I'd add to this by saying that the difference in look between MF film and MF digital is even more dramatic than the difference between 35mm film and 35mm digital. MF film is nice because it can look more organic and smooth (while holding more detail) than 35mm film, while the shots I've seen from medium format digital backs look a little sterile and clinical compared to even 35mm film.
StillFingerz wrote:
Many film shooters started a long time ago, it's what we grew up with, learned the art of photography with, formalized our style with.
FWIW I started in 2010, though granted it was on film.
I bought a digital camera because developing / scanning costs were crushing me and I wasn't brave enough to develop my own film. I still hate the files from digital cameras.
I went in with the opposite assumption of the old timers: I was convinced digital would look better: it's cleaner, it's (erroneously claimed in some cases) sharper, more convenient. And yet, I came out of my dSLR experience convinced that digital sucks.
redisburning wrote:
FWIW I started in 2010, though granted it was on film.
I bought a digital camera because developing / scanning costs were crushing me and I wasn't brave enough to develop my own film. I still hate the files from digital cameras.
I went in with the opposite assumption of the old timers: I was convinced digital would look better: it's cleaner, it's (erroneously claimed in some cases) sharper, more convenient. And yet, I came out of my dSLR experience convinced that digital sucks.
Cleaner, sharper, more convenient, is not always better, not for me anyways
In theory, with a clean file from a full-frame digital SLR, you should be able to mimic the look (i.e. characteristic curve) of a 135-format C-41 or E-6 film in post-processing, to a decent degree (limited by the digital camera's colour filter array). Some black-and-white silver-based films, developed with extreme techniques, would still provide greater resolution or dynamic range, and so be impossible to emulate in those specific respects.
In practice though, this idea falls apart immediately. Chromogenic emulsions were crafted with extraordinary skill and care by huge R&D-led firms like Kodak and Fujifilm. You cannot replicate the precisely formulated colour response of those emulsions with a few crude curves in Photoshop, especially when your source was captured with imperfect RGB filters. (Neither can most of the two-bit companies selling film emulation software, though they often produce something that passes first muster.)
There are other subtle aspects of the film look too, such as halation, edge effects (with MTF well over 100% at low spatial frequencies because of developer adjacency effects), and the specific MTF decay curve with increasing spatial frequency. Don't forget scratches, dust, buckling, and fluting. Even the grain structure is surprisingly difficult to reproduce convincingly using digital techniques (VSCO Film resorts to film scans). Today's imagined film look is also frequently an aged film look or an aged print look, which has its own weird colour characteristics (crossed curves and other venial sins).
"The digital equivalent of Breuer’s or Brandt’s work is whatever is being created on “smart” phones, using “apps” - fake analog images. But the digital world falls crucially short here, for more reasons than one. First, there really is nothing at stake. There is no artistry here other than the application of some software filter that in a very deterministic way makes your new digital photograph look old. So there is no chance. Art without a trace of chance, a trace of an accident isn’t art. No artistic risk, not art (just ask William Wegman’s dog). What is more, it’s deeply reactionary, but in an uncommitted way. […]"
I'm inclined to agree with him, since I'm curmudgeonly like that.
Good topic, and here is my input.
I just switched to film from digital. I had a Canon 1Ds, which had the so called "film" feel to the files. I went all in with film, not expecting grand results (but really was, lol). I have not been disappointed yet.
I absolutely love shooting film. I think it has to do with a few things. 99.5487% of photographers wouldn't even touch film. Yes digital is so much more convenient, quicker, cheaper (depends though) - but makes one lazy in my opinion. There is live view, histograms, etc etc. With film, you REALLY have to think and slow down - although this has never been a problem for me. Each shot literally cost you money and you have to nail the shot - because you won't find out what it looks like for a week - which makes it that much more satisfying.
The biggest advances in film in the last few years is the software! Nik Define 2.0 is phenomenal! I run my scan through this first, and then work it like I would with my digital files.
edwardkaraa wrote: Cleaner, sharper, more convenient, is not always better, not for me anyways
@ Dustin...Magical forest images! What format/film are you using if I may ask?
+1 EK
@ redisburning...Digital doesn't suck, it's just a different medium. That kind of statement only limits your creativity, vision, imagination IMHO. It would be like saying the only real is; music created with acoustic instruments, painting with oils or writing with only a pencil/pen paper...how...boring....digital has it's merits!
StillFingerz wrote:
@ redisburning...Digital doesn't suck, it's just a different medium. That kind of statement only limits your creativity, vision, imagination IMHO. It would be like saying the only real is; music created with acoustic instruments, painting with oils or writing with only a pencil/pen paper...how...boring....digital has it's merits!
well, I use a tube amp, write with fountain pens and refuse to "cook" using a microwave.
