Jump to content

A film 'look' in the near future?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, evikne said:

But it's scary when you've never used film before … 😬😄

Ah, scary is a different matter... we are all here to hold you hand as you take your first agitations :)

I'm pretty sure that you'll love it and once you start you'll be hooked!!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Charles Morgan said:

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. 

 

I have to agree here. I mean, no matter the medium, lens, or whatever technicalities, a boring shot is boring and an interesting one interesting. Therefore, I don't really understand why anyone would try and emulate the look of film on digital.

 

And in any case, as an amateur layman not aiming to make money, the choice of film is obvious:

- In negatives (and slides), you get something concrete. (Lord knows I've lost all my digital files every time I've changed laptops or cloud services.) 

- Film cameras don't lose that much value as digital ones (that apparently need to be bought again every second year).

- In film cameras you don't pay for features you don't need (every second year).

- Film cameras stay hip and cool. (You don't need to sacrifice new consumer electronics on the altar of your ego every second year.)

- Shooting film slows you down, both in shooting and in post-processing. (This is a good thing if you're in the habit of developing a more critical eye towards your own stuff.)  

 

As a pro, the choice of digital is equally obvious: 

- It's easier, and if the client doesn't care (as most people don't), why should you.

 

As an artist, I am told, you gets to do whatever it is you want to do. So, while I usually see some value also in the most arbitrary online chatting, this discussion, on the potential of making  digital look like film, really seems a little perplexing to me :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Film economy must include how often you change your camera. Film camera doesg s not change that often compare before and compare to digital camera.

Take Leica for example, assuming you change your digital camera every generation or every other generation, it would be about every 4~5 years for every major upgrade. (M240 -> M10l SL -SL2). It would be about US$ 6K for every 4~5 years or every 8~10 years. That is , US$600 ~ 1200 per year. 

How much film & chemical can you burn with US$600~1200 per year? If you are shooting that much and if it is not for making profit, it's likely you are processing at home. Kodak EKTAR 100 costs about US$11 per 35mm role, assuming you develop with Rollei C41. Non-C41 B&W is about US$5 per Roll. You can shoot 1~2 rolls Ektar 100 per week or 2~4 rolls TMAX/TRI-X. For my shooting volume, that's about it.

Of course, the digital can be cheaper if you stay with one or two generations behind. M240 and SL for example, are now less than US$3K. Does the old generation Leica handicap my shooting results? you bet, the limitation is my 60+ years old brain, not the 10 years Leica.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don’t hear about people wanting to simulate the digital “look” on film.

But relating to digital cameras being replaced by new models every year or two, in the 30’s Leitz brought out new models ever year or so, 1a to interchangeable lenses, add a rangefinder, add slow speeds etc, but at least you could get your old camera upgraded to the latest version, firmware updates?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, evikne said:

When I look back at my M9 pictures, I always miss it. To me, the M9 was the missing link between analog and digital. I could put on modern lenses and still have much of that look I've tried to recreate ever since with my M10, by using older lenses and/or presets in LR.

Why dont we keep using M9s then ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, evikne said:

But it's scary when you've never used film before … 😬😄

The truth is, film a bit of an addiction. More than the image it produces, the process of making the photo is extremely enjoyable and rewarding. Maybe you should not try after all. Because your photography style is such good match for using film in 2021 that you might never be able to look back if you try..... 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

You don’t hear about people wanting to simulate the digital “look” on film.

Well, I did for years (2004-2007 - before Leica got around to a digital M). I just didn't see a point in trumpeting it - I'm not into the "Here's what I had for breakfast on facebook" culture. ;)

More accurately, perhaps, I tried to get the "immediacy and convenience - and look" of digital, using the most digital-like films available: color positive films like Velvia, running my own E6 so I could have "finished pictures" in 2 hours (and on a Sunday night). Or the finest-grain general-purpose films like Pan F, TMax 100 and Scala (not to be confused with the converted microfilms).

But the digital "look" was exactly what I wanted all my life, and once the M8 arrived, I sold my film Leicas without hesitation and shot not a single roll of film for 8 years. I did eventually return to film in medium-format, because they don't make 56mm x 56mm sensors for general use. But I still use the most "digital" films I can find - Ektar and the TMaxes. Crisp, clear, effectively grainless.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, adan said:

Well, I did for years (2004-2007 - before Leica got around to a digital M). I just didn't see a point in trumpeting it - I'm not into the "Here's what I had for breakfast on facebook" culture. ;)

More accurately, perhaps, I tried to get the "immediacy and convenience - and look" of digital, using the most digital-like films available: color positive films like Velvia, running my own E6 so I could have "finished pictures" in 2 hours (and on a Sunday night). Or the finest-grain general-purpose films like Pan F, TMax 100 and Scala (not to be confused with the converted microfilms).

