I suppose I could have added a bit of simulated grain to the digital version, but there really was no attempt to force the digital image to look like the film.
-bob
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...
- Thread starter Hosermage
- Start date
-bob
iiiNelson
Well-known member
True you could have and I think the point is that which is "better" is a very subjective answer. Some prefer film and some prefer digital much in the same way that someone mention some people prefer analog sound over digital. I prefer to work with digital because it's easier for me to do that. I can appreciate a good film image the same way I can appreciate a great digital image. Sometimes it really is the content and not the medium.
Meh, I'm to lazy to process B&W film anymore ... and while I loved the prints from film you really had to follow the whole analog process from soup to enlarger to trays to really see the full shimmering beauty of a process that benefitted from over 100 years of silver based science and aesthetic developments. Scanning is okay, but not a real substitute IMO (and this is from a photographer that owned and used a Imacon 949 scanner).
I do appreciate that programs like Nik Silver Effects Pro allow me to wander around different types of B&W film responses from a digital file until I like what I see. Not that it replaces film's look and feel from random silver clumps verse the regimentation of all those little pixel soldiers lined up shoulder-to-shoulder ... but it gives me some base-line of aesthetic judgement formed during 40 years of slaving away in the dark-room ... which was more fun as a hobby than when I had to print 50 wedding enlargements for a slip-in album ... or duplicate a print 10 years after I had done the original.
I'm just a digital guy that thinks film in it's full analog process was wonderful and will never be duplicated ... a fact brought home every day in my home that is filled with master works from the film age. I think I should sell those images off so I do not have to be painfully reminded what my laziness has resulted in :facesmack:
-Marc
(I should note that the Leica MM has made that pain go away to a great degree ... shooting a nice ISO 5000 file was only a dream in my film days).
I do appreciate that programs like Nik Silver Effects Pro allow me to wander around different types of B&W film responses from a digital file until I like what I see. Not that it replaces film's look and feel from random silver clumps verse the regimentation of all those little pixel soldiers lined up shoulder-to-shoulder ... but it gives me some base-line of aesthetic judgement formed during 40 years of slaving away in the dark-room ... which was more fun as a hobby than when I had to print 50 wedding enlargements for a slip-in album ... or duplicate a print 10 years after I had done the original.
I'm just a digital guy that thinks film in it's full analog process was wonderful and will never be duplicated ... a fact brought home every day in my home that is filled with master works from the film age. I think I should sell those images off so I do not have to be painfully reminded what my laziness has resulted in :facesmack:
-Marc
(I should note that the Leica MM has made that pain go away to a great degree ... shooting a nice ISO 5000 file was only a dream in my film days).
Seascape
New member
It is interesting that after all the advances in digital cameras, one of the things that stands out is that B&W film (especially medium format or larger) cannot be duplicated by digital.
Take any quality medium format camera (their really cheap these days) and a well researched film/developer/paper process, and you have a superb print.
I am familiar with a friend's Leica MM results and while it shows promise, a TLR Rollie, FP4 and fibre paper, easily gives prints of equal or better quality.
Colour work is a different scenario, but in my experience Film is still the B&W reference standard.
Take any quality medium format camera (their really cheap these days) and a well researched film/developer/paper process, and you have a superb print.
I am familiar with a friend's Leica MM results and while it shows promise, a TLR Rollie, FP4 and fibre paper, easily gives prints of equal or better quality.
Colour work is a different scenario, but in my experience Film is still the B&W reference standard.
