Why did the 80's look so good? And why is it so difficult to recapture that feeling/aesthetic?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Photographer ABC Photo Archives Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 100 dpi Vertical Resolution 100 dpi Image Created 2016:07:04 19:55:51 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1035 Image Height 1517
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Comment Screenshot Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1280 Image Height 694 Scene Capture Type Standard
[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 2011:12:23 11:30:47 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 566 Image Height 848
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Comment Screenshot Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1280 Image Height 690 Scene Capture Type Standard
It didn't. It isn't.
>what is a fresnel
mhmmhmmhmh
>how is it so difficult to recapture the smell of shit the 80's was?
FILM
I
L
M
Now it's all about convenience and performance. But supposedly you can edit digital to look like film. Only that no one seemed to have done this so far.
>>2877257
Thread
>>2877248
it's difficult to recapture because it never really existed. the aesthetics of the 80s were hugely varied and far away from what we collectively "remember" as the 80s. if there's any theme to the art of the 80s, it is pushing technology. but that stuff was regarded as crap in its day, just as artists on the edge of todays technology are now regarded. in the future the types who today yearn for the 1980s will be nostalgic for the likes of Joe McNally and David LaChapelle
>>2877248
Nostalgia and nothing more
>>2877273
>FILM
This! Filmmakers and photographers had to learn lighting and how to use their gear.
>>2877248
I wouldn't say it has anything specifically to do with the 80's but if you look at that image then one can say film captures light and tone and colour in a way that digital does not. Mostly due to the pixel grid and filtering that is immediately applied to the light presented to the sensor.
Take it back as far as you want with analog photography, and you will find examples that hold details and nuances in them that you don't see with digital. If there is a method to making a digital capture look analog, then the amount of time it would take to achieve such a result would negate the entire convenience factor of digital.
I've always thought the 80's looked like shit. The sounds and industrial/fantasy aesthetic are what make the period charming.
>>2877338
Uh, you're confusing the issue when you post a large format shot and then say that all film looks like that and digital could't possibly look like that.
You couldn't get a photo like the one you posted with that kind of detail and tonality on 35mm film from any era, but you could probably get a photo reasonably close to that with modern medium format or (especially) large format scanning back sensors.
>>2877248
it didnt look any better and if you use the same cameras they did, dress the way they did and surround yourself in stuff from the 80's you will get pictures exactly the same
its just because its something different and not the norm we see today, if you showed someone back then a picture from today they would think similar thoughts about how cool our world looks now
>>2877603
>*modern digital medium format
meant to post that.
>>2877603
Here's a medium format shot. I know it is cause I own the neg.
Have shot on medium format digital and processed and seen many shots from them. Still doesn't do what analog does.
Trust me. It's not the size it's the nature of light sensitive emulsions. Even on 135 it's visible.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 1419 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2877621
>Here's a medium format shot. I know it is cause I own the neg.
ok? what's your point?
>>2877621
>Trust me.
no desu. the very fact that you can scan that picture into a computer indicates that you can represent it digitally. the only major difference with digital is you have to expose for the highlights instead of the shadows
>>2877632
>expose for the shadows
Oh fuck, where'd my highlights go? What's this giant smear where the highlights should be?
Digital is trash for a reason.
>>2877633
>I can't adjust to changing technology
don't worry grampa we'll be burying you soon enough anyway
>denying that film is different from digital
its one thing to argue that one is better than the other, but saying they look the same? we're reaching new levels of retardation
>>2877643
is anyone actually saying that in this thread?
>>2877632
I don't believe so.
The properties of how the light was originally captured are still inherent in a digital scan/copy.
Not 100% but it's still there.
Making a digital copy of an analog shot doesn't produce the same result as shooting the scene on digital in the first place. It doesn't magically transform it to look like the other format. Just producing a neg from a digital capture doesn't magically give it the tone or an initial analog shot.
>>2877649
>Just as producing a neg from a digital capture doesn't magically give it the tone of an initial analog shot.
Corrected my retarded typing.
>>2877635
>And the fact that you posted a fabulously detailed medium format negative only reinforces my point.
Lol.. Now I'm not sure what your point was..
If you've ever seen say.. some of HCB's work on 35mm printed you'll know it smokes digital in terms of depth and tones and acutance.
So I'm waiting for some digital samples that show us otherwise.
