RaymondC Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>I pretty much use digital for family and friends and use film for my own hobby. That look that we got with film is it largely moved away from now? I have Lightroom, Photoshop, and I have played with Silver Efex. Over where I am there are professional photographers who have color and b/w images that look very nice but when I look into them they do have that clinical appearance. Like there is that softer look and texture that you get with film, with b/w film like the older technology films you get almost like a chalky look. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <blockquote> <p>That look that we got with film is it largely moved away from now?</p> </blockquote> <p>That look may be getting tiresome (I'm hoping) according to a current cinematographer's not wanting to use "color cliche's" to evoke a period look shooting on Kodak VISION3 color negative film in "The Imitation Game" which I saw on Sony 4K digital theater projection yesterday. It actually reeks of cliched Kodachrome's over saturated candied apple reds and blue greens. Here's the interview of the choices the cinematographer made shooting on film...</p> <p>http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/The_Imitation_Game_Oscar_Faura_Paints_a_Period_Drama.htm</p> <p>Here's some stills showing its color palette which has been color graded to avoid "color cliche's". Whatever that looks like...<br> http://apnatimepass.com/the-imitation-game-movie/the-imitation-game-movie-wallpaper-24.jpg<br> http://static.gamesurf.it/immagini/2014/11272/big/the_imitation_game_625027.jpg<br> http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/27/1417097394095/Charles-Dance-Imitation-G-010.jpg<br> http://thefilmexperience.net/storage/2014/theimitationgame-stockholm.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1415909187447</p> <p>I recently saw the restored version of 1967's "Bonnie and Clyde" on TCM and noticed even back then they were attempting to emulate the look of '40's Kodachrome seen in this still... http://classiq.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/faye-dunaways-style-bonnie-and-clyde-10-e1346687451158.png</p> <p>Compare it to these actual '40's Kodachrome that have a similar color palette...<br> http://www.autostraddle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/color-america.jpg<br> http://www.openmyeyeslord.net/ALookBackInHistory_files/FSA_LA_Frenchies_Bar_and_Gas_Statio.jpg</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 The film look you've described is far from forgotten. It's the new normal. I see plenty of digital emulations of soft, faded, color shifted photos, or excessively contrasty and gritty b&w. It seems too be driven by nostalgia by proxy, a longing for an era many younger photographers never experienced. They never saw the results of fresh color film and fresh prints before fading and color shifts aged the photos they saw in family albums. That look was often considered undesirable during the peak film era. That's why Kodak TMax, Ilford Delta and Fuji b&w films were made. Same with the continual refinement of color emulsions to get better, sharper, more accurate results. Look at the ads and tech review articles up until the 1990s. You'll never find one bemoaning the loss of softer, less accurate, more grainy films and prints. Occasionally photographers would use filters, softening devices, etc., but hardly anyone preferred inferior films out of a sense of nostalgia. But the highly accurate, detailed, nearly grainless prints from film photos are overlooked now. Take a look at large prints from medium format and large format film in a museum or gallery. I don't see much difference between many digital b&w photos and those from TMax 100 or 400. It usually requires some manipulation and faux film effects to emulate the looks of technically inferior films. Accomplishing that patina of aged color photos in particular isn't easy. It's difficult to repeat or achieve consistently because it depends on too many variables: materials, processing, environment, storage conditions. It's easier to get that look more consistently with digital editing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Currie Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I can hardly say I'm anything but a photographic dabbler, but I always loved slides, and my intention when shooting slides was to get good composition and interesting subjects with good color and sharp where it needs to be sharp. Digital photography does not have to be hypersaturated, over-processed and clichéd, just because it's so easy now to do. You can still take a digital camera and go out and hope to get good composition and interesting subjects, with good color and sharpness. Of course now you can dial in your ISO and check your histogram a second later, luxuries unheard of in the film era. </p> <p>I love film, and its feel, and I love old film cameras too, and I think the best film photography is still hard to duplicate, but I guess I never felt nostalgic for its shortcomings. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>The interview Tim referred to is illuminating, as the shooting of The Imitation Game on film rather than digital relates to the texture of film and the fact that the plot of the movie takes place in the 30s through early 50s. The lighting is key in the three eras of the film and he chose different film stocks for the differing lighting conditions. I think that may be more important in photography than whether it is film or digital. I don't know about "clinical appearance" as one can get anything one wants with either medium. I find in still photography that the darkroom printing is capable of providing difference in the print texture although the two (darkroom and digital printing) appear to be coming closer if one wants to pay for the costly paper stock of either.