sensor (and the variety of different sensor is a lot smaller compared to the multitude of different films you can choose from).

Also, the negative is in a way also a "RAW" file: You still have to set the black and white point in the darkroom when chosing the right paper grade.

Regards,
Philipp

The sensor has no characteristic curve as by nature the sensor is linear. However, the Raw software interprets this through its own curve. That is why if one opens the same Raw file in 10 different Raw conversions software packages, you'll get 10 different looking images.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Everybody should do whatever gives them the look they want or the covenience they need and stop squabling about it.

 

[David R Munson]

I'm not sure about that. The sensor has its own characteristic curve, color response etc, too, just like film has. The RAW file gives you that. You still have to decide on the color temperature, black and white point and all that.

The effect of different films might be more obvious, but that might just be the case because you don't regularly change your digital camera's sensor (and the variety of different sensor is a lot smaller compared to the multitude of different films you can choose from).

Also, the negative is in a way also a "RAW" file: You still have to set the black and white point in the darkroom when chosing the right paper grade.

Regards,
Philipp

While there are differences between sensors, with a raw file you're dealing with straight RGB info that you can do with as you please from the start, while with film by the time you have your negative it's already been changed somewhat by the characteristic responses of the film. Of course, you can do tons with the info in a negative, but I do think that there are some important working differences between a negative and a raw file when it comes to working on the image after the exposure to get a specific look.

 

[Cutly]

OK, let me be less diplomatic. I think it's idiotic to spend hundreds of dollars (or your currency) on software to replicate the look of film when you can simply buy film and get it straight out of the can from the start.

I must confess, this is absolutly true. Or, it's not that it's idiotic :
trying to replicate film from a digital file is just truely "kitsh".

work with what you have, don't fake !

 

[capitalK]

I was talking to a guy about his shots from his new Nikon D300. He was all excited saying "look! it's ISO 3200 and there's NO GRAIN!"

I just smiled and nodded politely. The JPG file out of the camera was edge sharpened to the extreme and there was absolutely no detail in the face. There was no grain because the camera smudged it out. To say it looked plasticky would be an understatement.

It just so happens the face in question was of his cat, so besides being polite about his camera I also had to be polite about his choice of subject matter.

 

[user237428934]

I must confess, this is absolutly true. Or, it's not that it's idiotic :
trying to replicate film from a digital file is just truely "kitsh".

work with what you have, don't fake !

With film I'm only able to achieve a film look. With digital I'm able to achieve a grain free technical look or something like a film look. Just as I want. And don't forget the time factor. It's worth every single Euro I spent on digital that I don't have to wait for film or scanning anymore.
So yes. I am sometimes faking film look because I like it, but I am to impatient to use this old stuff.

 

[visiondr]

Does anyone remember those fake oil paintings we used to see that had "brush strokes" included on the surface of the "canvas" image? It was pretty easy to see the fraud back then.

 

[David R Munson]

So digital images processed to share some characteristics with film-based images are somehow fraudulent?

I think most people trying to emulate a film look in their digital images are doing so because they like the look they're going after, not because they want to pull a fast one or fool anyone.

 

[Ted Witcher]

So digital images processed to share some characteristics with film-based images are somehow fraudulent?

Yeah, I don't buy that either. Even when you're working with film those characteristics are a choice. If I want a grainy or grain-free film image, I make a choice. So adding that aesthetic digitally doesn't seem like fraud at all to me (provided that it is convincing). No more so than using color to emulate a filter or what-have-you.

 

[user237428934]

So digital images processed to share some characteristics with film-based images are somehow fraudulent?

I think most people trying to emulate a film look in their digital images are doing so because they like the look they're going after, not because they want to pull a fast one or fool anyone.

Let's turn it the other way round. Why are some film users trying to emulate grainless digital look with Extar 100 and a good scanner? Let's stop development on new low grain films. 😀

 

[visiondr]

It's exactly the same as the fake brush strokes. There is absolutely no difference. If you like that sort of thing, cool.

 

[user237428934]

It's exactly the same as the fake brush strokes. There is absolutely no difference. If you like that sort of thing, cool.

In your former post you also called it fraud.

Perhaps you should update the wikipedia entry because I couldn't find that topic there 😉

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

 

[amateriat]

Yes, but now in the digital age, a client can tell you he wants you to shoot digital. That is, you get hired with that expectation. I have been in that situation plenty of times. If I had insisted on shooting film, the client would have found another phtotographer! At the same time, you get hired because of the uniqueness of your work and film-emulating software can contribute to that. As folks are so fond of saying about cameras, software is just another "tool".

Since I don't rely on shooting gigs for much of my income, I have the luxury of having the right gigs come by word-of-mouth, where people know up-front how I work, and with what media. I do get the occasional please-shoot-this-digital request, but I make it known to the prospective client that I'll do it, but that for me it's an engagement of expedience over aesthetics. If I don't cheese them off with that statement, off I go to shoot

In the case of the one halfway-serious digital camera I have on hand (Olympus C-8080), I actually like the color images as they are, without doing the faux-film thing, which strikes me as a waste of time: film is film, digital is digital, and while time and technology may blur the lines more easily than at the present, I'm not sitting on my thumbs. The 8080's sensor strikes me as offering a less "plastic" look, even though I can still detect certain low-level digital artifacts in the images. I can live with that, especially since these images only add up to about less than 5% of the shooting I do.

Sensor technology will improve: the current move among certain manufacturers away from megapixels über alles and toward larger and better-spec'd sensors is encouraging. What I'm also hoping for is some small revolution in camera controls: compared to my favorite film-based cameras, every digital camera i've handled comes way short of the mark, and that, IMO, is unacceptable.

But that's cool. I've got lots of film. 🙂


- Barrett

 

[kshapero]

Wow interesting thread, I mainly shoot B&W film because I like the results. I have no grudge with post processing, but to me it is not photography. It is computer processing.

 

[visiondr]

In your former post you also called it fraud.

Perhaps you should update the wikipedia entry because I couldn't find that topic there 😉

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

I stand corrected.
"Fraud" was the wrong word.
I suspect you get the point, my linguistic imprecision notwithstanding.

 

[Ted Witcher]

Wow interesting thread, I mainly shoot B&W film because I like the results. I have no grudge with post processing, but to me it is not photography. It is computer processing.

It may not be photography (at the post stage) per se, but it is image processing, of which photochemistry is but one method.