jaapv Posted May 3, 2011 Share #21 Posted May 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Impossible, Mani. The ineptness of some Photoshop users cannot be imitated, as grain lumping, thin negatives, blocked shadows, lack of resolution, scratches, etc cannot be imitated in digital capture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Hi jaapv, Take a look here This Film vs. Digital - a resolution?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
plasticman Posted May 3, 2011 Share #22 Posted May 3, 2011 Impossible, Mani. The ineptness of some Photoshop users cannot be imitated, as grain lumping, thin negatives, blocked shadows, lack of resolution, scratches, etc cannot be imitated in digital capture. No I mostly meant the sensor shortcomings. But scratches, grain and other fake film problems are plentifully available as Photoshop plug-ins. Lack of resolution? I've been using my 28 2,8 for the last few weeks (it tends to sit on the shelf), and suddenly realized how much detail 4000dpi scans of even Portra400 can hold, if I'm not using a Noctilux or a Canon 1,2 wide open... But still. Horses for courses. This tired debate gets very very old. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 3, 2011 Share #23 Posted May 3, 2011 This tired debate gets very very old. +1 on that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted May 3, 2011 Share #24 Posted May 3, 2011 Use what you want, I really don`t care. I like my darkroom, 35 mm and 4x5. I like my digital cameras and computers. It is easier to create a film look from digital than a digital look from film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 3, 2011 Share #25 Posted May 3, 2011 Use what you want, I really don`t care. I like my darkroom, 35 mm and 4x5. I like my digital cameras and computers. It is easier to create a film look from digital than a digital look from film. Hi Tobey I'm given to understand that a hybrid of a nice film sky montage with a digtal picture is the optimum technique. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted May 3, 2011 Share #26 Posted May 3, 2011 What I'm hoping for is a film that can blow highlights, mimic purple blooming and give me a lovely over-saturated HDR-look. Have you used Velvia? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 3, 2011 Share #27 Posted May 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) :D:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted May 3, 2011 Share #28 Posted May 3, 2011 Film is not finished in its development. It has gone through radical improvements in a relatively few years, and will no doubt see further improvement. But it is already at point where it can give great raw material as a starting point, and stunning results when handled well. After about a century, film is a very mature medium. We may see further improvements in film, but it is hardly an emerging technology going through radical improvements. I somehow doubt that anyone is pouring resources into the advancement of film, but I may be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted May 3, 2011 Share #29 Posted May 3, 2011 I somehow doubt that anyone is pouring resources into the advancement of film, but I may be wrong. Well apparently you doubted wrong. I're recently been shooting Kodak's new Portra400 - it is AMAZING. Here's a post by some people that have done some great shoots with the new 400 and 160 film, and some of the other films you apparently missed: Twin Lens Life ~ Fine Art Film Photography ~Los Angeles Southern California: Tipping Hats - New Kodak Portra160, Portra400, Ektar100, etc. I'm sure a few people will feel the need to chime-in that these advances have come from motion picture advancements. But if the attitude always has to be 'the-glass-is-half-empty', then I'd say that the same can be said for 35mm-dimension sensor technology: when a critical mass has switched to smartphone photography, the digital cameras we're currently using and enjoying will also be extinct (and I'd predict this will probably happen before film disappears). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 3, 2011 Share #30 Posted May 3, 2011 Mani is right - the latest technology Carbide headlamps for automotive use are also much better than those from 1912.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted May 3, 2011 Share #31 Posted May 3, 2011 Mani is right - the latest technology Carbide headlamps for automotive use are also much better than those from 1912.... Jaap - I realize you're joking, but I'm wondering why your recent posts seem to always present film as something outdated, or as a technology that only 'old-timers' are interested in as a sort of nostalgia-trip? I noticed that in another thread you once said that my recent attachment to film was because it was 'a look I was used to' or something similar. But films I'm using now are nothing whatsoever like the films my parents were using when I was growing-up, nor the films I experimented briefly with during my university years (the only time I've had access to a darkroom). Now I use film and digital alongside one another - until a couple years ago I was totally clueless about what film was capable of. I discovered it through entering the 'Leica world' - ironically enough, starting with a DLux2. The things that can be done with digital imagery are almost limitless and the end result can be beautiful or ugly. But there are things that can be done with film that simply cannot be reproduced by a digital sensor. And just because someone is unable to see the difference between a real b&w image and a plug-in attempting to mimic those characteristics doesn't mean that those differences aren't there. In other words, digital and film both have their place. But the reason for using film is definitely not Luddism or nostalgia. