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

<i><b>Moderator's note:</b> Since folks seem to want to play in the "digital vs. film" sandbox today, I'm not gonna fight the trend. And I'm reopening the earlier thread, <a href="http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00QcfZ" >What is better, Film or DIgital?</a>. Both will remain open for three days, then will expire. To quote Miracle Max: "Have fun stormin' da castle!" -- Lex</i><br><p>

 

<i><b>Moderator's note (update 9/1/08):</b> These types of discussions are seldom productive and rarely relevant to the scope of the b&w forums, which emphasize techniques for traditional use of b&w film, processing and printing. "Film vs. digital" threads have raged for years without resolution. They are sometimes appropriate to the Casual Conversations or other forums, but not here. I made two exceptions for this and the related thread (see link). After 10 years of reading similar discussions I did not see a single new thought expressed in either thread. For that reason no further "film vs. digital" threads or related topics will be entertained on the b&w forums. Please refer to this and the related thread and read every line before deciding that you have some novel idea on the subject. -- Lex</i><br><br><br><p>

 

Browsing through the latest Popular Photography, I saw this full page add and I just had to do a mental face-palm.

It's for software that will replicate the look of a specific filmstock. This is going too far, if you want the

look of Tri-X or Velvia go and buy you self a roll and shoot to your heart's content (oh, but I forgot, you threw

away all of your slr's when digital came along).

In case you wanted to look for your self: http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/

Maybe it's going too far backwards.

You seem kind of angry. Why do you care what other people do?

Maybe he cares because it just isn't fair that digital can look like film but film cannot look like digital.

 

Marshall, what if I want to replicate the look of the old Agfa transparency film (pre-E-6 days)? I can't buy film that hasn't been made nor processed in 25 years. How about Agfapan 25? Digital can replicate the look. So instead of mental face-palming yourself slap yourself into reality and let others do what they want, or need to do.

"Maybe he cares because it just isn't fair that digital can look like film but film cannot look like digital."

 

 

I wouldn't want my film to look like digital.

Me neither, but it just isn't fair

I guess that I just look to the possibilities of photography rather than limiting them.

someone has to be right i suppose. what does it matter that a free man, in a free society has the right to purchase a point and shoot camera, shoot raw and then add grain to it? the english philosopher john locke had argued that to cultivate land means to change it from that state god had created, by doing this man stamps his ownership on that land with god's blessing. who are you to challenge the free thinking kid who wants the grainy look?

 

i shoot more film than digital by the way before you have another fit.

This is the dumbest thread to despoil photo.net in some time.

 

And that's no small achievement.

"This is the dumbest thread to despoil photo.net in some time.'

 

I can't agree with that. What about the many posts asking what DSLR to buy? Why not use the 'search' function first?

So Robert, you don't agree that it's the dumbest? :) You might be right.

 

And if I search for a vacuity, won't there be some kind of interdimensional inversion, leading to the collapse of the space-time continuum?

Nope, I have to agree with Marshall 100 percent. This seems incredibly lame and stupid to me. People hate film so much, but then go to such lengths to try to "simulate" film with digital pictures. It's like they really like certain aspects about film, but they've just been so brainwashed that everything HAS to be done digital now. If someone wants film pictures, then get off your freaking computer, get a film camera and take some pictures. I saw the new camera that Polaroid has, to replace instant film, I guess. It prints pictures right from the camera, or has a minuature printer that hooks up to the camera. That's just sad. So THIS is what's going to replace instant film? How good can those pictures possibly be? And then I'm sure you'll have to regularly buy ink. It will probably be worse than the instant film and more expensive...but I guess people are so easily brainwashed that ANYTHING digital MUST be better than film.

 

I would never want to make my film pictures simulate digital. Heck, I'll just overexpose them and paint on pixels, I guess.

 

I know probably not that many people here use MySpace. But I do and I have to laugh. What I always thought would be funny is a program to "simulate" typical MySpace pictures. Or any of the pictures you'll typically find online, that people take with point and shoot digital cameras. You know, it will automatically rotate the camera 45 degrees, turn on the flash, and overexpose the picture so that people look plastic. Oh yeah, the camera will vibrate too, so that it gives that "cool" blurry look that they like so much.

 

Because face it, most people who are using digital cameras aren't walking around with top of the line digital SLRs...they're using cheap point and shoot digital cameras and in most cases they don't even know how to use a camera. For a good laugh, go on MySpace or Flicker and just look at the typical pictures there. Usually they're blurry, badly exposed, pixelated pictueres people took of themselves, standing in front of a bathroom mirror, with the camera tilted and the flash on.

 

So why in the world would anyone want to simulate typical consumer digital pictures with film? It doesn't work too well the other way around now, does it?

 

If you want to use a digital camera, use a digital camera. But this nonsense of trying to "simulate" film is rediculous. They should just stop being lazy and just get a freaking film camera.

<i>People hate film so much</i><P>They do? "People"? Everyone? Got any statistics on this?<p>Here's the news: Virtually nobody "hates" film. It's quite possibly the most ridiculous statement in a thread that started with ridiculous statements.<p><i>They should just stop being lazy and just get a freaking film camera.</i><p>And this is an insult to every hard working professional photographer.