>>2877656
I'm saying that it's misleading to post a large format shot, then say that "all film looks like this and this is why it's better than digital" (I'm paraphrasing here). A lot of what contributes to that smooth-as-fuck tonality and detail (despite the jpeg compression) is the fact that it was shot on large format, and not because it was film. A 135 neg wouldn't look half as good.
>>2877656
>If you've ever seen say.. some of HCB's work on 35mm printed you'll know it smokes digital in terms of depth and tones and acutance.
>So I'm waiting for some digital samples that show us otherwise.
And to respond to this, I would have agreed with you 10 years ago, but modern digital has closed the gap in a lot of ways. I still love film, and shoot it frequently in all formats from 135 up to 4x5. Yes, digital is fake and gay trash. I've heard it all.
If digital is good enough for Salgado, it's definitely good enough for me.
>>2877649
>The properties of how the light was originally captured
this is just mysticism at this point. it is perfectly possible to recreate the film look by appropriate post-processing. These operations degrade the image so there is some effective of resolution/bit depth, but the idea that you cannot replicate the look is just nonsense.
>>2877262
what the fuck is fresnel
>>2877338
That picture you posted doesn't look like it's from the 80's. Every film and show from the 80's has the same look and feeling, it's even present in animation.
>>2877666
>it is perfectly possible to recreate the film look by appropriate post-processing
Why has no one ever done this then?
>>2877674
It's a lens you put in front of a light to give it a soft feathered edge with an extremely uniform center. It was very common in old glamour photography with celebrities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH5no454a8A
>>2877681
Interesting. But did any of you see the other examples I posted besides the OP pic?
>>2877685
Yeah, those don't have fresnel, and I don't think fresnel is what makes things "look 80's". I'm just explaining what a fresnel light is. The other guy was probably responding to your Cybill Shepherd portrait, which in my opinion doesn't even typify the 80's aesthetic outside of the pink satin and decor.
Really, none of the stuff you posted has a single unifying aesthetic, so I don't even know what you're asking about. I guess Sigourney Weaver made the 80's look so good? Is that what you meant?
>>2877678
because serious artists who use digital cherish the different look: it allows them to easily distinguish themselves from the previous generation. and for gallery artists who want the film look, film is still easier. a lot of the digital look is postprocessing anyway.
I mean VSCO isn't perfect but a lot of those shots are pretty convincing if the person taking them doesn't fuck up the highlights. and that's a more or less automatic process.
http://annawu.com/blog/2011/11/vsco-film/
>>2877690
on quick examination that link is garbage because she completely fucked up the highs, here's a better comparison
http://petapixel.com/2015/09/01/comparing-a-vsco-film-emulation-to-the-actual-film/
>>2877687
No, I have no idea how to explain what I mean, unfortunately.
Maybe /tv/ would understand.
>>2877690
Surely I can't be the only person who wants to have the film look with the cheapness and convenience of digital?
>>2877715
well I mean what part of the film look? as far as I'm concerned adding fake film grain is stupid, but you can slap it on pretty easily these days. if you're talking about tonality, the tonality controls afforded by curves, saturation, and masking editing in photoshop are far superior to the control offered by picking your favorite flavor of film. if you're talking about highlights, well, it's routine to underexpose these days but I do admit the dynamic range of digital isn't quite at the level where you can always save the shadows
>>2877703
/tv/ will just soft pedal you some nonsense about how they used film back then and digital cinema is ruining muh aesthetics and blah blah blah, though again that's not something that is solely the 80's and not also part of every other decade.
i will say that they tended to use contrastier lighting ratios back in the 80's. lighting goes in and out of style just like everything else, and they stopped using those super-hot highlights around the mid 90's.
>>2877759
super-hot highlights?
>>2877759
well it's also harder to get away with contrasty lighting in digital
>>2877772
see:
>>2877251
also pic related from blade runner
>>2877776
Yeah, but they moved away from contrasty lighting long before digital cinema was even a thing.
Terminator 1 is basically a college course on 80's lighting. Check out this scene, especially the close-up on Arnie's face as he looks around. Extremely contrasty lighting with bright, almost blown highlights.
Porn was with mustaches in those days. This somehow made the world better.
>>2877794
I would also say that the 80's saw a lot of cross lighting. It was a more constructed, sculptural (and some may say stilted) style of lighting. They would use 3 or 4 or 5 point lighting, even in movies, even when it the light sources didn't really make any sense when you thought about it. The trend gave way towards a more naturalistic, slightly softer in the 90's. Single-lit scenes, motivated lighting, stuff like that. Compare that Terminator clip to this one from The Matrix (which was a visual landmark in a lot of ways).
