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 … 5

7 8 end

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

Zaitz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #1 · p.6 #1 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

denoir wrote:
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.

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...Show more →
Some digital shots are better, most aren't. (my stream)

It is a guessing game with the comparison. The roll should have been processed according to the demands of the scene. If you had varying scenes then obviously that is a disadvantage of roll film, one reason I love sheets. Had you shot sheet film and known the conditions you'd have been able to correctly process the film to retain the highlight detail. The scene is not beyond the capability of the film but how it was handled.

Furthermore, using software such as Silver Efex and Alienskin Exposure to replicate film in a comparison is going to result in a guessing game every time. It's not like they haven't put any time into replicating film grain.

The topic of this thread is film look. Are you saying when you saw Gregory's photos they didn't scream film? The film look in his photos is completely obvious. And the differentiation to the digital shots is immediately noticeable. Better? I don't care and that's an opinion. But the film look is readily apparent.

The whole discussion is way off now. Back on track, do certain films not have an immediately distinguishable look? That is the whole point of the thread. And I think the film grain images speak volumes. Can you replicate it to a certain degree? sure. But that is because you are using a 'film look' emulator. Which must say something about an apparent difference between digital.

Aug 23, 2011 at 04:16 PM

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

p.6 #2 · p.6 #2 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Luka, perhaps I need to qualify what I wrote: I think that spending a lot of time making digital look film-like is silly. I don't think it is silly spending a lot of time making a nice look in either medium, but explicitly making one look like the other is just a waste of time, when the direct path of just shooting the other is available.

Aug 23, 2011 at 04:24 PM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #3 · p.6 #3 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Zaitz wrote:
4 of the 12 shots were before I started using large format. 3 of the 12 are LF.

Precisely, so apply the same logic to Gregory's set. He shot film for many years before switching to digital, so of course the majority of his best shots were film.

It is a guessing game with the comparison. The roll should have been processed according to the demands of the scene. If you had varying scenes then obviously that is a disadvantage of roll film, one reason I love sheets. Had you shot sheet film and known the conditions you'd have been able to correctly process the film to retain the highlight detail. The scene is not beyond the capability of the film but how it was handled.

That particular scene, mid day desert contrasts, the dynamic range was perhaps ~20 stops or so - beyond any medium digital or film. I lost both highlights and shadows in that scene. Had I exposed for the highlights, I would have lost the shadows and vice-versa. Both film and digital.

The topic of this thread is film look. Are you saying when you saw Gregory's photos they didn't scream film? The film look in his photos is completely obvious. And the differentiation to the digital shots is immediately noticeable. Better? I don't care and that's an opinion. But the film look is readily apparent.

It definitely did look like film, no doubt about it. They were also however completely different in nature and thus not comparable.

The whole discussion is way off now. Back on track, do certain films not have an immediately distinguishable look? That is the whole point of the thread. And I think the film grain images speak volumes. Can you replicate it to a certain degree? sure. But that is because you are using a 'film look' emulator. Which must say something about an apparent difference between digital.

No disagreement there. Different film stock produces different looks and it all differs from digital. There's even a lot of difference between digital and digital. But you can't label one as "more emotional" as it will entirely depend on the subject, the composition, the light etc - that was my point. If you are going to compare film & digital you have to look at comparable images.

Aug 23, 2011 at 04:28 PM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #4 · p.6 #4 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

carstenw wrote:
Luka, perhaps I need to qualify what I wrote: I think that spending a lot of time making digital look film-like is silly. I don't think it is silly spending a lot of time making a nice look in either medium, but explicitly making one look like the other is just a waste of time, when the direct path of just shooting the other is available.

Carsten, I'm not sure that I agree with you there. It depends on how much work you need to put in. Developing and scanning takes its time as does the film processing. If it's quicker with digital + film emulation, then why not? There is plenty of good software that makes the process simple plus you are not limited to the exact style of some film stock but can modify it. You don't have to use certain filters for instance etc

I shoot two different film formats 6x7 and 135. The former is because the cost of modern digital format backs is too high and the sensors still too small (645 at best). The latter mostly to get some variation from shooting digital. The camera in question, an M6 is also more enjoyable to use than my digital M9. And I use it for situations where I really don't care about getting perfect composition or high image quality and don't want to see the results immediately.

