I know I may be asking for much since it's such a subjective topic but can we have a civil discussion on what exactly makes film images look different than digital?
And how could one replicate it with digital cameras in post?
___
Obviously film records images differently than a digital sensor. But the images we see on the computer were converted to digital with a scanner. So how does the film look carry over to the digital version?
___
Small format film tends to look blurry/fuzzy and have visible grain but even medium and large format film with no visible grain, even with realistic colors, has the distinct film look for me. I want to find out what exactly it is. I would say dynamic range but digital has a similar if not bigger dynamic range. Slide film has a low dynamic range yet it still has the film look. It's something about the tones. Film seems to have higher microcontrast for me. Like even in a low contrast the textures and everything stand out and feel more 3D. I think with portraits film stands out the clearest. Is this all maybe just bias? What do you think?
>>2851692
>Obviously film records images differently than a digital sensor. But the images we see on the computer were converted to digital with a scanner. So how does the film look carry over to the digital version?
the same way an oil painting looks fairly decent when captured in a digital photo. you are capturing a flat canvas where all information is stored within a fraction of a mm surface.
scanning a neg =/= photographing reality, some people tend to forget about this little detail.
Emulsions, film ISO, low resolution scanning and printing, etc
>>2851692
Colors
They can be recreated. Those portra profiles for lightroom are so good you can't tell the difference between that and a good scan
>>2851731
Lol
>>2851692
Mainly fucked up white balance.
>>2851731
>Film colors sure can be recreated, but not by me btw! i have no evidence for the claim, but in my mind im pretty sure they can be recreated!
Every time.
The display medium.
>>2851692
>What creates the film look?
- better saturation based on spectral response difference and not on manipulation which results in wider range of saturation values to be used in image - only this one cannot be reproduced digitally
- grain/noise in highlights as well as in shadows
- in certain cases: bad shadow details
- unique per-channel response for each type of film which means that different tonal ranges have different tint
- per-channel response curves also give an unique tonal look for many kinds of film
- no artifacts in highlights caused by profiling
- the highlight compression
>>2851732
>>2851734
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7M2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Photographer david mornet Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:30 22:12:57 Exposure Time 1/60 sec Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 320 Brightness -1.8 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2851797
And?
>>2851802
>>2851807
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7M2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Photographer david mornet Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:30 22:26:36 Exposure Time 1/160 sec Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Brightness 1.7 EV Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2851692
pushing blues to teal creates the film look
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7M2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Photographer david mornet Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:30 22:30:34 Exposure Time 1/1250 sec Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Brightness 4.6 EV Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2851797
Don't bother. Nothing you post would ever get them to admit anything. You could straight up post a velvia 50 scan to be sneaky and they'd be like "colors look okay, but you'll never match the TONES"
>>2851818
>photo looks like shit and nothing like film
>OH ITS THEIR FAULT
grow up.
First it was detail, then it was dynamic range, now it's "look". Filmfags will grasp at straws until the end. And i hope there's no end to the salt when the last roll films are discontinued.
>>2851820
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7M2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Photographer david mornet Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:30 22:42:09 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Brightness 4.2 EV Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7M2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Photographer david mornet Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:30 22:44:35 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Brightness 2.7 EV Exposure Bias -1.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
itt: digifags in denial
>>2851861
I was a filmfag since childhood until I found a digital camera worth using. Sorry that you're still in the past, my condolences to your therapist.
>>2851814
Luino on the Lago Maggiore?
>>>2851895
new thred!
>>2851828
indeed, the placebo effect will never ever end.
>>2851828
film will never be discontinued, especially when the great memory crash occurs
>>2851692
Infinite color depth. You know how a color channel in a JPEG goes from 0 to 255?
A color channel recorded in film can go from anywhere between 0% and 100%, and any values in-between, like 43.35489%.
>>2852035
>You know how a color channel in a JPEG goes from 0 to 255?
I know that you don't really understand how digital color works from that
>A color channel recorded in film can go from anywhere between 0% and 100%, and any values in-between, like 43.35489%.
lol this retard
those values in between with digital are represented by numbers in multiple channels.
