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

[DB_Gallery]

To Mike Dixon, I hope you realize that I agree with you and the qoute you highlighted is not from me, but from a 16 year

old.

 

To those complaining that the thread is "off topic" do you put your hand over the mouth of the person you are having as

conversation with at a cafe because they are "Off Topic"? I think not. So let the thread evolve and get over it.

[mark_dalrymple1]

Daniel: Indeed.

 

I iike poines. how about everyone else?

[swilson]

Is trying to get digit to look like film just plain dumb, well I am not about to put much effort into it. But then I do see any number of people who claim they shoot film because they like the look of film, and go on at some length on how digital just does not look the same. Note all film shooters fall into this group, but for those that like the look of film over digital, and that is what keeps them from shooting digital, then maybe this is what they need. Having spent many hours scanning film, and having many hours ahead of me to scan the rest, I can see why someone who liked the look of film might still want the ease of digital.

 

It does seem to me that the OP is pretty angry about the whole digital thing.

[aopstudio]

Although I know better, I just can't resist. I have been making my living from photography for 20 years. I resisted digital for as long as I could not because of the "look" but more because of what I perceived as the implications. I felt as long as "professional" photographers stayed with their medium to large format cameras and film, the public would always perceive them as being able to do something the general public could not. Thus the professional could charge an appropriate amount for it. Now with digital and the ability to create as many images as you would like, with the only additional cost being time, more and more people are hanging out their professional shingle. And again, in my opinion, given a decent digital camera, most with a little practice and a lot of photos can fill the needs of many of the public. At one time I was offering traditional B&W portraits processed in the darkroom with custom printing along with traditional marshall oil hand tinting. This can be fairly well duplicated in photoshop at a fraction of the price. At least to my clients, this was an easy decision to make, and now I do it all digitally. I find it interesting that one thing so many of us are willing to "give" away is our time when in reality it is our most precious commodity because we have a limited supply. How limited none of us know but it is limited for sure and thus valuable. Now film or digital, it is actually a more even playing field than we think if we throw the value of our time into the mix. There it is, my rant, I feel better and I hope I have managed to through some insight into the sublect.

[rivi]

"I think most of the film bashers are people going through a mid life crisis." As a general observation, I found

that dogmatism takes mostly place at the extreme ends of the age spectrum, rather than in the middle. I suppose

middle aged people can't afford dogmatism, as they need to get something done, and this requires

compromise. Audiophile voodoo is IMHO more connected to showing off, to which middle aged are indeed more prone;

dogmatism is only a side effect of it, but not its cause.

[rocco1]

I just realised a few things...

 

Why isn't there any article ANYWHERE called: "how to give film a true digital look"? Just wondering.

 

People that use digital say it's better than film...

 

People that say film is better... on no, that doens't work. All the other that doesn't really use digital say it doesn't

really matter what format you use, the important thing is to know what you are doing with what you have.

 

If nothing else, this thread (and the other one) made me think again. I do really long back to those days of the

colloidal wetplates.

[vcallaway]

Personally this debate is very similar to the Audio CD vs Vinyl debate. Vinyl provides an analog quality that so far is not possible with digital. Sound engineers are getting close, but it is still not the same.

 

There are looks with film that don't carry over to digital. Again it is getting close, but still not quite there. I've seen people who can process digital to have the bold look of Velvia or the crispness of Kodachrome, but it still lacks something.

 

Digital is a very sterile medium. I don't say that to knock, the format, it is just a fact. It is called RAW format for a reason. You are never going to say "let me change the sensor to get a different look".

 

Personally I think it is good that people want to achieve a look that is offered by a certain film. It part of the creative process. I think photography would loose something if that aspect was lost.

[dave_carleton]

If I just bought a brand new $2000 camera (which I didn't!), and found out I liked the look of film, I'd probably look for a

way to get it without alot of new investment outlay. And seeing as digital is supposed to give complete creative

control,

Why Not?

[dave_carleton]

That and some filmstock is insanely expensive or hard to find.

[davebell]

This discussion is ridiculous. Nobody is holding a gun to anyones head forcing them to use either digital or film. Its largely a free world where we can make our own choices. If you like film, then use it. If you like digital, then use it. If you like the film grain look and want to apply it to your digital photos, then do it. If you're a film user who is repulsed by digital shooters applying a film look to their shots, then I suggest you go and get a life. Worrying what others are doing is pointless. I for one like, and actively use, both mediums. But digital is the Goliath and there is no David in sight anywhere yet, sorry. Digital photography is absolutely amazing and has opened up the medium of photography in a way film could never ever do.