I'd shoot large format film if it wasn't for the whole size & weight issue plus the difficulty of finding somebody to develop 4x5 or 8x10 sheets at a reasonable cost.

Edited on Aug 23, 2011 at 04:39 PM · View previous versions

Aug 23, 2011 at 04:37 PM

Zaitz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

denoir wrote:
Precisely, so apply the same logic to Gregory's set. He shot film for many years before switching to digital, so of course the majority of his best shots were film.

That particular scene, mid day desert contrasts, the dynamic range was perhaps ~20 stops or so - beyond any medium digital or film. I lost both highlights and shadows in that scene. Had I exposed for the highlights, I would have lost the shadows and vice-versa. Both film and digital.

It definitely did look like film, no doubt about it. They were also however completely different in nature and thus not...Show more →

I plan on shooting a decent comparison for fun, though I think it's an exercise in futility. As we both seem to agree it is not necessarily better one way or the other. So then this thread is done. There is and can be a film look. My closest comparison I have available:

Aug 23, 2011 at 04:37 PM

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

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

Well, although I am generally a big fan of the film look, whatever that is, I would pick the second shot of these two, which I presume is digital.

I should mention that I am really not a fan of 135 format film, except for a few Tri-X and Kodachrome 64 shots I have seen. I prefer 645 and up, especially 6x6 and up.

Aug 23, 2011 at 04:43 PM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #7 · p.6 #7 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Zaitz wrote:
I plan on shooting a decent comparison for fun, though I think it's an exercise in futility. As we both seem to agree it is not necessarily better one way or the other. So then this thread is done. There is and can be a film look.

Yeah, I thought about doing one myself. M9 vs M6 with some B/W film stock, perhaps Delta 100. The question is how the images should be processed. I'm pretty sure that if one uses Silverfx or some such film emulation software that one could get close enough for most people not to be able to tell the difference. The question is though if there is any point to it and how the scene selection should be made. B/W film has a lot more latitude in the highlights than the M9's sensor but the latter has more latitude in the shadows.

The question is what the purpose of such a test is - is it to highlight the differences or to show that they can be made to look the same? The differences are huge if you don't do any processing to make them similar - one is color and the other B/W to take a trivial example. So what's the point?

I think there would be more interesting to see if one could make the digital to be indistinguishable from the film one. However, as you point out that would just be a question of emulating the film look which would not say anything about the intrinsic qualities of each medium.

Aug 23, 2011 at 04:47 PM

Zaitz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #8 · p.6 #8 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

carstenw wrote:
Well, although I am generally a big fan of the film look, whatever that is, I would pick the second shot of these two, which I presume is digital.

I should mention that I am really not a fan of 135 format film, except for a few Tri-X and Kodachrome 64 shots I have seen. I prefer 645 and up, especially 6x6 and up.
I agree. Look aside, the N90s only AF point in the center isn't the most pleasing compositionally.

I like 135 for street photography or any other time I want the grain. I really dig the look. I haven't don't much street photography in a while though. If I don't really want the grain then I would never shoot 135.

denoir wrote:
Yeah, I thought about doing one myself. M9 vs M6 with some B/W film stock, perhaps Delta 100. The question is how the images should be processed. I'm pretty sure that if one uses Silverfx or some such film emulation software that one could get close enough for most people not to be able to tell the difference. The question is though if there is any point to it and how the scene selection should be made. B/W film has a lot more latitude in the highlights than the M9's sensor but the latter has more latitude in the shadows....Show more →

Good points. Perhaps that is why it is pointless either way! Maybe do both and see what we get.

The test shots I use on my D300s don't usually qualify since they are shot near sunrise/sunset @f/22. That results in longer shutter speeds hand held to test exposure for 4x5 and 8x10. So they are blurry.

Well at least the discussion has made my work go by quicker. Evening work on a computer.

Edited on Aug 23, 2011 at 04:56 PM · View previous versions

Aug 23, 2011 at 04:50 PM

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

p.6 #9 · p.6 #9 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

denoir wrote:
The differences are huge if you don't do any processing to make them similar - one is color and the other B/W to take a trivial example. So what's the point?

Ummm, the point would perhaps be to show the huge differences between digital and film?

Isn't that what the thread is all about, and that some say doesn't exist?

Aug 23, 2011 at 04:53 PM

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

p.6 #10 · p.6 #10 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Zaitz wrote:
If I don't really want the grain then I would never shoot 135.