>infinite color depth
>infinite color depth
>infinite color depth
I wish I could be a fly on the wall the day you realize your gobsmacking idiocy.
>>2852041
Your car with a digital speedometer can only go like 150 different speeds. My Toyota has an analog speedometer so it can go infinitely fast.
>>2851783
Also, no interpolation. Obviously this happens when scanned on anything but a $2000 scanner but if it's printed in a darkroom...
>>2852035
I know you like film, man. But please, don't make retarded arguments to defend it. It's obsolete. Shoot it for the look, but for the love of technological advancement please don't say it's superior, because it's not.
>>2852070
Enjoy your shit digital look, m8
>>2852076
>implying I only shoot digital
Also, Portra is a shit film.
>>2852079
>Also, Portra is a shit film.
wow he is going all out.
you guys seriously falling for this
>>2852035 ???
>>2852375
No.
>>2851818
>You could straight up post a velvia 50 scan to be sneaky and they'd be like "colors look okay, but you'll never match the TONES"
Someone should actually make a poll or a quiz of similar photos side by side shot with digital and film and have people vote on which is which.
>>2852417
This happens every month and has for as long as digital and film exist similarly. The result is the same every single time: no one can tell.
>>2852435
because the photos are intentionally ambiguous, duh
there are photos or rolls of film that can't be replicated digitally, and there are digital photos which film could never come close to resembling. this fact alone proves there are differences, no matter how many scanned negatives and heavily edited digital photos you compare that look the same
its all just a matter of taste, anyway. the different methods respond differently to light. i dont see why somebody would shoot either film or digital with the express purpose of making it look like the other.
>>2852587
the fact that most of good looking digital images tried to resemble film really tells you something, though.
>>2851828
Roll films are shit, 4x5 is where is it. It pwn the megapickles crowd it's not even fun.
>>2852590
It tells us that your personal taste for processing of digital images resembles the look of film. There is no "good", only individual opinion.
>>2852590
this
>>2852587
>i dont see why somebody would shoot either film or digital with the express purpose of making it look like the other.
Because there are very real differences between the mediums that have nothing to do with the final look. Some people desperately want an analog involved romantic workflow. Other people desperately need speed and cost savings.
>>2851828
I don't think you've been paying attention. When I started shooting film in 2011 people said the same thing about the "film look". Hell, that's why I got so into it.
Everyone has their reasons for shooting film. Sometimes it's silly, but who cares. I think the convenience of digital somehow takes away out of the experience, so I shoot film. Whatever. It's also nice to be able to buy a full frame camera at goodwill for 2 dollars. And I can't imagine some guy on the streets eyeing it, because it doesn't look super hi-tec. Looks like a toy but takes great pictures.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model EZ Controller Camera Software EZ Controller 6.40.003 (150911) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:03 20:51:52
>>2852937
>It tells us that your personal taste for processing of digital images resembles the look of film
i dont process my digital to look film, you fucking turd. i process my digi to look digi as fuck.
>>2852997
did you scan this with a xerox machine ._.
>>2853013
No, it's 3200 speed film and the place I send my film out to sharpens their scans. It's annoying but I dig the lo-fi look it gives to fast film.
I've grown to hate digital in the past few months I've had film cameras. Taking a digital picture means fiddling with camera settings and menus more than I would prefer, and my crop camera finder is fucking horrible and tiny. Manual focus is a broken dream. A digital image is just a digital file I have on my computer. I like a tangible object, and I like to have my photographs on the wall.
But most of all, I just take better pictures with film. I don't have the compulsive need to inspect every pixel of a film photograph and make it perfect on molecular level. And I like the darkroom. Plus, film photography isn't very much more expensive because up-front costs are next to nothing and you just pay for each image - which you also get as a physical picture, if you so please.
