A film 'look' in the near future?

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I join the opinion that with a 24 MP or so raw file, it's just a question to master smartly the processing (the combination of extremely wide possibilities with the taste of the goal one wants to achieve)  ... and Softwares do evolve too...; I think always that we must keep in mind that the final output is the print   (as above said, picture-on-screen is another matter) : in this sense, I think that for the so called "film look" the print technology plays a much bigger role 🐾  : darkroom printing I think is bound to fade away... together with the availability of various paper medias that played time ago a significant role in the final look (I remember well, many years ago, how much people discussed about the difference from printing from transparency vs. the classic printing from neg... for reasons of paper) : I wonder (not an expert at all) if the current availability of digital print technologies and papers is the indeed the real limit that still now makes some people arguing that  the "film look" isn't yet reachable, though having and deserving an aesthetical sense of its own.

Edited May 25, 2021 by luigi bertolotti

[Ouroboros]

16 minutes ago, luigi bertolotti said:

I think always that we must keep in mind that the final output is the print   (as above said, picture-on-screen is another matter) : in this sense, I think that for the so called "film look" the print technology plays a much bigger role 🐾  : darkroom printing I think is bound to fade away... together with the availability of various paper medias that played time ago a significant role in the final look (I remember well, many years ago, how much people discussed about the difference from printing from transparency vs. the classic printing from neg... for reasons of paper) : I wonder (not an expert at all) if the current availability of digital print technologies and papers is the indeed the real limit that still now makes some people arguing that  the "film look" isn't yet reachable, though having and deserving an aesthetical sense of its own.

I would say that many younger photographers who have never used film are probably not printing their work anyway.  Collecting 'Likes' on Social Media is their main interest, so it's hardly surprising that they are not truly familiar with the look and feel of a print, whether it be inkjet from a scanned file or a silver gelatine print, despite their wanting the 'film look'. 

I'm not convinced that darkroom printing is going to 'fade away' anytime soon, there is plenty of evidence that it is alive and well, especially amongst younger photographers who were not brought up on film. Used darkroom equipment is in demand, a total volte face from 22 years ago when I had to throw two pristine cold cathode enlargers away because I couldn't even give them away to the local College.

I do agree to an extent that a hybrid workflow can confer a consistent look to an individual photographer's work that is visually different to both film-based and digital workflows.  I personally am not a fan of the technically flawless prints that are achievable with digital capture in my preferred discipline of landscape photography.  So much of what I see every day in various Social Media groups is soulless, derivative and repetitive and can only ever say "Me too!"   The only antidote to all that stuff for me is to go straight to a film photography group!

It's perfectly possible to retain the character of film and it's subtle character with a hybrid film-digital print workflow and I agree with your idea that there is an element of a third alternative aesthetic that has grown from that.

 

 

[ianman]

1 hour ago, luigi bertolotti said:

I join the opinion that with a 24 MP or so raw file, it's just a question to master smartly the processing (the combination of extremely wide possibilities with the taste of the goal one wants to achieve)  ... and Softwares do evolve too

Yes but again, even the best raw file in the hands of the best operator using the best software is still using a source file which is at its heart “digital” with its awful on or off 1 or 0 cold “perfection” (which is in actual fact far from perfect.) . I’m not talking about colours and film simulation presets, but the structure of the pixels. Pixel in it’s true sense “picture element”. Digital files are stuck with their endless rows and columns of equally sized and spaced squares. On film, the structure of the silver halide particles is random both in size and position. That’s of course the grain. In the distant future there may be a sensor that can have light capturing pixels that change shape, size and position for each shot. And selecting a higher iso will do exactly the same as film and have bigger pixels. There is a digital printing technology uses random patterns (I forget the name), which may help to regain some sort of analog beauty, but as others have rightly said, if you want the film look, use film.

Edited May 25, 2021 by ianman

[Ouroboros]

58 minutes ago, ianman said:

.....There is a digital printing technology uses random patterns (I forget the name), 

You mean stochastic screening.

 

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

You mean stochastic screening.

 

When I worked on digital sound recording/replay, there were similar arguments on the drawback of uniform sample rate and quantization value. We've tried the jittering/dithering on the sampling, to sample at the time points with pseudo-random (time) errors and add the pseudo-random amplitude noise in the quantization value.

Does it help? to be honest, I don't know, but we put that feature in the data sheet to make people believe, and it worked. 