Jeff, I'm talking about people who are trying to "simulate" film with digital pictures. Why go through all the trouble? Just use a film camera. I'm also talking about the average user and consumer. I don't think professional photographers would try to "simulate" one medium or the other. They would just use whatever works best for the conditions.

 

Also, I'm sure we already know your bias. I don't think I've ever seen you post a single topic in any of the Film forums that was actually about film. You only post comments to bash film or to say "what does it matter what someone uses" in topics that were specifically about film. It's obvious from your posts that you're all-digital, so why do you even bother posting in the Film topics?

 

It's nothing personal, but sometimes I wonder that if you have no interest in film, why do post comments in the Film topics?

I've never "bashed" film. Post an example, if I have.

 

And you said this: "People hate film so much." You didn't qualify it. You made it as a statement, stand-alone. If you said it, there must be some evidence to document it, so give us the documentation.

 

And if "People hate film so much," who likes film? Antelopes? Bigfoot? Justify your statements instead of trying to attack me. It's just more unjustified stuff. Show me my "bashing."

Jeff,

 

I'm glad you responded. My response to Chris' obviously uninformed comments would have gotten me banned.

 

"People hate film so much." Let's see now. People hate film, Chris likes film, Chris isn't human???

 

Marshall, both you and Chris are very young, and while enthusiasm is good, you don't know all the answers. Photography is an evolving medium. Because of this we haven't heard all the questions yet. Instead of being closed minded to other points of view, learn to listen to the value in a contrary viewpoint. If people had been more open to alternative energy generation, Tesla might have been more famous than Edison and Westinghouse.

Why do people have to denigrate the technical ability of those who shoot with digital? It is only that those people are able to share their pictures via the Internet that we can gauge their ability.

 

In olden times the only time we saw this was through the interminable slide shows.

 

I have had a film darkroom for over 30 years. I have seen fewer and fewer people souping their film. I like the fact that more people are doing darkroom work even if it is on their computer.

 

Whatever they try to do or emulate is fine with me.

Could somebody please explain the correct look of Tri-X to me? I shot, processed, and printed my own for 10 years, but apparently I was doing it wrong, because I could get it to look all sorts of different ways.

Good answer Matt. I like the fiber vs. rc threads myself. Or maybe the manual vs. autofocus threads. Everytime something new comes out, someone has to argue over it. Why bother?

Actually, people do hate film. I'm a wedding photographer and one of my competitors told me he, "did a wedding on film 20 years ago. It was terrible!" I told him that wasn't the films fault. A bride and her sister approached me at a bridal fair and asked if I did digital. I asked if it mattered and the sister told me she had a friend take pics at her wedding and the film got exposed and only one picture came out. I told them that it wasn't the films fault. The sister then told me that they only wanted one picture anyway.

 

A bride met me at a local fair, loved my work, called me and made an appointment for the following week. All went well until she asked me how many of my photos in the studio were digital. I said, "none". "Oh", she replied and left. She did stop halfway out the door to tell me one more time that my work was beautiful!

 

all true and from the angle I'm looking in from, people hate film.

Jim,

 

SOME people hate film. Or maybe they just don't understand it. I've had clients that had a similar reaction to the second bride in your story. I explained to them why I didn't use digital for those images and why it might be important to them that they were shot with an 8x10 film camera instead of a DSLR. Some were convinced and happy that they learned something and others still wanted the digital shots.

Jeff, that's what you do...you snip lines and take them out of context. And yes, you do bash film. Also, you still never answered my question. If you obviously have no interest in film, then why do you always only come into the film forums to make comments like this? I've seen quite a few of your posts in the film forum, going back to 2007. I'm come across them several times while searching the forums. Give me some time to search and I'll post links if you really want me to.

 

I kind of have to ask the same question about other people. That "Film Is Making Me Depressed" topic earlier attracted a lot of people who never even come into that forum and obviously had no interest in film. So why did they bother posting?

 

I wasn't around for the Resin Coated \ Fiber Based paper debate...so I wouldn't know about that.

 

Also, you're still under the assumption that most people who use digital are using top of the line SLR's. Yes, it's true Marshall and I are young. And maybe that gives us a unique perspective. Maybe you only see digital photos taken by professional photographers with decent digital SLR cameras. But I can tell you most people who use digital cameras are taking lame snapshots for MySpace. Blurry, pixelated, horrible snapshots. And they think that's normal.

Sometimes I wonder if film hates me.

 

I've never been anything but nice to it, but it's still an ungrateful SOB. Makes me wait weeks to see if I nailed the exposure, costs me $4 per shot (4x5), and spites me when I try to scan it.

 

I still keep coming back, guess I'm a glutton for punishment. One day I'll finally get up the nerve to leave... maybe take out a restraining order.

Also...Jim proved an excellent point. Most people are just so brainwashed into thinking that digital MUST be better than film, that they will just walk away if it's not digital.

"I would never want to make my film pictures simulate digital. Heck, I'll just overexpose them and paint on pixels, I guess. "

 

That's the best thing I've read in some time! I want that on a tee shirt.