But the digital "look" was exactly what I wanted all my life, and once the M8 arrived, I sold my film Leicas without hesitation and shot not a single roll of film for 8 years. I did eventually return to film in medium-format, because they don't make 56mm x 56mm sensors for general use. But I still use the most "digital" films I can find - Ektar and the TMaxes. Crisp, clear, effectively grainless.

Exactly! the very idea of trying to reproduce film on digital seems so odd. And I love the way the digital M cameras - all of them - render

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ianman said:

Why haven’t I been notified about this? No wonder my photos are crap!

Look, I thought it was obvious. People these days; you never know what rock they crawl under from.

As to your photos, I´m sure all this is unrelated with their crappiness. 

Edited by jukka
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steven said:

Why dont we keep using M9s then ? 

I had a M9 and sold it for the M240, with relief. I realise this is not a popular view, but I found the colours garish, oversaturated, and limited by the DR. Fine if you like that sort of thing, but I found the M240 more realistic. Aside from that, the absence of LV made it difficult to check focus calibration, the LCD was embarrassingly bad, and the shutter sounded like two farm gates slamming.

Looking for my flak jacket...........

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I had a M9 and sold it for the M240, with relief. I realise this is not a popular view, but I found the colours garish, oversaturated, and limited by the DR. Fine if you like that sort of thing, but I found the M240 more realistic. Aside from that, the absence of LV made it difficult to check focus calibration, the LCD was embarrassingly bad, and the shutter sounded like two farm gates slamming.

Looking for my flak jacket...........

Hi Paul

Whilst I wouldn't quite criticise the garish oversaturated colours and limited DR (has it's charm). I completely agree with you 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I had a M9 and sold it for the M240, with relief. I realise this is not a popular view, but I found the colours garish, oversaturated, and limited by the DR. Fine if you like that sort of thing, but I found the M240 more realistic. Aside from that, the absence of LV made it difficult to check focus calibration, the LCD was embarrassingly bad, and the shutter sounded like two farm gates slamming.

I don't think anyone will disagree with the last points! But for the garish, oversaturated colours, and I think we've already discussed this, I just don't understand. I have never seen this. Maybe it's because I have always underexposed by quite a bit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For many shots I’ve taken I tend to prefer the ones I’ve done with film.

For me it’s about film images having not too much acuity (ie, overly sharp edges). At the same time I am a fan of high resolution (ie, fine detail), however, and larger formats can certainly achieve that  ....I reckon my 5x4 with a drum scan feels around 100-150mp in resolution. But I dislike the etched-out look of many digital images due to acuity and/or over sharpening in post production. 

Also, many digitals sensors seem to record greens with a lot of yellow ...in reality, when you look at nature, many leaves and grass do have a lot of yellow especially in bright sun, but my eye for colour is driven by films I’ve used ....and many of these films seem to me to drive through darker greens as a primary output.

So where does that leave me? I’ve tried to get a film look from digital for years. Owned an M240 and SL2 (and demo’d S007) to no avail. It’s been a futile exercise for me generally, but certainly the nearest I’ve got is from the GFX100S and I’m finally pretty satisfied at using digital and miss film a lot lot less than before .....

(i) the medium format digital sensor seems to lend a “gentler” rendering with less glaring acuity than anything full frame 35mm I’ve tried. That in itself is more filmic to me.

(ii) the 100mp resolution is finally mimicking the resolution for large prints that I’ve enjoyed from 5x4.

(iii) Fuji profiles under “camera matching” in ACR processing have also helped tame the yellow very easily. The profiles sound gimmicky, but some I think are very useful is the “classic neg” and “classic chrome”, both of which seem to drive out much of the fluorescent yellow that many digital sensors record, and these Fuji profiles create a deep tonal range and bias to greens that remind me considerably of film.

Finally, no film I’ve used, even if 5x4, is perfectly clean when it comes to grain for large prints. I like the texture that some grain gives ....it adds more depth to the image in my view. To mimic fine grain 5x4 like Provia or Acros, FWIW, I use the Effects tab in ACR and set grain at around +15, size at near 0, and roughness at +100. It is subtle but it gives a slight texture, which again I think is really important to move away from a direct digital look and get something more filmic.

Edited by Jon Warwick
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...