A film 'look' in the near future?

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Steven said:

It sounds to me like you guys are reducing the film look to grain. It's not the grain that made my photo more interesting. It's the overall look, color tones, textures, etc...

With the greatest of respect, Steven, it sounds to me like you just need to hone your digital post-prod skills even further.

Philip.

Edited May 28, 2021 by pippy

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

Which led me to delete the reply I had composed in response to those who say they can't see a difference (probably just as well I didn't submit it, anyway).

Probably need to learn to respect other views and respond politely.

Edited May 28, 2021 by pedaes

[Ouroboros]

4 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Probably need to learn to respect other views and respond politely.

You really are too tedious.  Don't bother replying to me again, it won't be seen

[SrMi]

After a 20 years hiatus from the film, I recently started scanning my old B&W negatives and shooting 120 and 135 films.
There is something in the negative film that I cannot replicate in digital. It may be the highlights, grain, tones, or something else; I do not know. Today, I prefer the output of film to that one of digital. 

The output of digital looks still remarkable to me, and digital is much more practical, especially when traveling. Hence, I continue shooting primarily digital.

I would like to hear from people shooting both film and digital and have found a way to modify the digital image to replace what you achieve with the film.

When Salgado switched from film to digital in the middle of his Genesis project, his team created large-format B&W negatives from selected digital images. They did not try to emulate Tri-X in raw files.

 

[pippy]

19 minutes ago, Steven said:

What are you talking about ? I think my English is not good enough to express my or to understand what you are saying. 
I am saying the same thing than you (I think). 
What does my post prod has to do with all this ? 

I'm very confused. Sincerely. 

No offence intended Steven, I assure you, and in general we are of a similar mind.

At the same time whilst it's perhaps not quite possible to create an exact likeness of a film print - especially in terms of colour tones (cross-curves spring to mind) - with B'n'W it is very possible to get a close approximation of the 'overall look and textures' seen in a fibre-based wet-print when using digital materials.

Part of my pro-background was working under a couple of the finest b'n'w exhibition printers of the day and a great deal of my subsequent training can be transferred directly to digital media. With sufficient craft and care it is possible (IMX) to create exhibition-quality digital prints whose look / texture / feel (or whatever) can be a match for an equally top-drawer wet print.

I understand that others hold a different viewpoint and, of course, that's perfectly fine by me.

Philip.

Edited May 28, 2021 by pippy

[Ouroboros]

It depends on what you mean by a 'match' and by which method the  prints are created.  For the purpose of this thread, I suppose it can be assumed you mean inkjet vs conventional b&w fibre-based wet prints, but a 'close approximation' isn't a 'match' .

Part of my pro-background involves a 30+ year darkroom career, wet printing my own (paid and personal) colour and black and white work and a lengthy period as an Epson beta-tester and, from my experience, there is no difficulty involved in identifying one output from the other and there never will be.  Looking for a 'match' is an exercise in pointlessness, imo.

My personal work is 99% scanned film and inkjet prints.  There are several reasons why I enjoy pursuing my personal photography this way, but the key points for the sake of this discussion are because it's perfectly possible to retain the character of the film with the convenience of digitisation of output, both transmitted and reflective. 

I like the square format and I like using my Hasselblads, I like shooting 35mm film in my Leica MP and Nikon FE,  I like the sumptuous frames I get from my Fuji GSW690iii.   I also like the 3:1 aspect ratio of my Fuji GX617, I like the process of scanning with my Imacon scanner and I like printing the results with the combination of my preferred paper and inkset.

Other people have different paths, some can't even tell the difference between them, apparently, but the point is the whole process of capture and output are supposed to be enjoyed. 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Ouroboros

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, ianman said:

Mine is...

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!

So, Ian: Walk me through the difference between tarting up a picture with grain, and tarting up a subject with a Thambar.

.......................................

Some general thoughts, not directed at anyone in particular.

1) "Film grain" really only became a thing with the advent of small negatives. The first 100 years of photography (counting from Niépce in 1827 or so) were made with large film or glass plates, not enlarged much at all, in which the microscopic grains were completely invisible. In the same time frame, photo-chemists were also pursuing "faster" emulsions so that portrait photographers didn't have to put their subjects in neck-braces for 30-second exposures. In one "happy accident," it was found that gelatin from the hides of cows whose fodder included mustard plants produced more sensitivity to light, but other means included increasing the size of the still-invisible grains to intercept more photons.

But at any rate, the idea that "silver photography = grain" is a "poorly-informed" idea.

2) It wasn't until Leica and others introduced the miniature format, requiring 8x or greater enlargements, that grain entered the picture (hah!) at all. At which point photo chemistry actually reversed course in some respects, to eliminate this "problem." If one likes nostalgia - try looking through back-issues of photo magazines from the 1930s-1970s, which produced reams of articles and advertisements promoting this or that "fine-grain" developer or technique. See also Ilford Perceptol and Kodak Microdol, and the many attempts at using micro-ISO microfilms with special compensating developers to restore some tonality. And culminating in today's Delta/TMax 100 films.