No more highlights coming out of nowhere in the shadowed parts of their faces. No cross lighting. It's a very simple, naturalistic setup. Highlights are under control, and anything that's not lit by the supposed light source (which you could almost imagine to be a chandelier or something out of frame, when it's really just a giant softbox) falls into deep shadow. Still shot on film, doesn't look at all 80's.
Photographers had to actually know what the fuck they were doing in the 80s.
It took skill to do things.
Now, any asshole with a Twitter account, an iPad and an attitude can sell shitty photos to shitty bottom-feeding editors.
Even images that would be below agerage in the 80s can look like technical marvels today.
>>2877853
that's the kind of thing people said when 35mm came out and you didn't need to lug around a big wooden box and tripod to take pictures anymore
>>2877859
Yeah, I feel like Bart is kind of taking the piss here. He's too smart to say stupid shit like that.
>>2877859
>>2877871
Let me explain.
It isn't too controversial to say that editorial, advertising and commercial photography... on a whole... has prioritized speed and low budgets lately. It does show.
One element is that technology makes this more efficient. This is true. Still, the days of big budget, technically marvellous photography are essentially over. Most photographers today (me especially) don't possess the knowledge and technical capability required then.
(More)
(Cont'd)
...not to say they don't make cool images now. And not to say nobody has the skills. It just isn't needed or budgeted anymore.
Example: I am close with a studio photographer who still does very well. He explained the technical and quality requirements as they have changed over time. "Good enough" now would have gotten you fired 25 years ago. He isnt complaining, as shoots are easier and faster. He just needs to book more jobs.
One beer ad, photographing a bottle on ice might have been 2 weeks of prep work and $50k of budget. (They crafted huge glass and plastic ice cubes with specific refractive properties to splice into the images!) The film enlargements are unbelievably beautiful.
Today, since you can get 80% of the way there with a few lights and Photoshop at 15% of the budget, work like that - Fine art quality work for a basic product shot - is basically extinct.
It isn't that modern commercial photographers are stupid or incapable - but the skills required today are just different.
Very very few people out there have the means and ability to perfectly recreate that era.
>>2877621
What a cutie
>>2877664
Salgado's digital work is too over the top. I think his work was better when he was more limited by b&w film. Digital provides him too much control and he goes ape shit with it imo.
![stallone-cobra-rayan[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/n4yag9X.jpg "stallone-cobra-rayan[1].jpg")
>>2877248
A few thoughts
>film cameras were really in their prime, and film photographers were well experienced with shooting with them
>the gritty and "experimental" avante garde photography of the 90s had not set in yet
>the 80s is long enough ago that it seems exotic and fantastic
>>2877248
>Shoot on film on very consumer SLRs with kind of low quality glass
>Add dated motifs
That's literally it
What you find charismatic or unique about old photos is the flaws in the chemical processes of film, the slight blur the lens has preventing images from being sharp or from colors looking faded from poor color rendition
Learn what mechanical flaws cause this aesthetic and use it to your advantage
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Unknown Horizontal Resolution 300 dpcm Vertical Resolution 300 dpcm Image Created 2016:04:16 13:58:43 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2000 Image Height 1544
>>2877977
huh?
>>2877811
Tons of movies are shot on film up to this day anyways. If you ever see a bluescreen instead of a greenscreen in some making-ofs of a blockbuster - it means it was shot on film. All the IMAX stuff is shot on film, obviously. Tarantino shots everything on film. Etc.
>>2878003
Yep! Here's hoping that film persists into the 21st century as well.
I will say that film technology has improved tons since the 80's, and so interior shots (typically around 800-1600 ASA) looked super grainy back then, but look relatively clean these days.
>>2878004
Honestly film has no advantage in the cinema industry except for when it comes to action shots because of cmos rolling shutter effects
http://motion.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploadedFiles/Motion/Products/Product_Information/Kodak-Motion-Picture-Products-Price-Catalog-US-Prices_May_2016_V5.pdf
check out the kodak motion picture price catalog, financiers hate how expensive that shit is
>>2878004
>interior shots (typically around 800-1600 ASA) looked super grainy back then, but look relatively clean these days.
and in contrast - there are some industry standard digital cameras that can produce just horrible amounts of grain in low-light scenes.