[lou korell]

Personally I don't understand why there is even a debate. When synthesizers were intoduced they were being viewed as a replacement for acoustic instruments. When that didn't quite work they were integrated into the fabric of music as an individual instrument on its own. It has a unique "quality".

 

I believe film and digital have their place individually. Both have distinct qualities so why try to make one into the other? If you think something works as a digital image shoot it in digital. If you think film serves it better, shoot film. Everyone will have a different reason for their preference so why criticise the use of either as a valid medium for photography?

[jcs56]

I just want CONTROL. Film and digital are just diferent. I use tools and choose them because the results.

[DB_Gallery]

At this point, I think the transition to digital is pretty much complete. Those who are going to use film will use it and the

same goes for digital, sometimes both.

 

What might be a better question is why does something even have to be better, superior or head and shoulders above?

What is this obsession with something having to totally reign supreme in light of a given method....?

 

I personally don't care for "Comp-agraphs" consisting of photoshop parts such as cheesy blue zebra's playing house on

the moon. But I try not to bash them too much, that position is not what photography is about.

 

Various films have distinct identities according to a formula. They are also optical path oriented which means even the

most primitive of situations could yield a projection or print. It's all optical and chemical with film, not digital. Film has

undeniable personality, like people.

 

So with the above in play, digital has a different element of risk than film in that as one "moves apartments" in the ever

changing demands of back compatibility, the risk of image corruption rises. And lets face, we almost always lose or

misplace something in a move....

 

Still the said *risks* seem about equal.

 

So we have to just accept that there are different views however drastic in appearance they may be. I figure the more

accepting you are of that difference, the easier it is to not get defensive and waste energy.

 

That is really the only thing that ever goes wrong, someone has made a decision for them selves that works un-deniably

well for them and it rubs another person the wrong way.

 

That is why when someone says "Film is Dead"........well that completely baffles me....

[joshua_mortel]

I'm going to throw my answer into the mix.... it depends on the photographer.

 

I just recently went from film to digital. What kind of photographer are you? Action shots, low light, landscape,

wildlife? There's a saying "horses for courses" --if you want to take point-and-shoot shots then use a

point-and-shoot camera --use the camera in your phone. It all depends on the photographer's attitude. Maybe a pro

wouldn't waste his time with a phone camera, or maybe he might try to "master" it and learn its faults. Hmmmm

 

A lot of people forget that the camera has to be in the physical environment it is shooting in, too. Example: I walk

around with my old N70 35mm film body and I'm virtually invisible. I walk around with my D300 and a zoom lens

with the hood on and people think you're a pro because you look like one. They think you're good even before

they've seen your portfolio. They think it's all about the camera. Gah. They start posing for you. Gahhh! (at

least the D300 has a DOF preview button so I can pretend to take their picture HEH HEH)

 

Different cameras will get different results, and your subject may react to the camera you're using too. It's

already been mentioned that, for portraits, you may be better off with a camera with a waist-level finder.

 

Some people really love film, but think it's too expensive. I think film is better at teaching you the mastery of

basic (technical) photographic principles. Exposure, film ISO, aperture, shutter, etc. With digital it's like,

well I can just slide a dial in my photo editing software. The sheer freedom of digital is paralyzing to me, at

times, and I think I owned up to a lot of my mistakes better with film. With digital it's harder to let stuff go

--there's a garbage can in the background that I couldn't lose by recomposing the shot, but now I got the image

in photoshop... stuff like that. I think people like the "truthfulness" of film, even though we all know film

photos can be manipulated with DOF, perspective, etc.

 

I still have a lot of habits I took from film. For example, I wait about a week before I upload a flash card to

look at the photos I took. Or, maybe I'm just lazy, I dunno. That's just me. Gettin' tired of all these film vs

digital threads! ;)

[steve_mareno]

Anyone w/ any photographic experience at all knows that you can't replicate film w/ software. The shadow details aren't there in digital, nor the exposure latitude, nor the grain, nor a lot of other things. At best you end up w/ a digital file that looks sorta like film. You can't get anywhere near a duplication. It isn't possible. Probably never will be. Two different mediums that have inherently different ways of imaging. This isn't rocket science.