</p> <p>Everything is related to the nature of the creation desired (film look, lighting, composition) to some point. The Imitation Game is quite successful in many ways, but not fully historical (the female interest is invented, if my readings are right, and the homosexuality of the key person was known to those of his milieu and not something discovered later, although going public led to the inevitable result).</p> <p>JDM, just read your post. Don't discount Fujifilm, Rollei and perhaps others. We still have choices. What we see today on old slides or color negatives printed is some point in the image decaying process, whereas well processed B&W lasts better and allows a more faithful comparison with digital. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>Now that Kodachrome, Polaroid Type 52 4x5, and, yes, even GAF 500 are gone, the only films I sort of care for are Ilford XP-2 and Ektar (the latter if I'm feeling BLUE).<br> I do however really love old cameras, so I'm in a terrible fix.<br> Digital scans of Kodachrome can bring detail in the slide that the naked eye cannot see, but digital gives so much more information than film, that I don't really regret the 'passing' of film for my current work -- other than with the old cameras, that is.</p> <p>In post processing, I have found myself adding phoney film effects to images that were actually shot on film, so I don't exactly feel that the "film look" is gone at all.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damon DAmato Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>On a related note, the Technicolor labs here in Los Angeles are closing shop. The facility at Universal City Studios has actually been torn down, and the Glendale lab has shut down, too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_bill Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>What's "film." Give me those nice bright colors, give me the greens of summer. The cd is in the truck and cut 13, Kodachrome. Simon and Garfunkel Concert in the Park. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>What I'm hoping for in the future with regard to all color photography both still and cinema is color edits derived solely from a source that reflects a truly original vision rather than homages and influences from the old processed film look.</p> <p>There's accuracy and then there's the rest. I'ld like to see someone apply their own interpretation of what was seen through the lens without any influences from the past. You know the same way interpretations of reality were required by fine art painters before there was color photography.</p> <p>Anyone seen this happen, yet?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Currie Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>Of course, what constitutes the "film look" in movies is open to some debate too. I am a fan of some of those old movies, and if you look at some of the best black and white studio work, and the best of the so-called "noir" genre, the quality of the photography, the shading, the tonal range, the lighting, is tremendous. But when Stephen Soderburgh filmed <em>The Good German</em>, he used old style film stock, and supposedly tried to duplicate those effects, and (in my humble opinion) the result stunk. It was terrible, overly contrasty and blown out. What he, at least, considered "the film look" was what to me looked like an artsy-fartsy paean to the appearance of an old movie on late night TV, but hardly what the skilled artists and artisans of the past were producing. <em>The Artist</em><em>, </em>though shot in color and processed for black and white later, does a far better job and, to my perception at least, shows a far better understanding of what it was all about.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>Wow! I just revisited that Kodak "Incamera" cinematographer interview link I posted above and scrolled down to the comment section where an old Waco, Texas boy by the name of Sterling Sherrill has posted a link to his film documentary he made titled "Keep Film Alive".</p> <p>I'ld like to see it to see him state his case. It looks like the movie business is going to have to foot the bill to keep film alive. The billions in profit that industry makes shouldn't make that hard to do.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>Whether film stock or digital, some excellent films, international or local, are shot in B&W. The desire to mimic the past is not always the reason ("The Artist" being an exception). It has to do with the abstract nature, the mood or other artistic intent. Same in still photography. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <blockquote> <p>But when Stephen Soderburgh filmed <em>The Good German</em>, he used old style film stock, and supposedly tried to duplicate those effects, and (in my humble opinion) the result stunk. It was terrible, overly contrasty and blown out.</p> </blockquote> <p>I noticed that too but wasn't aware Soderburgh shot it on old film stock. What a shame.</p> <p>What seems to be missing when emulating the old '40's classic B&W is the lack of defined modeling on actor's faces especially medium toned males. Don't know if it's the type of lighting used or maybe red filtering as the cause (see below photo I shot of my eyeball calibrated Samsung HDTV).