Theodoros Fotometria
Not Available
I don't think there ever was a matter of duplication... film is film and digital is still a (comparatively) very new technology, we shouldn't forget that in digital we still shoot with B&W sensors for color... this is among the things that is going to change in the future... I personally don't see why you see the problem of presentation in B&W only... it surely is the same for both color or B&W, there is wider linear part in both and HL & LL compression is narrower with both... Surely there is an advantage with MF film, grain is less obvious and the lenses are superb providing more resolution, but those that have moved to MF digital can clearly see that MFDBs are closer to film in their presentation and those who can shoot (still only) images in multishot modes (i.e. in true color) can assure you that there is no comparable quality to much it... Hopefully, someday (in the near future) this extreme quality will pass to single shot shooting and digital DR will be able to duplicate film behavior... in cinema too..! We have to admit though, that those among us that are experienced with film, they are nostalgic about it either if they still shoot it, or if they (for practical reasons) shoot only digital. OTOH, IMO, B&W or color photography doesn't exist at all... IMO, there is only photography and the photographer (like any other artist) has to abandon any unnecessary info that can distract the recipient from communicating with his work... I do agree that most of photography should be in B&W, but this is due to the subjects, it's not relevant to the media per se!
TRSmith
Subscriber Member
I think it's a difficult comparison to sort out simply because there are apples, pears and oranges. For me, especially with B&W film, there were choices to be made with regard to ASA, exposure, developer, etc. But the real magic happened with tongs and a tray. Silver-based prints (and the process of making them) will always make my heart beat faster. Shooting film today, then scanning it and making a jpeg for onscreen viewing (the pears and oranges part) can't quite duplicate that wonderful, hands-on experience of yesteryear.
Having said that, there's no way I'm shooting film and building a darkroom.
Tim
Having said that, there's no way I'm shooting film and building a darkroom.
Tim
I have several silver prints that I use to compare and honestly, other than the surface which is a sure tipoff, I see almost no quality difference when viewed at a reasonable distance. Close-in film is less sharp and depending on magnification, the grain becomes a factor.
I have done several tests over the years and once I passed a 12 Mpx file then digital 35mm format compares favorably to medium format 100 speed film. Maybe it is a "silver ear" phenomenon and I don't have one, but I can't objectively see it or measure it.
Personally I LIKE to shoot film, sometimes for the nostalgic reasons, sometimes especially when shooting female subjects, an orange filter and a bit of grain plus the diffusion that occurs with film hides a lot of skin imperfections.
All bets are off, however, when the digital file is pushed around too much.
-bob
I have done several tests over the years and once I passed a 12 Mpx file then digital 35mm format compares favorably to medium format 100 speed film. Maybe it is a "silver ear" phenomenon and I don't have one, but I can't objectively see it or measure it.
Personally I LIKE to shoot film, sometimes for the nostalgic reasons, sometimes especially when shooting female subjects, an orange filter and a bit of grain plus the diffusion that occurs with film hides a lot of skin imperfections.
All bets are off, however, when the digital file is pushed around too much.
-bob
TRSmith
Subscriber Member
I've no doubt that you're right Bob. A lot of my joy for silver is mixed up with nostalgia and the honeyed glow of personal memory. I recently made a timber frame building from trees on the property. The trees were sawn into timbers using a portable bandsaw. I also have an old barn that's built from timbers that were hand-hewn. Both are wonderful in their own right and the "modern" ones might even be better—they're certainly more uniform. But, well, there's something about those beams that were shaped by hand. Silly, I know.
Theodoros Fotometria
Not Available
Have you ever tried Fuji S5 pro for B&W Tim? ...I found this to be the best digital DSLR for B&W, it must be the less linear part it bares and the film like compression on HLs and LLs... If it only had a larger sensor... and more natural colors when used in color... great grain at 400-800 Iso too! I would have never change that if it was FF! It saves the darkroom.
douglasf13
New member
Digital files are so malleable these days that isn't really an issue to shape the curve of the originally linear files into just about any shape that you wish.
If you are really into curve manipulation I recommend processing files with a linear curve and then applying what curve you want in photoshop. This is particularly important with wide DR cameras such as the IQ180 or D800 which have DR wider than many films. The pre-applied curves in processors such as C1 and lightroom compromise the darks prematurely in the process IMO.
-bob
-bob