>>2878010
Absolutely. And in 2046, there will be dumbass kids with a misplaced sense of nostalgia trying to get that "two thousand teens" look.
>>2877248
it's the curly hair.
>>2877248
medium format
>>2877338
>what a pile of nostalgia
For a given format digital does a better job in almost all respects: detail, color, tonality, noise/grain. Heck, there are situations where digital challenges the next format up. I've looked at higher ISO RAW images from small format (35mm) that would easily challenge 645 scans.
I say "almost" because each film had a preset look designed by a chemist. Out of camera RAW is pretty neutral and doesn't look that great until you edit it. This has nothing to do with pixel grids or "filtering" and everything to do with the fact that neutral films would have sold like shit because people didn't have Photoshop back then.
>>2877621
>Still doesn't do what analog does.
Because film was designed to behave in certain ways. It was the equivalent of a Photoshop or iPhone plugin, but in a can.
If you want that look with digital then you need to edit the RAW file. Or find a plugin that mimics that film's behavior. Lots of plugins claim to do this, but I'm not sure how many are truly faithful to the old films. I know I've tried a few only to think "that's not how the film looked." But I can certainly achieve the look on my own.
>>2878054
there are many advantages of medium format but none of them are represented in this shot
>>2878089
>each film had a preset look designed by a chemist
>>2878091
>It was the equivalent of a Photoshop or iPhone plugin, but in a can.
stupid thing to say.
some of the things which affect the look of film:
--exposure
--developer
--dilution
--developing time
--temperature
--use of stop bath / water
--agitation
then you have to remember, before digital, there was no film scanning. if you wanted to see a photograph, you had to make a print. then you introduce
--type of enlarger light
--type of paper, different grades of contrast
--another developer
--dilution, time, temperature, agitation, etc (same as above)
--dodging and burning
if you are an effective photographer, each and every one of these things can be used to change the tones and curves of a photograph. there is no default "look" to a film. granted, some films are more flexible than others (tri-x pan would look more or less the same in whichever developer you used). but your choice of film is only the beginning of how your photograph would look, its nothing near a "preset"
>>2878115
only an incredibly tiny fraction of art photographers tweaked color film development themselves, come on
>>2878121
well, yeah true that's mostly for black and white. one of the posts I was replying to had replied to a black and white medium format photo
with colour though, you still have to factor in the printing process, which actually adds more alterations with colour filters and also the fact that the dyes are much more sensitive to changes in temperature and prone to colour shifts and fading
>>2878121
>what is printing
>>2878115
and all of these manipulations were painstakingly designed to accomplish what today's photographers can do in a few seconds in photoshop :D
>>2878172
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>>2878115
>film's look is so unique
>there is no default "look" to a film
>sweating_man_can't_pick_a_button.jpg
Yes there is a default look to each film. If that were not the case then no one would have manufactured more than one film in several ISOs.
>some of the things which affect the look of film:
Affecting the look of a film does not entirely wipe out its inherent characteristics. Velvia underexposed looks like Velvia underexposed, not like Portra underexposed.
Also: most of the things you list are not things you can change when working with color film. That's because the separate layers are very sensitive to everything being in spec. When they are out of spec the color film or print ends up looking like shit. (Or ends up looking hipster if that's your thing.)
>>2878040
In this case I wasnt talking abou aesthethics. Heavily grainy and noisy footage is harder to work in with in post production, vfx work etc. It fucks with your keying for example.
We had a pretty good discussion about lightning and then it just had to devolve into another "film vs digital" thread, for fucks sake....
>>2877664
Yah that photo is a poor example if you're putting it up against some good 35mm analog photography. Looks flat, fake and overcooked. Synthetic. Poor representation of reality, Salgado or not. Exactly what is WRONG with digital images.
>>2878091
>It was the equivalent of a Photoshop or iPhone plugin, but in a can.
Whoa.. Now you are stretching the truth. It's not the equivalent of that. Grading in post would be more similar to photoshop or plugins.
The way the dyes and crystals react to light cannot be accurately represented by tweaking a digital photo from a sensor that REJECTS like 40% of the light coming to it. Almost half the surface area of a digital sensor can't even see the light.
>>2878411
Do you have any links about that?
>>2878414
https://vimeo.com/130266931
http://www.invisage.com/technology/
New tech that aims to overcome the light loss and other issues... By using an analog layer of nano particles.