Digifags often tell us how their precious digital imaging is so much more cost effective than film and then they tell us in the next sentence how they took a great landscape photo with their 1200$ camera body fitted with a 500$ lens, then worked it on their 1000$ computer on a 100$ software to have it printed on photo paper on their 350$ laser printer that takes 90$ color cartridges and they remember to tell you that all this was practically free because they can take 135 000 pictures on their camera body when I pay for a film cartridge. And all that digital equipment practically has to be renewed in 3-5 year intervals.
>welp
But I still have resisted the urge to sell my dslr because I can't yet develop color film and cause I know I need digital for concert photography and I also use it to scan my negatives. It's became a learning tool for me, while real photography is done on film.
>amateur photography artist here
>>2853328
>Plus, film photography isn't very much more expensive because up-front costs are next to nothing and you just pay for each image - which you also get as a physical picture, if you so please.
Fun project for you
Price out a D7100 and match the lenses you use for film. Use the camera until it fails (Around 100,000 photos, conservatively)
Now price out your film gear, 100,000 photos worth of film, chemicals, and printing supplies.
Report back.
Only excuse to still use film is if you're a 4x5 camera.
>>2853333
>Only excuse to still use film is if you're a 4x5 camera.
>tfw im not a 4x5 camera
>>2853331
>Fun project for you
>HUURR HURRR
Fun project for you: fuck off.
>>2853333
Only excuse to still use digital is that you're lazy.
>>2853333
>>2853345
Have my upvote, sir.
>>2853339
So you did the math, huh?
>>2853331
did you not even read his post?
if youre including the cost of printing materials for film, you'd also have to include the computer, software for postprocessing, printer, and ink and paper for digital
>>2853395
I did read the post, where he was saying that with film, you get a physical picture, and with digital you don't, suggesting no printing from digital.
But even with those costs, the price for shooting film is still dramatically higher.
For digital, you spend $1000 on the camera, maybe $2000 on the lenses, $300 on a printer, and use the computer you already have (Let's be real, you already have a computer) and all you pay now is printing upkeep costs (or go bulk prints from a service). You are also not printing every photo you take, so let's be generous and say that you print one of every 50 photos you take, and say you're paying $3 for an 8x10 print.
$3500 for gear
$6000 for 2000 8x10 prints
=$9500 shooting digital.
Now you do the math for film.
>>2853399
>Im literally the poorest poorfag that has to scavenge for pennies hidden behind the couch so i can afford to eat today!
Translated by Bing!
>>2853401
What? This is all in response to anon saying that it's cheaper to shoot film. Not me saying that I can't afford to shoot film.
I guess if you run out of arguments and realize you're wrong, you sort of have to turn to random personal attacks to hide the shift in your approach though.
So that we can get back on the same page, shooting film was better because it was cheaper up above, but now, shooting digital is cheaper, and doing things that are cheaper is bad, so that's why shooting digital is bad. Yes? Am I caught up?
>>2853331
D7100 800$
35-105 Ai-s Nikkor 80$
100,000 pictures ordered from somewhere in 10x15cm 0,19cent*100,000 makes 19,000$
Let's make that a 50% success rate, so 9,500$ for ordering photos
Plus your 1000$ computer+screen and 100$ for Lightroom
That makes a total of 11,480 bucks for shooting, developing and printing 50,000 photos
With film:
My set up now is a Yashica Fx-D with their Yashinon/Yashica/whatever 35-105 DSB lens, that's about 80 bucks altogether second hand
I pay around 5 bucks for a roll of Ilford HP5+, which is as black and white 36-exposure film.
I need to shoot 2777 rolls in order to get 100,000 shots, that equals 13885$
I paid 15 bucks a piece for old Agfa paper in a pack of 100. So 500 of those: 7500$
At this point, not even considering chemicals, film already costs plus 20 grand for those 50,000 photos
I would point out that you shoot considerably less when shooting film and don't waste shots for trying to find the pixel perfect focus etc., but you are right: film is still about twice as expensive as digital, even when we print most our sucessfull images.
