If you want the look of film, use FILM! (Loctite #STFU applied.)

Lex, there's no reason it would have to be in the black and white forum. Just create its own forum somewhere that is easy to find, and let all the film vs. digital discussion go there. It's a legitimate topic, and I don't see why it should be taboo.

Celluloid will never equal the flatness of a good glass plate.

Digital = (BLOWN HIGHLIGHTS + BLAH) - SOUL + MUCHO PS TIME BEHIND A COMPUTER

Especially for Black and White Imges

"Lex, there's no reason it would have to be in the black and white forum. Just create its own forum somewhere that is easy

to find, and let all the film vs. digital discussion go there. It's a legitimate topic, and I don't see why it should be taboo."

 

Word!

Wow, what a bunch of stupid comments.

 

There are good reasons why a professional photographer might want to simulate the look of a particular film. For example, you might want to make a photo look like it was shot during a particular era. And the "why go through all the trouble - just shoot on film" comment is especially hilarious. Running a digital image through a filter is hardly any trouble, especially compared to dealing with film and scanning. It's certainly easier than constructing a time machine if the image in question has already been taken, or if the film in question is no longer manufactured.

 

Thanks for the url by the way. I may pick up a copy.

I'm still waiting for Chris' links to Jeff's "film bashing" posts by the way. It doesn't look like they'll be forthcoming.

Jack, Randall and others who think that blown out highlights are a digital thing,

 

Blown out highlights are a result of poor exposure technique. You can blow out highlights on film also. The only difference is that people think they can fix blown out highlights in post-processing. What they have in common is that you can't.

John, I have some 6x7 B&W negs of large boulders with a small waterfall and some flowers. The whole roll was of the same subject, exposure,just different angles.The camera store did a contact sheet.the boulders in the negs have a lot of detail. The whole neg does. The contact sheet, the boulders are pure white, I did a contact Argyrotype of one of the negs. It shows the details of the lighted boulders and the shadows. That neg on the contact sheet? Over half is pure white. The neg shows the details. The Argyrotype printed the details. The digital print did not.When I say blown highlights. I mean the labs wanting to make prints by scanning the negs instead of using an enlarger.

Good idea, Alan. I nominate you and Daniel to moderate the Digital vs. Film Forum.<p>

 

There's one catch, tho': You'll also have to moderate all of the whines about ratings.<p>

 

Come back in a year and tell me again how wonderful it is to host these non-stop, circuitous-logic, self-referential, incestuous <del>masturbate</del> debate sessions.

<b><strong>B.S. ALERT - Clueless Clown FAIL</strong></b><br>

<del>why would you make it hard for yourself by using FILM when you can do the easy way with DIGITAL? common guys, move on. change is inevitable, whether you like it or not, we're all going DIGITAL. so please don't make it hard for yourself.</del>

Randall, it sounds like your digital abilities are very poor. There is a lot of friendly help and advice available to overcome your issues you described. Digital is the future, end of story.

Feeling that this nonsense has gone on long enough, I will attempt to offer this "debate" something it sorely

lacks, namely some <i>reason</i> and <i>perspective</i>.<br>

<br>

I will try to answer the question implicit in the original post (though, as you may have noticed, it consists

entirely of statements), namely, <i>"Why, in the name of all that is holy, would anybody want to emulate the look

of film, when they could just shoot film in the first place?"</i><br>

<br>

The answer has two parts; the first being that digital photography is more convenient and (initial costs aside)

in most cases more cost-beneficial than traditional, film-based photography. I really do not think it is

necessary to present an argument for for this (though if anyone does try to argue that film is more convenient

than digital, I shall consider him an utter fool, and will not deign to listen to a word he has to say ;-) )<br>

<br>

The second part is rather more complex, and deserves some rational argument. This might get a little longish, and

I <i>will</i> state the obvious, but please bear with me, as the obvious sometimes needs stating.<br>

<br>

Let me start by asking e few questions:<br>

- Why did <a href="http://www.artchive.com/artchive/L/lichtenstein.html">Roy Lichtenstein</a> <i>paint</i>

rasterised dots, when he could have mixed any continuous colour he liked?<br>

- Why does <a href="http://www.corbijn.co.uk/">Anton Corbijn</a> deliberately use extremely grainy film, when he

might as well be using supersmooth 50 ISO film?<br>

- Why does the artist group <a href="http://hello.eboy.com/eboy/index.php">eBoy</a> put time and effort into

making pixelised, isometric drawings, when making a more realistic drawing would be both faster and a lot less

work?<br>

- Why do groups like <a href="http://www.portishead.co.uk/">Portishead</a> deliberately include pops and

scratches from old vinyl records into their songs?<br>

<br>

Or, to sum up: "<i>Why does anyone enhance, or replicate, the results of one medium's technical limitations, in

the same or another medium?</i>"<br>

<br>

I believe the answer to this question has been touched upon in some of the previous posts, but nowhere has it

been stated explicitly. Let's try to look at this, not as photographers (and rather narrowminded ones at that),

but as graphic designers or artists - or even as linguists. (warning: statements of the obvious follows...)<br>