OP photo looks like that because the photog knew what theye were doing. Look at it: perfect lighting, perfect exposure and great planning with colours and materials.
>>2878378
Lel you must not be familiar with salgado's work. It all looks like that, film or digital.
>>2878463
it doesn't look like salgado's analog stuff, it looks digital
I think it's the high contrast rim lights on every fold of every seal that gives it away
>>2878312
holy shit, you're retarded
re-read my post, slowly and carefully, and maybe it will get through your thick skull the second time around
>>2878513
I read your post and pointed out your mistakes. Now fuck off to /b/ if you're going to be an arrogant, ignorant little dick.
>>2878411
>The way the dyes and crystals react to light cannot be accurately represented by tweaking a digital photo from a sensor that REJECTS like 40% of the light coming to it. Almost half the surface area of a digital sensor can't even see the light.
>LOLWUT?
Maybe you should learn something about digital sensors before posting in a photography forum.
Side note: I thought all this "hurr durr film is so special" mysticism ended by the late 2000's?
>>2878419
>marketing materials
A 110 sized sensor (m43) produces better ISO 1600 images than any ISO 400 film that ever existed.
But digital "rejects light" and therefore film is special.
>>2878552
Should say "...than any 35mm ISO 400 film that ever existed."
>>2878008
well, it looks better, hence why so many films still use it
>>2878547
>Maybe you should learn something about digital sensors before posting in a photography forum.
Maybe you should shut your whore mouth so you don't sound stupid.
'Virtually all current digital cameras can only capture one of three primary colors in each cavity, and so they discard roughly 2/3 of the incoming light. As a result, the camera has to approximate the other two primary colors in order to have full color at every pixel. The most common type of color filter array is called a "Bayer array"
Go on.. Go to this website and learn something...
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm
>>2878552
>But digital "rejects light
Not only does it reject light but it makes up the rest of the information that it couldn't capture.. Yeah.. A whole bunch of the digital photo is interpolated.
>still saying digital is superior
pure delusion..
>>2878591
Define "tone" and "depth".
If by tone you mean the ability to distinguish changes in brightness and/or color, then digital had small format (35mm) film beat a long time ago. No later than the 3MP Canon D30. Note that this definition can be described and tested scientifically, so it's pointless to reply that it's not true. It most definitely is true, and this was a dead horse in the early 2000's.
If by tone you mean how brightness and color are mapped...the characteristic curves that give a film its "look"...then the question is pointless because any RAW file can be mapped in the same fashion.
Holy fucking shit, can you people just settle on that some folks just like using film? Where is the need to convince someone that one medium is better than the other? And even better - convince someone by insulting him at every turn? Just use whatever the fuck you like and piss off, like what the fuck. You really have nothing better to do than argue about digital vs film? Go and take some photos.
>>2878598
>>2878605
>MUH BAYER FILTER!
I should have guessed that's what you were getting at. Film fags always whine about this thinking they have a point.
You said: "...sensor that REJECTS like 40% of the light coming to it. Almost half the surface area of a digital sensor can't even see the light."
This is how an idiot might describe a Bayer filter array. The filter does not REJECT LIGHT, nor does it mean that 40% of the sensor is in pitch black and "can't even see the light." It does reduce sensitivity, but by considerably less than 1 stop in modern sensors.
Also, color information is not "made up." It's determined by looking at all neighboring pixels. This is how your eye works btw. Which means if RGB filtering and post capture interpolation resulted in any kind of deficit, then you wouldn't be able to tell that film was superior because you wouldn't be able to see the differences. It would be like a human trying to perceive the differences in UV reflection between two flowers.
Now to school you on two related points of "superior film"...
1) Silver halide crystals can be made very sensitive to light, and are very effective chemical amplifiers. The problem is that once an individual crystal has been struck by enough photons to cause it to develop it becomes a blind spot in the emulsion. Any additional photons which strike it are lost. As more light strikes the film, and more individual crystals are exposed sufficiently for development, the odds that a single photon will strike a crystal that still requires a photon drops.
To use your terminology, the film begins REJECTING LIGHT.
This gives film two of its characteristics. One is the gentle roll off into highlights. The other is its relative insensitivity to light vs. digital sensors.
continued...
>>2878598
>>2878605
continued from: >>2878635
2) Color film uses 3 (or more) layers. That means it's superior to Bayer because it's sensitive to all wavelengths at each point on the film. Right?