That's a calculation I have been curious to do for a long time. It was more than I expected, but still, to me, worth it. Also you should note that you don't usually shoot 100,000 shots on the same camera: you get GAS and change gear in said 3-5 years by the least. Digital cameras of 2010's also start to be of such degree that they no longer go obsolete in five years, if they still function properly. Meanwhile, a fifties FED will still take superior full frame images to crop sensors and costs 30 bucks tops.
After this, personal preference comes to play. Also, it should be noted that film itself isn't this much more expensive than digital by nature, but rather there is such a small market for film compared to digital at this time and most films are produced, I believe, in europe or usa where labor is much more expensive compared to semi-legal slavery basically all electronics companies use.
>>2853404
Also I didn't even try to tell you film is cheaper: it's actually clearly cheaper up front, and in the long run, not considerably more expensive, or so I believed.
>>2853414
>Also you should note that you don't usually shoot 100,000 shots on the same camera: you get GAS and change gear in said 3-5 years by the least.
No, I don't, and even if "I" did, that doesn't factor into the equation. If we're doing that, we should also factor in remodeling you're doing to your house to upgrade your darkroom, or changes to shoot color film, or you getting GAS and deciding you need to upgrade to 6x6 or 4x5.
Where I'm at, I can get a 1-off 8x10 print for $4. Getting a bunch printed at one time from a print service would be less expensive. And nobody NOBODY prints half of their photos for 100,000 photo timeline. Maybe in the first year of shooting, but after that... what the fuck is someone going to do with 50,000 prints? Digital or film, it just doesn't happen.
>you shoot considerably less
So you get a discount on the cost per-photo by... not taking photos? If I don't shoot or print any photos at all on my digital setup, then I never spend any extra money at all.
Also, your computer cost shouldn't factor in, because again, you already have a computer. if you're factoring in things like that, then you need to factor in the price of plumbing and building a room onto your house to use as a darkroom.
Home printing for digital is also much much cheaper than a service, and if you're doing 50,000 prints, you bet your foreskin you're going to buy a printer and do it yourself. I did the math myself a few years ago, and even on a totally inefficient Pixma Pro 9000mk2, I'm getting an 8x10 print for about $.75, including the cost of ink and average glossy paper bought in bulk.
You got to the right place, realizing that film is much more expensive, but your figures are still being very very generous.
>implying anyone uses their camera for 100,000 frames before they get gearfag envy and upgrade
>implying that 99% of people will shoot 100,000 frames or anywhere close to that
>implying that the average isn't closer to 5,000 frames a year for the bulk of the bell curve
>implying digital has ridiculous savings over film when you shoot that little
>implying you can put a cost on ruining your photography with digital
when most people think of film they probably think of low grade kodak from the 80s and 90s
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model HP ScanJet 4070 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2352 Image Height 3520 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Created 2011:12:23 14:02:59 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3440 Image Height 2252 Saturation Unknown Sharpness Unknown
>>2853435
I'm at 94,000 photos on my 5Dmk2. I've made a total of about $50,000 with it since I bought it. I will use it until it breaks, because the image quality is the same as the day I bought it, and I bought it because it fit my needs, which haven't changed.
Just because you're more about the equipment than the results doesn't mean everyone thinks the way you do.
Yes, the best way to make film cost less than digital is to not take photos. Congratulations, you can brag about full frame and having a full kit for under $500, and never produce anything worth looking at.
Let's say you spent $400 on your entire film kit because you got okay lenses, and a good body.
Assuming no prints at all (because let's be honest, the number of photographers who print is pretty much 0 once you round up)
If you take less than 10,000 photos in your entire lifetime, (and can actually make $8 per roll happen) then you're spending less by shooting film.
Assuming $8 per roll of film, including dev
>>2853435
>5,000 frames a year
I've already got 4,800 frames on my XPro2, mostly paid work. I've had it for about 2 months.
My X-T1 is about 2 years old and has about 45,000 shots.
>>2853421
>>2853442
I thought you might have been a respectable man but you turned out to be a dick who listens to nobody and is unable to see any side but his to a story. Congratulations for your horrible skills of discussion.