<br>

An image is not merely about aesthetics, but arguably to an even larger degree about <i>communication</i>. A

graphic designer does not (or at least should not) just put an image on, say, a magazine cover because it fulfils

certain aesthetic criteria (hey, it's pretty!), but in order to <i>communicate</i> something. As the old saying

goes, "one image says more than a thousand words". The problem is that the language of images is akin to

glossolalia - speaking in tongues - in that the message requires proficient interpretation (and as often as not

is not readily apparent to the imagemaker him/herself).<br>

<br>

The meaning of an image, as that of any other utterance, is conveyed not only by what is said (the subject of the

picture), but by <i>the way</i> it is said (in language: dialects, sociolects, genres etc., in an image: the

composition, forms, colours, etc.), as well as <i>the context</i> in which it is said (when the image is

produced, the medium on which it was produced, the context in which it is displayed, what is known about the

maker of the image, etc.).<br>

<br>

The meaning of an image, thus, is the result of many things, <i>including the characteristics of the medium on

which it was produced</i>. By emulating these characteristics, one adds another layer of meaning to the image,

one <i>communicates</i> something. <br>

<br>

An example: grainy film is the result of (among other things) increasing the light sensitivity, pushing the film,

a technique typical of early photojournalistic work. One of the connotations it carries, is therefore one of

gritty realism, as well as that of a belonging to a certain period (the age when word like "Tmax" and "Delta"

only meant something to mathematicians).<br>

<br>

Visually literate people, like artists and (some) photographers, though working in newer media, began

deliberately enhancing these characteristics to add to the meaning of their images. Since these people belonged

to the creative elite, the images they produced were regarded as trendy and cool, and thus another connotation

was added to the characteristics they emulated/exaggerated: that of "trendyness"/ "coolness".<br>

<br>

And, I mean, come on! Who doesn't want to be trendy or cool?! :-)<br>

<br>

... which is how, to cut an already too long story short, you get full-page adds for software that will replicate

the look of a specific filmstock in magazines like <i>Popular</i> Photography. And why teenagers of all ages go

bananas in the "filters"-menu in PS, trying to create something "original" (though usually ending up emulating

the look of images they consider cool), to put on their Myspace page (or Photo.net workspace… :-O), in order to

communicate something about themselves.<br>

<br>

<br>

To sum up: being able to add to your "communicative palette", while retaining the convenience of digital

photography, is the reason people want to emulate film instead of just shooting film in the first place.<br>

Oyvind, thank you! You succeeded.

 

Just another minor point, sometimes these emulations will be used by people who have no idea or interest in the look of 'film', per-se, but as you said, they'll go crazy looking for something original.

 

And again, where can there possibly be any harm in that - we may as well criticize cross-processing as being untrue to your film stock!

I'll paraphrase," . . . emulation is the sincerest form of flattery!" I think some digital shooters strive to emulate the results of the masters; who mostly used non-digital tools. Thus the goal of, "I want it to look like Ansel Adams' works." As the list of digital masters grows, the need to look like film etc will disappear.

Oyvind, wonderful to read your insightful and intelligent comment.

 

I agree immensely with what you have said here.

Haha, wonderful entertainment. How about this one:

<p>Software makers should remove the possibility to adjust white balance digitally in a raw converter! It's

horrible. If you want white balance use filters in front of your lens!

<p> Or: I recently found out that Photoshop has filters to make photos look like paintings. That's ridiculous! If

you want the look of paint, paint!

Lex, you know why thy don't send donkeys to college don't you?

Lex, how does one become a moderator of a forum?

"To sum up: being able to add to your "communicative palette", while retaining the convenience of digital photography, is

the reason people want to emulate film instead of just shooting film in the first place."

 

This is the sum of the parts. And the best part? In no way does one person using software emulation make the original

process any less valuable, less good or less viable.

 

I think the problems arise when one or another person claims that their way is the best or the only way, and that is simply

never going to be true, unless you strip away all other involvement and look at that persons needs only.

Holey moley. What a lot of words on something so unimportant. If you like the look and capabilities of film: shoot film. If you like

the look and capabilities of digital: shoot digital. Which of us can say that one is a more valid medium than the other? If we are all

photographers and not politicians, wouldn't it be more productive to go out and shoot something rather that arguing ad infinitum

about something so lame?

The bottom line is getting the picture that you want. There are some subjects that I prefer digital for and many others that I use film for. I am just as comfortable with my DSLR as I am shooting Super XX in my Crown Graphic.

I think maybe "The Flintstones" had it right with their "Polarock" instant camera. No memory cards to delete. No film to accidentally expose. Just a bird inside the box to chisel a lickness of your subject on a slab of stone. Hey, wait a sec.. I guess there bird could die right before an important "Kodak moment". :-)

I must say that I have nothing against digital. I had a digital P&S once. But, I will say that shooting film isn't difficult

at all. In fact, it's easy! The developing is just as easy.No matter what one post said weeks ago about if we all went

back to film, that we would all need to get a chemist degree.

This discussion makes Canon vs. Nikon seem high brow.

Amen, Craig,

Don't hate film - did a lot of it. Like Digital because (1) Closest professional color lab 70 miles from me and processing there costs a fortune. (2) Don't want to trust my work with Rite Aid. (3) Have neither the desire, money, time, space or skills to do my own processing. (4) Have publishing deadlines to meet soon, not next month, and clients who like having a digital file of what they paid for. (5) And, yes, I've used the simulation software in question and found it better than film actually, because I can adjust to the results I am looking for, good or bad, rather than haggle about it with the lab. It's very simple, really.