[cboy]

16 hours ago, colint544 said:

And yet, over on Instagram, I've come across this guy. I'm impressed. He shoots digitally, but I think he's getting pretty close to that Portra look.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Where can we get his lightroom profiles?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm someone who has only recently got back into film (large format) after shooting digital exclusively more or less since it became viable, so my sensitivities to the differences are not particularly subtle. What I notice in particular though is that film handles highlights (skies/clouds) in a much more realistic way, and I have not yet managed to reproduce that in digital e.g. by underexposing and adjusting in post. (Digital has its own qualities that I value - I'm not a strong advocate for one or the other)

In the image in the OP, as someone else has pointed out, the edge of the trees against the sky is telling here: it looks like a rough Photoshop selection. I have occasionally achieved something similar to this pastel look with a tone curve that goes the opposite way to a strong contrast curve: lower contrast in midtones is one part of the 'look'.

 

Edit: I misread the OP - that actually is Portra and not the product of "a rough Photoshop selection"! My apologies to @colint544. Looking at the link provided, it still looks like an inverted contrast curve plays a big part in his work: low contrast in the midtones, less exposure and stretched tones in the highlights. Perhaps with an elevated black point to lighten the whole scene.

Edited May 26, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[ianman]

7 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

When I worked on digital sound recording/replay, there were similar arguments on the drawback of uniform sample rate and quantization value. We've tried the jittering/dithering on the sampling, to sample at the time points with pseudo-random (time) errors and add the pseudo-random amplitude noise in the quantization value.

Does it help? to be honest, I don't know, but we put that feature in the data sheet to make people believe, and it worked. 

This is the point I was making above. You can add any sort of effects, filters, corrections to a digital file to mimic analog... but it’s still just manipulating a digital source with its inherent 1 or 0 building blocks. It like adding spices to cover up a taste we don’t like. You use as many spices as you want, the initial ingredient will not inherently change and suddenly taste nice.

[ianman]

30 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

In the image in the OP, as someone else has pointed out, the edge of the trees against the sky is telling here...

I tried to show that effect in detail some years ago with the then new 28mm Summaron. 4 posts starting with...

 

[Hans-Dieter Gülicher]

Sorry, it`s your turn to handle ACR/PS in the way to get a fineal picture you may love. But you will need a calibrated monitor and printer (paper according your preferences). Your workflow should be Adobe-rgb 14/16 bit. Try, learn and do it. It will last a certain time to get your desired result, but you will be happy. As to my opinion, the posted shots of this forum are not the best examples in this way.

I am an old fashioned fotographer and do my up to now manual work since about 60 years. I am not a professional but I take my pictures and handle these according to my personal ideas. I do not sell my shots and because of this there is no need to respect everybodys taste.

Regards Hans

[Ouroboros]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

.....What I notice in particular though is that film handles highlights (skies/clouds) in a much more realistic way, and I have not yet managed to reproduce that in digital e.g. by underexposing and adjusting in post. (Digital has its own qualities that I value - I'm not a strong advocate for one or the other)

 

If, by more realistic, you mean more forgiving highlight retention, some emulsions do (most C41) and some don't (E6).  Either way, I don't see the comparison as being as valid now as it was a few years ago, assuming the photographer is capable of metering a scene properly.  Editing software and techniques are both substantially more refined now and, to an extent, what once would have been lost is now recoverable.

If your meaning was more believable, it can be but it's always up to the photographer's methods as to how it is recorded. 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Ouroboros

[plasticman]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I'm someone who has only recently got back into film (large format) after shooting digital exclusively more or less since it became viable, so my sensitivities to the differences are not particularly subtle. What I notice in particular though is that film handles highlights (skies/clouds) in a much more realistic way, and I have not yet managed to reproduce that in digital e.g. by underexposing and adjusting in post. (Digital has its own qualities that I value - I'm not a strong advocate for one or the other)

I'm not gonna get into the "yes you can"/"no you can't" digital vs film discussion yet again.

All I'll say is that for many years when I worked in advertising, and with global clients that had the very best digital cameras and professional photo-manipulators at their disposal, I agree with you about the 'believability' of some things captured on film (especially large-format film) compared to digital images. I can't explain why.

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, ianman said:

This is the point I was making above. You can add any sort of effects, filters, corrections to a digital file to mimic analog... but it’s still just manipulating a digital source with its inherent 1 or 0 building blocks. It like adding spices to cover up a taste we don’t like. You use as many spices as you want, the initial ingredient will not inherently change and suddenly taste nice.

From quantum mechanics point of view, the universe is made of discrete elements. There is nothing really analog. only that the quantization unit is so tiny that macroscopic created the illution of the do called (continuois) analog phenomena.

When the digital image is made of enough pixels with enough bit depth, it becomes analog. 