I don't think anyone here has made a strong argument that film would be either arguably better nor cheaper than digital. It's a matter of your own preference.
Also,
>you can brag about full frame and having a full kit for under $500, and never produce anything worth looking at
Wat
>Assuming no prints at all (because let's be honest, the number of photographers who print is pretty much 0 once you round up)
>Assuming no prints at all
>Assuming
>no prints
>pretty much 0
That's retarded.
Film is all about printing your pictures. That is literally the only way to see your images if you can't have a scanner at hand. What the fuck are you talking about
>>2853444
So I'm wrong and retarded, but you have no math or sources to suggest why, other than "Just think about it, man" is that right?
How many threads a month do we have here about DSLR scanning, and flatbed scanning, compared against threads about darkroom printing?
Most people don't shoot film.
Most people who do shoot film, scan.
OP here: some examples.
Of course the lighting is not the same but to me the film look looks more vivid while digital looks more dry.
Is it the shadow detail?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2853446
Well I really wouldn't know why I would bother shooting film if I just scanned it to a digital file afterwards and that'd be it. The spectacularity of film to me is being able to print my own photos in my bathroom.
Also I prefer darkroom printing over digital printing any day. Printing my pictures has made me much more aware of what and how I want to shoot my pictures. It's a lot more engaging to me to have a handful of physical photos on a wall than to dwell in to my computers files to look at something on my computer screen and then close it and move on.
But why you so mad about film? Did it touch you as a child?
>>2853448
Film also seems to render light in a more "glow-y" way. How could one achieve that with digital? You could make an HDR-image I guess but then how do you get the "glow-y" lights? Select the highlights and blur them?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2853448
It's a very different grade, different makeup, different lighting, different intent...
To compare digital versus film, you have to have the exact same image/scene/light/processing. Anything else is a complete waste of time.
>>2853442
>The number of photographers who print is pretty much 0
Fuck you.
There are a lot of people who print. They probably spend most of their time shooting, developing, and printing, and not trying to prove that what they do is better than digital to people on the Internet.
Film should be about your preference. If that's how you want to take photos, that's fine. Why do you care so much how other people take photos?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1012 Image Height 1012
>>2853452
Here while the lighting isn't difficult I feel like the vividness of the textures is characteristical for film. Am I just imagining it?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3600 Image Height 2880 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2014:02:10 22:03:17 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1500 Image Height 1200
>>2853455
Also as I said in portraits film seems to stand out the most for me. But I can't quite put my finger on the reason.
I want to know if I am biased or if it's a certain characteristic of film that can be done with digital editing too. I would prefer to use digital for it's convenience and low cost so I am not trying to make film out as superior.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1000 Image Height 1000
>>2853448
That's a very interesting comparison. However, I don't think you can very fairly compare these two.
Light quality is very different in upper and lower images. Light is much harsher on Craigs face in the lower image, and the skin tones are much more red and his skin glows. Although the skin tones in these two images compared is interesting.
There is very little ambient, soft light in the lower, but the whole room is quite lit in the upper.
The casino shots can't be compared. The whole lighting is too different. There's a whole overshade of orange in the supposedly digital, lower image: added probably by means of white balance in post. All colors are faded into shades of orange in this one, when in the upper image there are distinct colors and overall a more casual and less dramatically lit ambience.
Am I rite?
>>2853450
I'm not at all mad about film. Film is great for certain things, and I shoot some of it when I'm traveling. But that doesn't mean that people should just make shit up about it, like that it's cheaper to shoot, without being called on it and disproven with some very basic math.
>>2853452
It's in the tone curve. You brighten the areas around the highlights (and in many cases, like the casino scene in Skyfall, fill the room with fog so that you get beams of light and glowing atmosphere around your light sources)
>>2853455
You aren't imagining it. What you're seeing is the individual rendering of that particular film, which digital doesn't have out of the box.
