How is M246 better than film?

[Jager]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's ironic that even well-processed digital images (which is to say - as Ace suggests - done sparingly) are often described as "plasticky."  And that we now add digital noise to emulate the film grain that we once sought so ardently to eliminate.  For so many decades film grain was the bugaboo everyone railed against.  

 

[AceVentura1986]

21 hours ago, Jager said:

It's ironic that even well-processed digital images (which is to say - as Ace suggests - done sparingly) are often described as "plasticky."  And that we now add digital noise to emulate the film grain that we once sought so ardently to eliminate.  For so many decades film grain was the bugaboo everyone railed against.  

 

Yes, that’s exactly right and an observation I’ve heard before as well. These images are so good that to make them appear more “organic” they have to be degraded even if just a bit. I will say, though, that for me this is more of a BW issue and not a color issue. For The little color work I do I seldom apply any digital grain. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by AceVentura1986

[eawriter]

On 10/20/2019 at 6:07 AM, AceVentura1986 said:

Third, many photographers bring a color mindset to black and white images by lifting the shadows so nothing is hidden and everything is exposed, exactly the contrary of traditional a BW look.

Wow, that's a really good comment. I judge for camera clubs and see this a lot. In fact, your whole answer is really good. 

[AceVentura1986]

On 10/23/2019 at 7:58 PM, eawriter said:

Wow, that's a really good comment. I judge for camera clubs and see this a lot. In fact, your whole answer is really good. 

Thank you. 

[Jon Warwick]

What digital grain software are people finding to be most realistic to what is rendered by film?

 

[Likaleica]

Silver Efex Pro 2

[Nickobloke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

They can't really be compared as one is a fixed medium, mainly, and the other is entirely fluid. And yet, film has more magic, in some instances, particularly portraiture, film cannot be bettered.  Digital with the Lieca is magical too but for very different reasons. A 246 is almost medium format if we're comparing it to say an M6. This means that it can render landscapes and architecture far more readily. However, the 'push comes to shove' bit with the 246 is that it hates skies (unless pretty cloudy) but, it loves blacks and so one can play heavily with contrast. As we live in a world where comparisons are viewed digitally anyway (a 246 file or a scanned image), what can one do with an inkjet printer that reveals which is which? The answer is long and a little complex for digital can be made to look like a darkroom print if the subject matter is contrasty. Film on the other hand, can be very successfully scanned with a Plustek 8200i without losing the grainy appearance and then there's the tonal range and film is just beautiful. It also has a 'sculptural' look to it, again, particularly with portraiture. So, its not and 'either/or' scenario but which one suits what desired outcome better.