Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 4

6 7 8 end

Archive 2011 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #1 · p.5 #1 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

It's a raw scan without any subsequent adjustments. Crushing blacks and blowing highlights in the scanning process is a common mistake among people scanning film.

Aug 23, 2011 at 06:37 AM

AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #2 · p.5 #2 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Bifurcator wrote:
I haven't read his opinions about film but I can imagine.

Man those ought to be some real doozies! Damn! Now I have to go read them just for the soap opera affect.

Hahah, I think I may have read some of his opinions about it in the past, but it's indeed very easy to imagine what they would be.

Aug 23, 2011 at 08:53 AM

kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Bifurcator wrote:
Yep, I like Ken because I think I get him... He's a complete sell-out to both his whim at the moment and to any commercial interests - and all in the most campy way possible. After one understands that it's easy to read him for the little factoids he delivers while avoiding taking seriously his opinions and general banter - entertainment at it's best - better than most TV!

I haven't read his opinions about film but I can imagine.

Man those ought to be some real doozies! Damn! Now I have to go read them just for the soap...Show more →

Getting angry and Rockwell is like getting angry at people on forums who have opposing opinions. At least Rockwell can be entertaining

Aug 23, 2011 at 09:03 AM

Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #4 · p.5 #4 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Yeah, no one is talking anger here. I hope. He's a great guy IMO. Like you said, entertaining....

Aug 23, 2011 at 09:26 AM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #5 · p.5 #5 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Getting angry at Rockwell is like getting angry at a monkey throwing feces - it won't stop it and will reduce your own enjoyment of the spectacle.

As long as you don't fall into trap of taking him seriously he does make an entertaining contribution to the photo related stuff on them interwebs.

Aug 23, 2011 at 09:36 AM

kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #6 · p.5 #6 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Bifurcator wrote:
Yeah, no one is talking anger here. I hope. He's a great guy IMO. Like you said, entertaining....

Thrice mentioned ulcers and the vitriol thrown at Rockwell in other threads on this forum (and other photo forums, for that matter) tends to show a lot of anger for Rockwell.

denoir wrote:
As long as you don't fall into trap of taking him seriously he does make an entertaining contribution to the photo related stuff on them interwebs.

I don't take any photographers seriously (no matter how hard they try).

Aug 23, 2011 at 09:36 AM

AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #7 · p.5 #7 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Obviously Ken doesn't need others to defend him. He's probably getting enough donations for his website to support his "ever growing family" (or enough at least to keep his website up).

Aug 23, 2011 at 09:57 AM

Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #8 · p.5 #8 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Bifurcator wrote:
Yeah, no one is talking anger here. I hope. He's a great guy IMO. Like you said, entertaining....

denoir wrote:
As long as you don't fall into trap of taking him seriously he does make an entertaining contribution to the photo related stuff on them interwebs.

kakomu wrote:
Thrice mentioned ulcers and the vitriol thrown at Rockwell in other threads on this forum (and other photo forums, for that matter) tends to show a lot of anger for Rockwell.
I don't take any photographers seriously (no matter how hard they try).

Ha ha... you're so busted! First you take Thrice (a photographer) and other photographers "in other threads on this forum" over-seriously and then you say you "don't take any photographers seriously". Heheheheeee... Oh the irony!

Aug 23, 2011 at 10:29 AM

kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #9 · p.5 #9 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Bifurcator wrote:
Ha ha... you're so busted! First you take Thrice (a photographer) and other photographers "in other threads on this forum" over-seriously and then you say you "don't take any photographers seriously". Heheheheeee... Oh the irony!

Meh. I'll just leave you with this thread on FM about KR's opinions and let you see what I'm talking about: Link

Aug 23, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #10 · p.5 #10 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Yeah, I know... I think it's best to ignore fools tho... don't you?

Aug 23, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #11 · p.5 #11 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

denoir wrote:
It's a raw scan without any subsequent adjustments. Crushing blacks and blowing highlights in the scanning process is a common mistake among people scanning film.