How many pixels and bit depth? It is determined by our rectina. To count the cells in the rectina and the light sensing capability， it is probably in the range of 24Mps and 16bit per color element, I will dig Feynmann college physics lecture to see it has the answer.

[ianman]

I'm not going to argue with Eins_Stein about physics  I thought the double slit experiment showed that light behaves simultaneously as a discrete particle (digital) and a wave (analog). Though I'm probably wrong about that.

I understand what you mean, and of course you are right, there is the same phenomenon for audio where there is a threshold sampling rate (96kHz?) which is sufficient to outperform our hearing abilities.

Actually, your post made me think about the hypothetical "analog" sensor I suggested in a previous post. If there are enough pixels, (many more than 24MP for a 35mm FF), they could be randomly switched on/off to mimic a random silver halide pattern. But it would be ludicrous to build such a sensor. Resolution is just one of the properties of the medium, so again ...  just use film.

 

edit: I'm not trying to suggest one method is better than another. Quite naturally and thank god, we each have our preferences.

Edited May 26, 2021 by ianman

[Ouroboros]

1 hour ago, plasticman said:

....I can't explain why.

Tangible, tactile alchemy...

Nothing can replicate the visual impact of a correctly exposed large or medium format transparency on the light box, but we're drifting a long way away from Porta 400 now.

I respect @colint544 very much for his photography, his experience and his thoughtful posts on this forum, but I would strongly disagree with him on the images shown on the Instagram account he linked to in the OP.  Frankly, to me, the pp is hideous and nothing like Portra 400.  That said, I like the content and composition of many of the images.

[plasticman]

14 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

 the pp is hideous and nothing like Portra 400.  That said, I like the content and composition of many of the images.

This we are in absolute agreement on. 

[pgk]

23 hours ago, colint544 said:

 I'm curious if we'll reach a point where digital files will be indistinguishable from, say, the look of Kodak Portra.

I still cannot get that look from native digital files.

What does anyone else think?

I think that the problem is more complex than simply trying to mimic or emulate a colour palette. I suspect that the spectral sensitivity of Portra (or any film) varies quite considerably from that of digital sensors and whilst this can be mimicked, the interaction of the spectral sensitivity with different light sources (colour temperature, colour biases and variance of different light sources within a scene) is much, much harder, if not nearly impossible. At times though, the light within a cene and the sensor's spectral sensitivity can coincide to some degree with that of film, so occasionally it is possible to get a similar image. Trying to use any preset though will only work if that preset is narrowed down to one light source or type of illumination. As ever the situation is probably rather more complex that we anticipate.

Personally I still find that files from my (CCD) M9s are more 'filmic' than those from later cameras with CMOS sensors. Not that the M9 often produces an image very comparable with film, but occasionally it does have a Kodachrome feel. That said I am satisfied to use digital sensors for what they produce and I do not try to emulate a film look - if I need to I do have a 35mm film camera still and could do so providing the film is still available. Kodachrome was once my film of choice and is now a part of history. I enjoyed its colours but have moved on because chasing the grail of Kodachrome does not excite me enough to do so.

[Charles Morgan]

1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

Nothing can replicate the visual impact of a correctly exposed large or medium format transparency on the light box, but we're drifting a long way away from Porta 400 now.

I wish it weren't so (as I hate the expense and the narrow exposure latitude and the slow speed of those media) but it's absolutely right - looking at recent Velvia 120 images made me go wow. In the end for me a great picture is made greater by a good choice of medium, but I don't think the choice of medium turns something ok into good. Same with sharpness, grain, noise etc. Much as I like to get diverted sometimes, my emphasis now is to get the photograph right, and all else follows - if you get mastery of the medium. Transparencies admit of no mistakes!

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Charles Morgan

[plasticman]

At the danger of derailing the thread, I did find the look of images from the Epson RD1 to be more film-like than any of my subsequent (and much higher pixel-count) digital cameras, especially when using Epson’s proprietary converter (which otherwise had a terrible interface and numerous usability problems).

For people (even people like me) who try to emulate film in their digital shots, and think that some sensor breakthrough might someday provide the solution, I always go back to this classic 2007 post from a (ex?) member of the forum:

http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2007/10/chumps-and-clumps.html

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ouroboros]

4 minutes ago, plasticman said:

At the danger of derailing the thread, I did find the look of images from the Epson RD1 to be more film-like than any of my subsequent (and much higher pixel-count) digital cameras....

Same sensor as the Nikon D100. 

The Nikon D200 also has a CCD sensor.  I bought four of them on release for wedding photography and my wife still uses the one I kept.  They're probably cheap as chips now and a good one would be worth considering if a CCD sensor camera is what you want.