Shooting a film is like shooting a preset profile on digital, straight to jpeg. It's already processed for you. Shadows may look warmer. Pinks may look more orange. Highlights might be more or less saturated than shadows, etc.
Out of the camera, a raw digital file is neutral, balanced, and trying to give you all of the information it can, so that later, you can go in and make your changes that you want to make, to get the aesthetics you want.
Something else you'll find if you actually look is that for the most part, the people who are shooting amazing shots on film are the people who have been shooting it for 40 years. They know their limitations, they know their light, they know how to tell a story, and how to make it look good. The select colors, and scenes, and times of day, etc. They do everything well because they're masters of their craft. New people just assume all of that stuff looks good because it happens to be shot on film, because when they point a digital camera at their buddy Ken randomly, the photos don't look that way.
Paolo Roversi is a great example of that. He shot very unique looking photos on large format and medium format film for years and years. He then switched over to shooting digital medium format, and his photos still look a hell of a lot like Paolo Roversi photos, because the look comes from him, his light, his scenes, his processing, his intent, and his understanding of what he's doing.
>>2853457
one thing is film emulsion is always a perfected formula for capturing certain kinds of pictures. Digital is very much seen as a blank canvas - when you have your RAW photo, every look is possible done in post processing.
This is not true, as processing will always be limited to the software you're using. Vsco makes money because their film emulation is advanced enough.
One thing exists, though, which is critically different from digital to film: whereas film gradually slows its receival of light the longer it captures it, digital just adds light values continually until it hit a peak and then all data at that point is lost because that point has burned out.
That could explain the more sophiscated way film treats light.
>>2853457
>certain characteristic of film that can be done with digital editing too
Yes, in most cases, it can, and if you were to post a digital file taken of the same scene with the same light, I would be able to walk you through how to do it.
A great deal of matching the look is contrast control, and hue adjustments. Expanding the range of the photo by lowering the overall contrast in the scene, to reign in highlights and open up shadows. Then, going back in in a curve and adding contrast back in the mid-tones to keep the image poppy.
Film tends to stay very saturated in shadows, whereas digital naturally falls to gray-ish tones in shadows, so you process to combat that.
Work on color shifting your images to unify your colors, and emphasize some and mute others (which colors depend on your scene, and which film you're looking to emulate)
It really takes the ability to look at film objectively, and in a calculated manner, to see "what's happening in the highlights, what's happening in the shadows, where is the detail, where are the reds, where are the blues" and so on. Once you can identify what you're looking at, it's much easier to replicate in post processing.
Many of the steps we're taught in *processing 101* for digital is actually hurting your intent to make it look like film. Many times, we're taught to do as much sharpening as we can before it starts to degrade the image, but a well shot frame on film will be highly detailed, but not SHARP like a razor. The detail is there, but is usually pretty smooth and subtle.
That last portrait, for example. People don't get portraits like that out of digital cameras because most people shooting portraits are shooting them wide open from close up. However, that shot, her whole face, and indeed her whole camera-left shoulder is in focus, and only her back shoulder is starting to fall out.
>>2853466
cont
So an 85mm at f/1.8 from five feet away isn't going to match that, which means you're going to lose a lot of potential detail to a narrow depth of field, and then try to bring it back with sharpening, which will give a very different look.
We're also taught to press our black and white points right up against the edge of the histogram, but you see that there really isn't any true "black" in this shot, and that only one of the channels touches the bottom of the histogram, and there is nothing "white" in the shot at all.
Straight from your camera, the skin is going to look more pink, and saturated, because hey, skin is pink, and saturated. So you'll have to adjust the hue of the skin the same way that the film has done, putting a muted pink in the direct light, and a slightly more greenish tint in the transition to shadows, which are saturated differently.
And that's just some of.