For me it isn't about not wanting *any* grain, it is just the total sum of smaller lens optical designs, excessive grain for some films, low resolution, and so on. I like grain, just not in 135 amounts. Seeing visible grain in a web-sized image is for me a problem, since I like subtle grain in A4-A3 sizes.

Aug 23, 2011 at 04:59 PM

Zaitz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #11 · p.6 #11 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

carstenw wrote:
For me it isn't about not wanting *any* grain, it is just the total sum of smaller lens optical designs, excessive grain for some films, low resolution, and so on. I like grain, just not in 135 amounts. Seeing visible grain in a web-sized image is for me a problem, since I like subtle grain in A4-A3 sizes.
I search a lot on flickriver and I always love the pushed high iso medium format photos. The grain is visible but small and sharp with high contrast. I just love the look.

Aug 23, 2011 at 05:01 PM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #12 · p.6 #12 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Makten wrote:
Ummm, the point would perhaps be to show the huge differences between digital and film?

Isn't that what the thread is all about, and that some say doesn't exist?

I think that the "some" that say that there's no differenc are a vanishingly small minority and that they can safely be ignored

Exact comparisons are very difficult for a couple of reasons:
* Different exposure strategies (differences in latitude and linear (senors) vs non-linear (film) response)
* Different scanning software produce very different results
* Different post processing (advisable for digital, absolutely necessary for scanned film)

and so on. You'd need a nearly infinite number of combinations of the various free variables before you'd get something that could be considered a fair comparison.

Making two images look similar by modifying one to match the other is far easier.. but again, perhaps not very meaningful.

Aug 23, 2011 at 05:04 PM

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

p.6 #13 · p.6 #13 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Zaitz wrote:
I search a lot on flickriver and I always love the pushed high iso medium format photos. The grain is visible but small and sharp with high contrast. I just love the look.

You make me curious now: would you post a sample link, so I can see what you mean? Couldn't that just be the processing that happens after scanning (he said, before looking at any samples)?

Aug 23, 2011 at 05:09 PM

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

p.6 #14 · p.6 #14 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

denoir wrote:
I think that the "some" that say that there's no differenc are a vanishingly small minority and that they can safely be ignored

Exact comparisons are very difficult for a couple of reasons:
* Different exposure strategies (differences in latitude and linear (senors) vs non-linear (film) response
* Different scanning software produce very different results
* Post processing (advisable for digital, absolutely necessary for scanned film)

and so on. You'd need a nearly infinite number of combinations of the various free variables before you'd get something that could be considered a fair comparison.

In my opinion, you should compare the mediums in a way that shows their benefits. You could shoot one single scene with both film and digital, process them for a result that looks good on each format and then compare them. Probably you'd find that the looks you strived for was very different, and that depends on the differences of the mediums, that you probably would exaggerate.

Trying to make digital look like film and vice versa is moot. If you like the look of film, shoot film if you can.

Aug 23, 2011 at 05:11 PM

Zaitz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #15 · p.6 #15 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

carstenw wrote:
You make me curious now: would you post a sample link, so I can see what you mean? Couldn't that just be the processing that happens after scanning (he said, before looking at any samples)?
I think these are some good examples:

Our rainbow umbrella (03.2009) by zgodzinski, on Flickr

?zz=1">
Won't let go by L e f t y, on Flickr

Max. T by Rory J Cole, on Flickr

Untitled by odysseuseses, on Flickr

beyond belief II by micmojo, on Flickr

embarrassment by yu+ichiro, on Flickr

?zz=1">
New York Public Library Grand Stair by T. Scott Carlisle, on Flickr

?zz=1">
New York Public LIbrary Grand Stair by T. Scott Carlisle, on Flickr

?zz=1">
3200hp5_1 by _do0d_, on Flickr

Seems a lot of it is Delta 3200. I thought about getting MF just for that O_O. I'm trying to consolidate down though.

Aug 23, 2011 at 05:51 PM

obik
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #16 · p.6 #16 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Zaitz wrote:
Seems a lot of it is Delta 3200. I thought about getting MF just for that O_O. I'm trying to consolidate down though.

Holy crap! We agree 100% on something. I'm constantly trying to decide whether or not to buy a Mamiya 7II just to shoot Delta 3200... If 3200 came in sheet, I'd be shooting 8x10 tomorrow...

