The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The Film Look...

Hosermage

Active member
Hi, a genuine question from someone of the digital age. For the past year or so, I've read and browsed endless threads and images from various forums, and there seems to be a large group of people who seemed mildly obsessed on comparing digital files to film and process their digital files to achieve certain film look, especially BW. Why?

There are many photographers whom I've come to admire, and I can definitely recognize their signatures in the look of their photos, but I don't think it's because their PP replicate certain film type. Or, is it? I've also seen many, many film scans online and I can't say that I'm enamored with any specific film look. In a way, I wish I can have a clear goal of a "look" when I start PP, so I can tell when I'm done! As it is now, I just experiment with a lot of different things, go back and forth, until I'm somewhat satisfied or decides to give up. Am I just subconsciously looking for a certain film look? Do you process an image until it's exactly perfect, or just good enough to stop?

During several conversations on the Monochrom, I see that people would start with some SEP film profiles, but eventually many have concluded that instead of trying to mimic a certain BW film look, the MM can really start a new standard for digital BW look. Got me thinking... if we fast forward time by a few generations to a reality where most people don't even know what "Tri-X" is, what look will people chase after?

I apologize in advance for this newbie type of question, just really looking for different point of views.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Nostalgia. I assess that to be the number one factor in wanting the film look.

I don't know which is "better" per se between film and digital. I think it's all very subjective to the person. I prefer digital but I was drawn to the digital M cameras because they strike a good balance between the sharp resolution of digital and the organic warmth of film.

The film cameras I've owned in the past were cheap 35mm or 110 film cameras my parents bought me and my sister. My film of "choice" was the cheap stuff from the local drug store growing up (usually Kodak Gold 100/200/400.) Of course my parents were the ones buying it for the whole family and neither were pro photographers so it was good enough for me at the time. Comparing that to the M9 it's not even close... The M9 beats the crap out of a $40 camera shooting film but there are other variables of course - namely lens character.
 

douglasf13

New member
I shoot mainly color, and I do like the look of some films. With digital cameras, I make my own profile that is kind of a hybrid between a film and digital look, simply in that I adjust the color pallet and tone curve a bit to be similar to films that I like, but I do think it still looks like my images come from a modern, digital camera. Film and digital are two different mediums, and I don't expect them to look the same.

On a nerdy note, one could argue that film is actually digital, since film grain is on/off, and silicon is analog until a/d conversion in-camera. So, we should probably be talking about film vs. silicon. :)
 

D&A

Well-known member
Although I sometimes (especially in the past) tried to emulate the look of some of my digital files to certain film emulsions, especially B&W...what I found myself doing most often was to make sure my prints didn't resmble or look digital, but make them soft and a bit smooth and then to emulate the look as though the image was derived from film and printed as such. Not so much a specific type of film...but to look as though the whole prcess up till the finished print took place prior to the conventional photograhic digital era.

Dave (D&A)
 
Lest we not forget the ENDLESS discussions of films, under exposure, over exposure, developers, methods employed, whether to agitate, whether to stand, how to get the developer into the pot in as short a time as possible and whether it actually matters, rotary processors, Jobo's, Patersons, Thermometer accuracy, under-development, over-development, temperature, humidity, hypo, pyro, cross-processing, filter types and strengths on the lens, filter types and strengths on colour processors, film testing, developer testing, acutance .......

Personally I'd welcome a good robust discussion on particular films, what makes them pleasing and how to best mimic that in digital.

There might be a lot more discussion today, but I don't think it is as deep. Unfortunately in the digital era we still haven't made it past sharpness and the myth of blowing highlights. Which discussion forums actually go into depth on micro contrast of B&W images, edge contrast and follow through with real working examples. Photo.net used to be like that before it was overtaken by the herd.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
David, There is a simple, practical solution that would satisfy your curiosity (I agree with wentbackwards that none of the forum discussions will get you anywhere).

Pick up a cheap film camera (even a Bessa) and shoot a few rolls. Keep a little notebook to record the aperture/distance/shutter speeds for each frame (can be done easily, I speak from my experience). Check the results after developing the film rolls. You are in for a delightful surprise.

FWIW, if you want some film, PM me, I will send you a few.
 
So rant over, talk about some film.

RVP/RDP is very fine grained. I estimated a good 21MP image could be had from a 35mm camera handheld and then the dye patches were being magnified and sharpness was being lost as it's pretty hard to achieve over 80 lp/mm. Personally my watershed MP from a 35mm camera is 21MP for that reason, it's the practical limit without going to great pains. Erwin Puts has ample evidence that image stabilisation really works, so perhaps higher is reasonable with that feature nowadays.

This was taken in very harsh conditions and is a tiny crop of the 35mm frame. Of course the colours are amazing, but so are the deep deep blacks. Of course a scan does not do it justice.

This image is RDP and again the rich deep blacks along with the accentuated tonality in the shadows just does not show through on the monitor.
 
I seem to lose my highlights when scanning, but this is TX400. It's pretty harsh and gritty. I think the thing that makes this image is a textural quality in the mid-to-high tones that I find really hard to produce with digital. All attempts seem to end up with that HDR look.
 
Finally, in case anyone is actually interested in my ramblings, this image has taken me nearly two years to get it this far.