>>2853461
>whereas film gradually slows its receival of light the longer it captures it, digital just adds light values continually until it hit a peak
What you're describing is reciprocity failure, which isn't really an issue during normal exposure times (Pretty much anything less than a couple of seconds for modern films, and anything less than a minute on some slide films)
It seems like you're trying to reference the difference in the way that highlights look on film, compared to the way they look on digital, which again, straight out of the camera, can be quite different (especially on a "magical" film like Portra, or Ektar) but it can be well matched with good digital technique. Making sure that your highlights aren't too blown out, and then bringing up the exposure in the areas around those highlights does well to replicate the look. The math will be wrong, but the overall look is more or less the same.
>>2853466
Where can I learn how to edit digital images properly? All editing tutorials I can find are done by commercial photographers and not art photographers.
>>2853473
>The math will be wrong, but the overall look is more or less the same.
wrong, you fucking faggot.
>>2853476
Well that depends entirely on what you mean by "properly". There is no shortcut, and there is no really easy five minute video that will teach you what you want to know.
A great way get where you want to be is to go through Lynda's course on photoshop and lightroom to learn all the tools you have at your disposal, and how to use them, and then to work to train your eye, so that you know what your end goal is, and then just use all the tools you have to achieve those goals.
The people who have trouble with film emulation are the people without the understanding of what they're doing, or how to do it. When you look at Portra and say "Oh my gosh that looks so good, it's like a magic film! Digital could never look this good!" then of course you're going to have trouble replicating it, because there's no "Magic" button in lightroom. Or even if you CAN identify why Portra skin tones are so nice, if all you understand is the curves tool (rather than hue/saturation, color blending modes, color profiles, channel mixing, so on and so forth) then you're going to decide it's not possible to replicate and give up.
But if you can look at portra and see it for what it is, and identify the characteristics that you like, and how the film behaves in over-exposed areas, correctly exposed areas, under exposed areas, high detail areas, low detail areas, high saturation areas, etc. then you can look at your flat digital file and say "Okay, well, my digital shot has a lot of detail here, and portra wouldn't show that, so now I need to use my tools to correct that" or "Portra shows this orange color as much more faded to a warm yellow" and use your tools for that.
And the greatest part of shooting digital comes afterwards, once you've found the way to replicate what you like about Portra, you can then also start to leave out the things you may NOT like about portra. Or use what you like about Portra, in conjunction with what you like about Provia, for instance.
>>2853333
I have a 4x5 camera but I use my 6x7 instead. And that's only when I'm not using my micro four thirds camera, which has much more flexibility than either. Fight me
I actually shoot film, and do so quite cheaply, and it's still way more expensive than digital.
If I shot digital, I'd have bought full frame DSLR and a set of nice primes and have been done with it. Maybe a tripod, maybe some flashes, and I could take pictures to my heart's content for practically nothing, and there really wouldn't have been anything left to buy.
As a filmfag, however, my gear lust has a chance to truly flourish into something expensive and time consuming. Instead of one set of lenses and a single body, I have dozens of bodies, and sets of lenses to go with every mount.
As well as buying all the expensive modern lenses too, to shoot on film.
And then there are medium format cameras and systems, which a digipleb really doesn't even need to bother with these days.
And then I need a darkroom, and equipment for it, to buy, and say I have, and not use. And paper! I've spent more on paper than I have on darkroom gear.
Now I develop and scan myself, so that's cheap.
And I buy secondhand and bulk rolled film, which is also cheap. But I've still got at least $500 worth of film in the freezer at the moment, and another $500 worth of film and chems on the way, which I never would have bought without a film habit, but which I need if I'm to continue shooting.
And now my desire for better scans is going to force me to buy a fucking full frame digi anyway.
For sure, if instead of spending, spending constantly, I'd just bought say a Pentacks 67, with the 105mm and 55mm,, a tripod and flash, and a cuntload of Ektar and Portra 800, and a paterson tank, Tetenal 5L C41 kits, and a "decent" epson shatbed, and left it at that, I could be pumping out beautiful images with world class resolution and dynamic range, in almost all conditions, for an all in cost of 2 or 3 grand, tops. And I mean the basic gear would be *maybe* half of that. Putting the rest into consumable would keep you running for a long time. But that doesn't happen.