Aug 23, 2011 at 06:09 PM

PhotoMaximum
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #17 · p.6 #17 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

You guys need to spend a few hours exploring the depth of some of the pages contained within the Large Format forum at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/

There are tons of guys there that shoot film (and digital) with large format gear. Most of these guys still shoot film. Some of them go nuts for old LF lenses that are really non mainstream. Us alt fans should appreciate that. Some will never even use modern LF lenses. Some will use all kinds of different darkroom techniques, silver sources, papers, chemicals, etc. Its a very personal, hands on craft at this level.

Its not always about shooting something and instantly tossing it up on a website just to say "look what I just shot". Photography used to be about being out there and using all kinds of capture techniques, processing techniques, printing techniques, and final presentation techniques that would produce a great image that people would gladly stand in front of. Photography was a personal journey, requiring many different skill sets and personal avenues for one's own expression. It was also more work, but most enjoyed it. Today people tend to shoot massive numbers of files without really thinking. Then comes some quick "chimping" with the LCD, some quick tweaks with software, then an instant upload and its done. This is photography as practiced by the masses. But not everyone is enamored with this style.

Shooting larger pieces of film with a incredible range of camera and lens options (some from the 1890s even) can be an experience that many raised in the digital word have never experienced. Our interest in older alt lenses can be regarded as silly and quaint by those firmly in the modern DSLR Canikon camp. Many fans of film, large format cameras, and alternative analog processing will also have the same regard to those who know nothing but the whole digital photography arena. There is no right or wrong way here.

But dig into some of the galleries in the LF site. There is some amazing work that really is worth looking at...

Aug 23, 2011 at 07:18 PM

Jorgen Udvang
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #18 · p.6 #18 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

Zaitz wrote:
I plan on shooting a decent comparison for fun, though I think it's an exercise in futility. As we both seem to agree it is not necessarily better one way or the other. So then this thread is done. There is and can be a film look. My closest comparison I have available:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2711/5795977924_623997327c_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/5773289120_03d43e100b_o.jpg

These two totally do it for me, and in many ways describe why I often prefer film. The first one looks like a photo, the second one looks like a photo as described by a computer, which it basically is.

I keep coming back to the fact that, while most photographers have always attempted to depict reality as he or she remembered it, in the most natural way possible, neither digital nor film photography are reality. For me, the question will then be: Will a scene sometimes look better if we take a few steps back and remove ourselves from the ideal result that we thought we wanted?

With HDR, extremely long or short lenses and other forms of photo manipulation, we do that all the time, not to speak about shallow DOF that so many speak warmly about. Then there's film. But since film has been around for so long, we often forget that it did actually develop into an individual form of art. Digital photography is closely related of course, but it's not the same. Not the same material, not the same approach, not the same cost, and, as the above two photos show, definitely not the same look.

They may not be as different as oil paint compared to water colour, but they are different. In this case, I prefer the film look, in other cases, I may feel differently about it. Can we make digital look like film? Up to a point we can, but while each film grain is a unique, individually exposed fragment of a photo, grain added by software is a more or less uniformly applied graininess, a result of computer algorithms and the work of some computer programmer. The more skilled the programmer, the better the result, but he cannot go back out there where I was taking the photo, and expose all his bits and bytes to the light that particular morning, because it's gone forever, and only exists on a piece of celluloid that happened to be in my camera at the time.

Edited on Aug 23, 2011 at 07:44 PM · View previous versions

Aug 23, 2011 at 07:43 PM

Zaitz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #19 · p.6 #19 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

obik wrote:
Holy crap! We agree 100% on something. I'm constantly trying to decide whether or not to buy a Mamiya 7II just to shoot Delta 3200... If 3200 came in sheet, I'd be shooting 8x10 tomorrow...

There definitely seems to be something to the grain with it.

Aug 23, 2011 at 07:44 PM

redisburning
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #20 · p.6 #20 · What is "film look" and is it better than digital?

photography has never been about reality, has it?

many early photographers were surrealists or at least aware of surrealism and it's evident in their shots.

the fact that people even want their photos to look like film says something about the longevity and aesthetic appeal of the medium; and I have not seen anyone argue otherwise.

as far as technical quality goes, I would feel more comfortable shooting medium format film than aps-c or "full frame" digital for professional work.

Aug 23, 2011 at 08:05 PM

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

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