I have found that the march of technology has mostly just resulted in things becoming more convenient. I'll grant you that the quality of manufacture today is far beyond what it was even 20 years ago, but the things we knew were good were replaced by the things that made it easier and less messy, and more importantly cheaper.
like I said I am not impacted so much by nostalgia since most of this stuff was obsolete even before I was born. my fondness is purely because these things work better for me, and I like them better.
do I use a digital camera? sure; when I want to sell something or when I need pictures immediately. you see, Im a great fan of bourbon, and I think that even very good wine tastes like watery crap. digital is my wine, I think. and if you notice my language, I was careful to indicate that it was my take on it, and not say that digital is a wholly inferior medium.
p.s. I don't see how using film can limit the possibilities I have. I scan, so at the end of the day I end up with a tiff or I end up with a cr2, I can do whatever I want with both.
and even then, maybe limits are good? there's a great interview of Ralph Gibson on youtube by Damn Webster or something like that where he goes over this sort of thing, might be worth watching if you haven't seen it.
redisburning wrote:
well, I use a tube amp, write with fountain pens and refuse to "cook" using a microwave.
I have found that the march of technology has mostly just resulted in things becoming more convenient. I'll grant you that the quality of manufacture today is far beyond what it was even 20 years ago, but the things we knew were good were replaced by the things that made it easier and less messy, and more importantly cheaper.
like I said I am not impacted so much by nostalgia since most of this stuff was obsolete even before I was born. my fondness is purely because these things work better for me, and I like them better.
do I use a digital camera? sure; when I want to sell something or when I need pictures immediately. you see, Im a great fan of bourbon, and I think that even very good wine tastes like watery crap. digital is my wine, I think. and if you notice my language, I was careful to indicate that it was my take on it, and not say that digital is a wholly inferior medium.
p.s. I don't see how using film can limit the possibilities I have. I scan, so at the end of the day I end up with a tiff or I end up with a cr2, I can do whatever I want with both.
and even then, maybe limits are good? there's a great interview of Ralph Gibson on youtube by Damn Webster or something like that where he goes over this sort of thing, might be worth watching if you haven't seen it....Show more →
Wasn't saying film in itself is limiting at all, just that it and digital are part of the photographic puzzle, I like, embrace it all, to better understand the creative process, but that's just me! I do miss large format, well 4x5 in my case, but I can't physically manage the gear anymore so 35mm is it for me...
It's a good interview, have seen it before, he touches on a lot, a liberal arts background is important to life, creating.
If this is the interview...
Ralph Gibson - Master Fine Art Photographer
Another good interview...
Clyde Butcher: Fine Art photographer - working wet and walking swamps
&feature=related
redisburning wrote:
I have found that the march of technology has mostly just resulted in things becoming more convenient. I'll grant you that the quality of manufacture today is far beyond what it was even 20 years ago, but the things we knew were good were replaced by the things that made it easier and less messy, and more importantly cheaper.
/quote]
This is exactly my view. You know, things have to be made simple, so that stupid robots can make them, while some illiterate underpaid workers in china push a few buttons for a living.
The handicraft and the pride in a product well done, the very reason why people bought German and American products, are long dead....Show more →
edwardkaraa wrote:
This is exactly my view. You know, things have to be made simple, so that stupid robots can make them, while some illiterate underpaid workers in china push a few buttons for a living.
The handicraft and the pride in a product well done, the very reason why people bought German and American products, are long dead.
Pride in product...old school only...nope, sorry!
An explanation would be to long, once able bodied now disabled, an architect turned software designer, without the digital landscape my paralysis would have doomed me to a couch, a home or something worse. Pride in product, a deliverable no mater the item, is pride in self, ability, creativity...personal integrity.
StillFingerz wrote:
Pride in product...old school only...nope, sorry!
An explanation would be to long, once able bodied now disabled, an architect turned software designer, without the digital landscape my paralysis would have doomed me to a couch, a home or something worse.
Sorry to hear about that, but I don't see the relevance. You can design excellent products using computer software, just like Zeiss and Leica lenses. But it's the handicraft and the manufacturing excellence that fetch the high prices.
StillFingerz wrote:
Excellence is a personal choice! Software design...not all... is an art, a product, those that are artists do fetch high prices
I do not disagree with that. All what I'm saying is that manufacturing standards have went down, the fault of greedy corporations, not the digital age.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I do not disagree with that. All what I'm saying is that manufacturing standards have went down, the fault of greedy corporations, not the digital age.
You mean greedy consumers. The market is led by the consumers and the consumers now want everything at the price of nothing. Which means that the average product is lacking quality but can do all those things that the customers can't do themselves.
Not having to work for what you want, is a great way to spoil the joy of creating things.
Makten wrote:
You mean greedy consumers. The market is led by the consumers and the consumers now want everything at the price of nothing. Which means that the average product is lacking quality but can do all those things that the customers can't do themselves.
Not having to work for what you want, is a great way to spoil the joy of creating things.
I agree with you both, greedy is at most levels of life tho, especially in the USA; most modern societies; when 375 million plus folks use near 75% of the earth's resources and there are 6.x billion others using what remains...seems an odd balance; but that's for another discussion on another forum perhaps.
Lets all continue to buy n shoot film as long as we can and celebrate, enjoy creating, sharing our art