Well...
Color film has the same issue as plain B&W: once an individual crystal absorbs enough photons to develop its done counting photons. To actually get color you have to have a section of film that is large enough that many crystals in each layer can be exposed.
With Bayer digital the absolute minimum area to measure color is 2x2, or 4 pixels. (Note that with a real world scene 2x2 is sufficient to assign a color to each pixel with accuracy that is beyond any non-scientific need. But you have to have an area 2x2 to do so.)
Who wins this battle?
With even the finest grained color slide films you can start to perceive grain (dye clouds) under moderate magnification. (35mm to 8x10 for example.) The smallest area on film that can accurately record/represent a color is larger than the area for 2x2 pixels on any modern sensor. It's pretty easy to demonstrate that at that scale digital has greater sensitivity to color changes and greater accuracy recording color, with the sole exception of monochromatic light sources in a lab test.
Now...are we done throwing around old myths about film and digital?
>>2878620
>can you people just settle on that some folks just like using film?
This thread was derailed with posts about the "hurr durr magic of teh filmz" and how digital can never compete. Don't blame the "other side" for that.
>>2878660
But the film does have a specific look and characteristic that, yeah, COULD be replicated in posproduction. But I don't think that film industry does try to replicate that look - so, yeah, that "80's look" beeing partially a redult of using film or specific films is a valid point.
>>2878663
It is absolutely valid to point out that past movies used film stock which is out of production today. And which may not be easy to replicate (i.e. no one has produced a piece of software which accurately does so).
I agree 100% with that. It's not the only reason we clearly recognize different movies and scenes as being from the same time period. But it's a big one.
I'll go a step further. While any film's characteristics can be replicated digitally, it simply may not be practical to do so in some cases. I don't find many of the film emulation plugins to be all that accurate. If you want the look of, say, Velvia...you should probably just shoot Velvia.
It's the "hurr durr film captures magic light fairies that digital never can" posts that are retarded.
>>2877276
Huh?
>>2879055
>So where are the photos that show digital looking like film?
See:
>>2877690
>>2877692
Those are just two of countless comparisons made by photo bloggers using the various plugins and PS actions available, which you could find in a minute with Google. Some are close, some are way off, and some nail it perfectly.
>we have one of the best photographers alive
>and we can still pick his digi shots as flat and synthetic.
You've never been subjected to a double blind test. And I suspect that if you were you would be shocked at the results. Much like wine experts who claim to be able to detect any wine or class of wine and then mistake cheap supermarket wine for $500 a bottle wine. Narrative holds a powerful sway over our sensory experience. If you tell yourself "film is magical and digital sucks" that is what you will experience so long as there's a label to prime your expectations.
Remove the label and the truth comes out.
>>2877248
Ronald Reagan. People couldn't help but soak up the swagger.
>>2879055
that salgado shot doesn't look flat to me at all, the contrast looks exaggerated and more three-dimensional than film to me. if anything qualifies as the "digital look", it's that 3d, hyperreal aesthetic. and that's really something that you have to work for in photoshop.
>>2879319
m8 you can't be serious. that exaggerated contrast hyperreal look has been salgado's signature look since before digital was even a twinkle in the distance.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Photographer © Sebastião SALGADO / Amazonas images Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5998 Image Height 8997 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 169 dpi Vertical Resolution 169 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2009:08:25 13:08:40 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2250 Image Height 1500
>>2879365
yeah the light is similar but the textures are not as sharp, the seal picture has that thing where you feel like you can see every hair
>>2879319
Without wading into the Salgado debate, the overall thrust of what you say is true. It took some time for digital sensors to exceed the best films in terms of extinction resolution (MTF10), given the same sensor/film size.
But resolution at MTF50, which typically determines the viewer's impression of "sharpness" and overall structure? Digital beat film out of the gate on that measure, and by a wide margin.
And that is why digital sensors punch above their format class. I've seen 16x24 prints from APS-C sensors that would challenge the best MF film work. When you print larger the larger format film starts to pull ahead because the really fine details become more apparent and have a greater impact on the viewer. But at 16x24 and smaller the exceptional clarity of digital sensors, in mid-range resolution, dominates.
>>2879385
oh man i totally know what you're talking about. his film shots have no texture at all.
>>2879435
I'm actually pretty sure that image has been digitally sharpened