You don't have to "crush" blacks, but you should set the black point if you want it to look as good as possible. I think not processing film images is the most common mistake among people scanning film. You don't have to over-do it, but some minor tweaks is almost always beneficial.

That said, these non-blacks is one way to tell that the image was shot on film. Digital cameras just won't give that look if you don't apply it, which I've never seen anyone do to this date.

Aug 23, 2011 at 02:46 PM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #12 · p.5 #12 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Makten wrote:
You don't have to "crush" blacks, but you should set the black point if you want it to look as good as possible.

You are missing the point Martin - I posted that to look as bad as possible. The context was the claim that film was more "punchy" and "emotional". So I found a raw scan of a brick wall to parody that point.

That said, these non-blacks is one way to tell that the image was shot on film. Digital cameras just won't give that look if you don't apply it, which I've never seen anyone do to this date.

It's commonly used when shooting video as most cameras lack any type of RAW codec. So instead you shoot "flat" - i.e with a very low contrast picture profile to maximize dynamic range. It's only in post that you fix it with the appropriate curves adjustments.

If I was not as lazy as I am I would probably use the same approach for scanning - i.e save the PP for photoshop and try to get the maximum amount of information from the scan.

Aug 23, 2011 at 03:13 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #13 · p.5 #13 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

You have a peculiar type of laziness, Luka

One which compels you to do little with film but much with digital. I think Martin has something closer to the opposite type of laziness

You guys sound like an old couple, the way you argue point for point.

Having said that, I don't think you can make much of a point by posting an unprocessed shot. I think that it should be pretty clear that the intent of any statement along the lines of film being more this or that than digital, or vice versa, presumes ideal processing on both sides.

Aug 23, 2011 at 03:17 PM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #14 · p.5 #14 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

carstenw wrote:
You have a peculiar type of laziness, Luka

One which compels you to do little with film but much with digital. I think Martin has something closer to the opposite type of laziness

Eh? I spend a *lot* more time processing each film shot than with digital. I'm just not fond of the scanning software and do it in photoshop.

Having said that, I don't think you can make much of a point by posting an unprocessed shot. I think that it should be pretty clear that the intent of any statement along the lines of film being more this or that than digital, or vice versa, presumes ideal processing on both sides.

The whole premise of film being 'more emotional' is so ridiculous that using a processed or unprocessed makes zero difference. The reason for posting that image was not because it was unprocessed but because it was useless photo of a brick wall that would have had zero emotional content regardless of medium or processing.

Aug 23, 2011 at 03:26 PM

Zaitz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #15 · p.5 #15 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

denoir wrote:
Eh? I spend a *lot* more time processing each film shot than with digital. I'm just not fond of the scanning software and do it in photoshop.

The whole premise of film being 'more emotional' is so ridiculous that using a processed or unprocessed makes zero difference. The reason for posting that image was not because it was unprocessed but because it was useless photo of a brick wall that would have had zero emotional content regardless of medium or processing.

So you'd thought you'd join in?

The link I posted has more merit than the garbage comparison you did of a poorly exposed and/or developed negative to a digital shot...made to look like film. The difference in his digital shots is not small, it is not large, it is a gigantic difference.

Aug 23, 2011 at 03:28 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #16 · p.5 #16 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

denoir wrote:
Eh? I spend a *lot* more time processing each film shot than with digital. I'm just not fond of the scanning software and do it in photoshop.

I won't argue with you about your scanning technique, but I hope you spend enough time in the scanning to get close to optimal results, i.e. no clipping but a good range of tones. Continuing in PS would then be perfectly valid, I would think.

The whole premise of film being 'more emotional' is so ridiculous that using a processed or unprocessed makes zero difference. The reason for posting that image was not because it was unprocessed but because it was useless photo of a brick wall that would have had zero emotional content regardless of medium or processing.

I don't know, I find it has a certain je ne sais quoi... Perhaps setting the black point would help ;)

On the one hand I agree with you, and film being more emotional by default is laughable. On the other hand, for certain uses, I find that some of films characteristics, such as the limited dynamic range (in the case of most colour negative films, and all colour slide films to my knowledge), and resolution limited by visible grain, can add a certain abstractness to film shots which lets the mind wander, whereas digital is often so clean as to be excessively literal.