[shaloot]

What's this talk about "film grain"??

 

ok I'm just kidding! I do have a question; so if for the people who dont like the fact they can make digital photos look like film through that program, then what about converting digi photos to black and white? Isn't that trying to replicate film? It seems no one has issues with that... or do you guys have issues with that?

[christian_odell1]

I think the bottom line is this:

People of all different levels will do what they are comfortable with and get the results they want.

 

If your a landscape guy, you might make do with a nice dSLR and a good lens and be happy. There will be others that still want to use a 8x10 or something similar for the same shot. As long as the result is what you want (as an artist) then be happy.

 

Same for a wedding/portrait shooter. Some people prefer the speed in digital. Other's prefer the look of film. There are others still that like digital and want the look so they use software to mimic. So what. As long as it's a look they like AND can market it ... then it's fine.

 

Getting into a pissing contest over bad photography vs film vs digital vs whatever-is-the-issue-of-the-day is like pissing in the wind. No one is going to stop you but you sure look silly getting wet.

[jim_gupta_carlson]

This may be slightly off topic, but:

I shoot digital, B&W film, Color neg film, and slide film professionally (which I scan and print digitally). The key is identifying a clients needs and the look and feel of the photographs they desire.

 

Jim

[jeff_drew4]

I think it is a HOOT! to watch a few dozen people hoist their P&S digitals to shoot a celeb or an event. I then watch them stare at the results on the screens . . . thus missing the next few moments where the expressions change and the moods swing etc. Timing is everything in some forms of photography, and I am not sure that digital has improved on the "taking" all that much! :-) I also find it puzzling when someone asks how to increase grain/noise into a digital image. Why? . . . to look like film? It's funny! Let's see: a fresh piece of pie with real whipped cream or frothed vegetable oil? Looks the same, tastes nearly the same, quicker & cheaper . . . If today was my last one, I would choose real cream AND real film! :-) . . . and good whiskey in a crystal glass etc! It's okay

[dougbrill]

I understand why good photographers do not like digital. Because of the low cost or no cost in digital exposures a

bad or a mediocre photographer can get good shots simply by taking lots of pictures, maybe hundreds of pictures, of

a subject and maybe one will come out good. With film, most of us would not be able to afford shooting like that so

you need to think about each and every exposure.<br>

 

The digital instant feedback works the same way. In digital, you can immediately see if you got the picture you

wanted and if not, shoot again. With film, if you didn't get it the first time, you don't get a second chance.

<br>

For this reason, I can see why software that would make digital look like film would be desirable.

This is just stating the obvious. <br>

I used to shoot a lot of film but now with a digital I find myself guilty of becoming a digital shooter and not a

photographer. I need to stop myself from being shutter happy and think about the image I want to take, that's when

photography becomes fun again.<br>

[davebell]

Also, I don't want my digital shots to look like film. I prefer nice clean high ISO images, like a cold, clear crisp morning, not a foggy muggy one. But as I said before, I also use film - just for occasional fun.

[DB_Gallery]

Douglass Brill wrote:

 

"I understand why good photographers do not like digital. Because of the low cost or no cost in digital exposures a bad

or a mediocre photographer can get good shots simply by taking lots of pictures, maybe hundreds of pictures, of a

subject and maybe one will come out good. With film, most of us would not be able to afford shooting like that so you

need to think about each and every exposure."

 

That's an odd assumption my view.

Why on earth would it matter if a hack gets lucky now and then?

How is that any different than it has always been? Good photographers are more likely to be too busy shooting great

pics, or better yet, living the full photographic life to worry about the off shot by the weekend frame blaster.

 

And many good photographers like both film and digital buy the way...

[john_h.1]

"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 "

 

What is wrong with seeking to achieve the look of a film while utilizing the advantages of digital technology and avoiding some inconvienences of film?

 

Nothing.

[jack_welsh]

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

 

I sure don't want my film to look like digital! Not, if it means blown highlights.

[Landrum Kelly]

Let's hear it for all the hacks who keep shooting until they get a really good and memorable shot. I have never managed to do it, but, hey, tomorrah is anothuh day.

 

--Lannie