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 3, 2011 Share #32 Posted May 3, 2011 Just three words. That's all I'm going to say. I prefer film. Feel free to prefer otherwise. I really don't care. I am not here to bend others to my way of thinking and in return I expect them to extend the same courtesy to me. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted May 3, 2011 Share #33 Posted May 3, 2011 Well apparently you doubted wrong. I're recently been shooting Kodak's new Portra400 - it is AMAZING. Kodak's Portra 400 was already amazing when I last used it in maybe 2002, certainly much, much better than the 400-speed films that I grew up with in the 70's and 80's. When I started photographing weddings, I bought lots of Portra 400 and Fuji NPH. The 800-speed films were great too (from both Kodak & Fuji). Color film had advanced greatly in the years leading up to digital. I'm glad to hear they have continued improving it. Film is a wonderful technology, just not as practical for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 3, 2011 Author Share #34 Posted May 3, 2011 An antialiasing filter in other words? Some people are happy that their camera of choice does without. You are correct. I get some downright silly ideas sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 3, 2011 Author Share #35 Posted May 3, 2011 Impossible, Mani. The ineptness of some Photoshop users cannot be imitated, as grain lumping, thin negatives, blocked shadows, lack of resolution, scratches, etc cannot be imitated in digital capture. I accept that as a challenge. How perverse is that? "Make your digital images look like negatives developed and printed by a failing photo 101 student!" I can write a script for that before lunch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted May 4, 2011 Share #36 Posted May 4, 2011 Good to see that this has not (yet) totally descended into the usual digital -v- film pissing contest... As a user of both mediums, I have no axe to grind but going back to the original question, what about the Foveon sensor. I have read in a number of tests comments about it's 'film-like' results, particularly for b&w, due apparently to the way the red,green, and blue sensors are 'stacked', unlike Bayer sensors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted May 5, 2011 Share #37 Posted May 5, 2011 What if Leica put a mico-thin layer over the digital sensor so that light rays were scatted to mimic film? So many people say the direct, depthless capture of digital signals makes digital not look like film. It might also mitigate the alleged focus issues of film lenses over the Leica sensor. If it were possible, would you be happy? adjustable sensor layer thickness Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted May 6, 2011 Share #38 Posted May 6, 2011 adjustable sensor layer thickness Hmmmm isn't it the M9 that has the vaseline cover rather then the film image? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 6, 2011 Share #39 Posted May 6, 2011 Now that is not nice, reminding us that Erwin doesn't know how to upres an image, just as he published such a good book, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhild Posted May 6, 2011 Share #40 Posted May 6, 2011 What keeps me from digital is just money. I need at least two bodies and would never buy a used digi. So two M9 cameras are a lot of money. Plus a better computer, screen, hard drives, upgrading all that every here and then when industry has decided it´s time for a new standart so customers or slaves have to buy new as well. Plus that never ending doubts whether I can still see my shots in 30 years time like I can definitely do with my slides. I don´t want to become a slave of computer industry. I will use film for as long as it is there, no matter how expensive it will be. Those thinking digi is cheaper are wrong, in the end it´s more expensive as you can´t change sensor as you could and can do with film using cameras. I´m just coming back from a 6 week trip which was a camera test trip at the same time using a completely self restored set of an M2 and M3 camera plus 6 lenses accompanied by an at least 40 years old lightmeter. An equipment using no batteries at all. Simply perfect, easy to use, no worries about how long batteries will last and all that. Had my films developed, looking at the slides, some stay some will go, easy, end of story. I can buy a lot of film for the price of two M9 bodies, and if there will ever be an M10 many M9 users will have headaches, oh my god, now I´ve got to buy that new one, like all those NICAN users alredy do and will then realise how little money the get for their 3,or five year old camera. My world is partly ruled by electronics as well, no way I could avoid that. But wherever I can I will do so! have fun Jo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.