But I will give you, it takes a very good photographer to extract the most out of this.

Edited on Aug 23, 2011 at 03:38 PM · View previous versions

Aug 23, 2011 at 03:37 PM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #17 · p.5 #17 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Zaitz wrote:
The link I posted has more merit than the garbage comparison you did of a poorly exposed and/or developed negative to a digital shot...made to look like film.

Yeah, I noticed you couldn't tell the difference/didn't dare to guess. The exposures were correct (it was beyond the dynamic range of the film in one of the shots) and it was correctly developed by a lab.

The difference in his digital shots is not small, it is not large, it is a gigantic difference.

As is the difference between your digital and film shots on flickr. Your digital are much better, as I think you realize as well - as 10 out of 12 of the images in your "favorites set" are digital. The reason for that is the same why Gregory's film shots in that set were much better than the digital: He shot film for many years before switching to digital. The film shots were a selection of his best shots while his digital shots were just shots he had taken recently.

Aug 23, 2011 at 03:37 PM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #18 · p.5 #18 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

carstenw wrote:
I won't argue with you about your scanning technique, but I hope you spend enough time in the scanning to get close to optimal results, i.e. no clipping but a good range of tones. Continuing in PS would then be perfectly valid, I would think.

I let the scanner software deal with that which is usually good enough unless you have a severely underxposed/overexposed shot.

On the one hand I agree with you, and film being more emotional by default is laughable. On the other hand, for certain uses, I find that some of films characteristics, such as the limited dynamic range (in the case of most colour negative films, and all colour slide films to my knowledge), and resolution limited by visible grain, can add a certain abstractness to film shots which lets the mind wander, whereas digital is often so clean as to be excessively literal.

Don't take me wrong, I think there's definitely a difference and that one can utilize it to get various effects. A high contrast B/W film will definitely set a different mood compared to some bland oversaturated SOOC JPEG.

I was just commenting on the silliness of Zaitz's increasingly fundamentalist (and as you put it, laughable) claims.

Aug 23, 2011 at 03:42 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #19 · p.5 #19 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to directly contradict Zaitz' claims, since I believe that he is talking of the same thing I referred to earlier: a presumption of ideal processing. I think well-processed film has something which digital can only attain through extremely time-consuming and difficult "film-like" processing, which to me is just silly. Use each medium for its strengths. I still prefer digital most of the time, but film has something which won't let me go. In my own work, I don't think I can give either the upper hand, but when I see work from a master, I often find film more intriguing and satisfying. Perhaps this is just due to the "years of use, selection of best" phenomenon you mentioned, perhaps there is something more. For me, it is real though. There is definitely something there.

Aug 23, 2011 at 03:59 PM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #20 · p.5 #20 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

carstenw wrote:
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to directly contradict Zaitz' claims, since I believe that he is talking of the same thing I referred to earlier: a presumption of ideal processing. I think well-processed film has something which digital can only attain through extremely time-consuming and difficult "film-like" processing, which to me is just silly. Use each medium for its strengths. I still prefer digital most of the time, but film has something which won't let me go. In my own work, I don't think I can give either the upper hand, but when I see work from a...Show more →

Ehm, if the presumption is ideal processing (if there is such a thing) then you can't dismiss it as time consuming and difficult and "silly" in one case and not in the other. For 135 B/W it's more work to scan and process film than it is to PP a digital to come close to it. The fact that you can't make a 35mm digital look like medium or large format film has to do with the image format and not the medium.

I won't get into color film vs color digital because it's much more complex and to turn one into the other does indeed require a lot of work.

But it has nothing to do with Zaitz' claims. What he did was to post a link to a forum post that contained a couple of B/W film photographs (a selection of his all time favorites) and a couple of color digital photos (recent ones) that differed completely in content and style. Then he claimed it was proof of how film was more emotional and punchy because the film photos in that post were.

Aug 23, 2011 at 04:11 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.