>>2853574
this is the stupidest troll I've ever seen.
Saged because this whole thread is garbage.
>>2853574
Why the FUCK do faggots like you INSIST on shooting film. You're such a fucking disgusting hipster. Get with the fucking times you piece of shit hippy.
Shoot digital and if you really feel the fucking need to make your photos look even worse then you can make them look like shitty 19th century technology.
I wish film and people that still use it would die. You're wasting my air.
>>2853639
You seem mad, anon.
Wanna talk about it when you're feeling a little better? :)
>>2853639
>You're wasting my air.
Haha, you haven't shot film before, have you?
We're REALLY wasting your water, digiplen.
>tfw fullframe digital and 6x7/4x5/8x10 masterrace
>>2853704
>Not using digital 8x10
pleb
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone 4 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2592 Image Height 1936 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:07:10 20:28:38 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 3.85 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1055 Image Height 845 Rendering Unknown Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2851866
why are you admitting to being braindead?
>>2853686
>>2853707
>not shooting Polaroid Big Shot 20x24
>>2854205
>not literally shooting Sugar
>>2853333
I got into 4x5 over the past year and it's ridiculous how much work it takes to not only take the photos, but even transporting your equipment. I think I went full gearfag and bought way more shit than I'd use. In fact, tomorrow I receive a 75mm lens in the mail. I'm not even sure the standards on my camera can get as close as 75mm apart.
>>2854239
This.
He has access, motive, and it can't be that hard to find the necessary equipment in Florida.
Must just be his own laziness holding him back.
>>2854303
I only use mine for landscapes with wide lens and b&w film, I get 100mp scans.
Am I a faggot?
>>2854343
You're only a faggot if you lie to yourself and say it's better than digital is
The picture itself would beat out digital, but you have to deal with ~100 lbs of camera, tripod, case, meter, film, carries, lenses, sheet, etc., plus setting it up.
Stay mad digifags. Film is better. Film is art while digital is fake and gay. Stop bitching and buy a real camera.
>>2854239
>>2854321
>implying I've never literally shot sugar
>>2854509
>fake and gay
So what happens when you want to share that film shot with the internet?
>>2854511
i tried to un-Sugar your image. hardest task ever. i think future guys will have great fun trying to de-clarityze images of our days.
>applying heavy vignette to a landscape
>oh its sugar nvm
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:06:03 02:52:47 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 850 Image Height 567
>>2854520
Make a Myspace post inviting people to your gallery show.
>>2854496
>you have to deal with ~100 lbs
Lmao, it's a 4x5 not a 8x10.
>>2854736
If that 4x5 is a Graphic View monorail or any other metal 4x5 from the 1940s, that's not all that far off.
>>2854736
Yeah, a field camera setup does't really weigh much more than a FF DSLR.
Sure, it is more cumbersome to use, and you will always need that tripod. Casettes/changing tent do add a slight bit of extra, but really, the difference isn't notable enough to impact normal use.
>>2853466
>>2853470
These are really good points in general for digital editing, whether or not you're trying to match film. Following a purely technical process will get consistent results, but not always striking ones. Much like mixing or mastering audio, where a key point is always 'trust your ear,' you need to do more than watch histograms and move sliders. Trust your eyes.
>>2855071
No mines a field camera, a crown graphic. The tripod is probably excessive but I haven't bought a modern one to try it with either.
It's not some motherfucking war. There's no need to be hostile. There are pros and cons to both digital and film. I love the look of film.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 600 dpi Vertical Resolution 600 dpi Image Created 2015:04:01 03:17:08 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3479 Image Height 2376
>>2857637
You haven't been here very long it seems!
Everything is black and white, life or death, patrician or disgusting filth. This is the autism box
>>2857640
I rarely visit /p/. Foolishly I held out for this board to be good. Where else besides 4chan?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 600 dpi Vertical Resolution 600 dpi Image Created 2015:02:26 02:02:19 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3502 Image Height 2390