<br /> I've also noticed strange things going on with digital theater projection that harkens back to the issues with 2nd generation film prints of the past. I saw Hammer Film's "The Woman In Black 2" recently and it was so dark, dim and flat throughout most of the movie I could barely see any detail or definition. It looked something similar to YCbCr (RGB 16-235 compression) color space encoding specs I read about... http://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&q=For+YCbCr+data+and+all+other+RGB+resolutions%2C+data+has+a+range+of+16-235</p> <p>I saw this at the theater... http://www.joblo.com/video/media/screenshot/the-woman-in-black-2-angel-of-death-trailer-2-.jpg</p> <p>But screengrabs online show something with more brightness and clarity... http://wickedhorror.thunderroadinc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/oaklee-in-bed-700x467.jpg</p> <p>Something getting switched off between the projector and/or how it reads encoded color spaces on the digital content portion of the hard drive?</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wogears Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>IMO, <em>Barry Lyndon</em> is a perfect example of what I consider the "film look", while the recent (wretched) <em>Three Musketeers</em> (the plot and acting are awful, not the cinematography) is the best exemplar of the "digital look".</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebu_lamar Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>I wish the film look is the in thing so to encourage film manufacturers continue to make film but I don't like the film look.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmurray Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>When I shot medium format and 4x5 it was to decrease grain and increase sharpness, as well as produce a long tonal range if desired. I can do all that now with a D7100. I was impressed even with the 6 mp D70. Tri-X 35mm has its own unique look, but you know, my digital cameras when shooting raw format and at a certain iso and converted to black and white do come close to the look of 35mm film, even when pixel peeping. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>Well, to those of us who prefer to shoot film it's very much not forgotten. I get asked often why I shoot film. Funny, I never thought of asking anyone why they shoot digital. I guess it's not important to me (which it isn't.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donbright Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 <p>It doesn't make sense to me to coin the, 'Film Look,' when there are, and have been so many emulsions that look so different from each other. It is convienent for those to use a films characteristic, whether here or not to make their point that plays well for a thread on the net, and justifies the money spent on their latest digicams that they ironically don't like anyway. So I think many here don't even know what the, 'Film Look,' is. Nothing adainst the OP, but this button is the wrong one with me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 <p>What some people refer to as the film look is more likely to be the film gone wrong or the faded film look.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 The Good German was shot on color film and converted to monochrome in post. I've only watched the trailers but it looked good to me. More an allusion to noir than a faithful homage. The effect was more akin to Sin City, sans spot color. The effect was like I'd imagine a movie shot with TMax 100 might look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 <p>In the days of film we were all looking to get that grain-less so-called clinical look...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_b.1 Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 <p>We live in an era of radically expanded possibilities, where any weekend dabbler has on his desktop the tools to make any exposure, film or DNG, take on a thousand different looks just by clicking. What's disappearing isn't the "film look" -- as many here have said, that's kind of a meaningless term -- but rather certain qualities of attention which the production of prints required in the pre-digital era. Working with a DSLR and good Photoshop skills, you could certainly match the look of a W. Eugene Smith photo, but you'd be missing out on <a href="http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2013/11/20/in-the-darkroom-with-w-eugene-smith/">the process</a> of attention and experimentation he undertook in the darkroom, so you'd be unlikely to make the same kinds of discoveries, or achieve the same kinds of results. In short, perhaps it's not the "film look" that's disappearing, but rather something like the "film mind."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Currie Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 <p>Lex, The Good German may have been shot on color, but as I recall, the bonus material makes quite a point of its having been shot on difficult to find film, and intended to emulate the director's conception of what an old "noir" film would look like. He was quite proud of using original studios, lights, and whatnot as well. Whatever medium he used, I think the cinematographic result is a wide miss. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 <blockquote> <p>you'd be missing out on the process of attention and experimentation he undertook in the darkroom,</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Plenty of people pay attention and experiment in the digital processing world. It's no different except that the smells are missing.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 The smells are still there with the digital darkroom. Oh, wait, that's the cat's litter box. Smells like selenium toner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now