Prior to 2010 (I think!?!?!?) Velvia had very odd reciprocity failure behaviour where it initially went to magenta and then swung back the other way to green. This is the best attempt I've made so far at replicating that effect. It still lacks the luminosity I want to achieve and to my eyes looks 'obviously digital'... Hmm or maybe not, but I'd love to here from others if this is faithful to the old Velvia look, perhaps it's not a subtle.
 

robertwright

New member
to the op's question, why process digital files to look like film, I think the reason is that film is "something" and digital is "nothing". Meaning that there is no real baseline for digital, or at least what comes out of the camera rarely has any feeling or interpretation, whereas when you look at a contact sheet or print there is an interpretation of reality. It is real feeling but it is not reality.

This is just my opinion, but the experience of coming home and looking at contacts compared to the experience of coming home and looking at lightroom is completely different. When I look at film there is the secondary reaction to reality- ie, first I had the reaction to take the photograph and now another reaction to what I see on paper or in the loupe. I think this double editing is really a hallmark of "photography" proper and something that is different in digital.

As soon as I look at a file on the computer my only reaction is what do I do to make it what I think I want. Which is not the same reaction as looking at a photograph, where my reaction is do I want "this"?

There is only so much you can do with analogue photography at least in my process of it, of course you can scan and edit and retouch, but that is a secondary response at least for me. With digital it is a primary response. And then the question, well what do you do? We all get the images into the editor and start to "fix" them, which is a funny thing to say, we are "changing" them not "fixing" in the chemical sense.

I guess that is my nugget: in photography you "fix" an image, you arrest it, whereas in digital you "fix" by altering it.

When people talk about processing files to look more like film I think yes it is nostalgic, but also it is this trying to make something that is "fixed" or defined in the way that film defined the image.

I always believe limits are necessary in art and digital has few. This is its opportunity and a problem simultaneously.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I am process agnostic. There really is nothing called the "film look" just as there is no such thing as the "digital look." (I think the term comes from the film/digital wars as a way to be condescending toward digital.) That is not to say that film processes do not have a signature, but when taking all the processes and formats together, you are not going to find an answer. Having shot film for most of my life and running a darkroom for that time as well, I can recognize film processes. I also recognize that digital images can blend in there as well. Certainly, digital can imitate a look from a film camera as at some point photography is photography and it will look like itself.

Still, I am also a believer if you want something to look like a certain process, then shot in that process.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
What I (used to) like about film is that the color has been refined for over a hundred years. Digital is relatively new and sometimes I feel it is still lacking in some areas, even though great advances have been made in the last 3-4 years. Also there were many choices of film with different looks that you could use in one camera body, while now we are almost stuck with the characteristics of the sensor and CFA and the demosaicing algorithms of our raw converter of choice. In a way, it is why I love the rendering of the CCD in the M9 because it is the closest I have used that gives me a look reminiscent of low speed slide film.
 

Hosermage

Active member
Thanks for all the replies! :salute:

I think maybe until I have logged enough hours(or years?) to develop a "look" that's for me, profiles (film based or not) can be a good anchor or starting point to reach a general accepted aesthetics, then tweak from there. I'm not sure if that's kind of cheating or I will be better off not doing it this way, but at least it could bring some consistencies? I have begun looking deeper into some of the filters I often use in LR and making some small tweaks in them, so maybe within this year I can have a few filters (at least 1 color and 1 BW) to serve as my starting points.

Vivek, you have no idea how many times I've come close to snatching up a M6, M7, Holga, or even a TLR! I think shooting with film is a thirst that I will eventually have to quench, for no reason other than to simply experience it :)
 

NB23

New member
Film look: infinite depth. A loupe reveals a symphony of tonesand textures. Extremely refined.

Digital look: plastic screen probably made from recycled supermarket plastic bags. Synthetic. Extremely unrefined.
 

Double Negative

Not Available
Nostalgia? Art? "Medium" (real or not) of choice? Then there's all the little technical differences...

Especially in this day and age where "everyone's a photographer" - why not? Find your own preference or signature.

Or, just do whatever makes you happy - because you can. :)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Vivek, you have no idea how many times I've come close to snatching up a M6, M7, Holga, or even a TLR! I think shooting with film is a thirst that I will eventually have to quench, for no reason other than to simply experience it :)
David, That is all over the place! :lecture: Stick with an M6. :)
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Film look: infinite depth. A loupe reveals a symphony of tonesand textures. Extremely refined.

Digital look: plastic screen probably made from recycled supermarket plastic bags. Synthetic. Extremely unrefined.
NB23, that was your first post that I like :ROTFL:

Just kidding :)
 

MikalWGrass

New member
Hosermag, get an M6. I have a spare one but I am not sure I would sell it.

Wentbackward, outstanding shot of the lovely chica. Looks like something that an R 80/1.4 would give you on a decent digital body.
 

moreammo

New member
David,

For me it's not about the look of film but rather the work flow. I greatly enjoy processing and printing there's just something about it, the smell, the feel, the overall experience of releasing your captured imaged onto the page as you see it.

Right now i use an M9 because i do not have time for anything other than a digital work flow and even that is pushing it some days.

But one day i will snag up a user film M and get back in the dark room... a great experience, i hope you decide to take that journey. BTW i like your site, i check it fairly often to see what your up to and how your journey is going

-Jon
 
Top