3) Some photographers "made a virtue out of necessity." If their 35mm film was going to be grainy - at least be in control of that effect, and use it appropriately for specific projects or subjects. Others did not - Gene Smith often printed his negs through a black silk stocking to diffuse the grain. And mixed his D-76 a bit like the Solera system for making sherry - always adding back some of his "aged" developer to each new batch, to "take the edge off the grain."

4) On the subject of nostalgia, one of my instructors in the 1970s introduced us to the concept of "learned photography." Beginning students in an art generally need a model of what constitutes "a good photograph/painting/sculpture/symphony/poem" - just for practice. And by that he did not mean technical camera and chemistry knowledge, but the "vision" to see light, gesture, expression, composition. Basically "copying" great works to understand how they work, just like apprentices in workshops, or copyists "painting pictures of pictures" in the Louvre.

https://mymodernmet.com/ivan-guilbert-louvre-copyists/

But, he said, the challenge then is to outgrow that "infantile" phase, and develop one's own personal vision and techniques of hand and medium. Otherwise one stays in diapers one's whole life.

That was rephrased by Charlie Harbutt at a photo workshop in the 1970s (as reported in Camera 35 at the time). Asked by a student how he could take pictures like Bruce Davidson's, Harbutt replied, "Why would you want to take pictures like Bruce Davidson's? If people want 'Bruce Davidson pictures' - they can just hire Bruce!"

So beware of taking a photograph because "it looks like a Photograph." The great photographers re-define what "looks like a photograph." Or in the case of Garry Winogrand, "I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed."

5) In its own infancy, photographers tried to get photography accepted as an art. The first attempt at that was "Pictorialism" - more or less manipulating photographs to "look like paintings," with posed subjects, painted backdrops, soft-focus, "alternative" printing materials, and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism

That phase lasted roughly up until 1915-1925 (and by no means did all photographers buy into the notion, but it was the prevailing one, if one counted oneself a photographic "artist").

But the cultural shocks of WW1, political revolutions, the triumph of the machine/industrial age, and other economic upheavals (culminating in the Great Depression) made Pictorialism seem, well, effete, antiquated and disconnected from reality. Thus was born the return to strict realism exemplified by Group f/64 - which had quite explicit political-ism origins, including a Manifesto, as quoted (in part) below.

Quote

Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods. The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards of pure photography. Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. The production of the "Pictorialist," on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts.

The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself.

It's one of those little sidelights on Group f/64 that member Edward Weston took his glass plates from his earlier Pictorialist pictures - and scraped off the pictures to use the glass in windows for a new studio. That shows how "nostalgic" he was for even his own previous medium and aesthetic.

I don't see that manipulating a digital picture to "look like" film is any different that Pictorialism - "manipulating photographs to look like paintings."

And if you want to really insult my photographs - tell me they look like paintings. It's even worse than the old "nice picture - you must have used a really good camera!"

Edited May 28, 2021 by adan

[250swb]

10 hours ago, Steven said:

I have a suggestion of how you could much better use your time. Go watch Midnight in Paris by Woody Allen. Then come back here and we'll chit chat about the different form of nostalgia, because no one here said that "grain procures nostalgia". You keep missing the point. 

I think having somebody else, Woody Allen,  explain what you mean to say means you haven't the capacity to say it yourself, and the arrogance of expecting somebody to take 90 minutes to find out is breathtaking.

[ianman]

3 hours ago, adan said:

So, Ian: Walk me through the difference between tarting up a picture with grain, and tarting up a subject with a Thambar.

haha, nice try but I didn't write that. I wrote "If it's boring, it's boring. Using any gimmick to tart it up will result in a tarted up boring photo." That is valid for digital and film.

And also, I don't think I wrote that manipulating a photo, digitally or in the darkroom is somehow "wrong". It's been done since the dawn of photography. We all  do it to some degree (not much because I don't own any software for doing so), but just converting a raw file to jpg is a manipulation. Film photography manipulation starts off with the choice of film and pushing or pulling it, then developer, dilution, duration, then the type of paper, exposure durations, dodging and burning, etc. It's done all over the place. What I have been saying since page 1 is that IMHO you cannot get a digital photo to have the exact same qualities as a photo on film and I gave and showed my reasoning which could be valid or not. To me they are, and you are welcome to shoot them down in flames I will certainly not respect you any less for that. I have not poo-pooed digital photography, it would be bloody weird if I did as the majority of my stuff is made with the M9 and yes, I like pictorialism and when someone tells me that my photos have captured that particular quality whether on my M9 or MP, I am happy.

Edited May 28, 2021 by ianman

[250swb]

Just now, Steven said:

You clearly have not changed since you fought with everybody on that other thread. As I remember how you ruined so many people's day back then, I am going to learn from the past and stop reading your messages. You're on my swipe left list. 

Ah, can't quite form a coherent response, so block, a particular skill reserved for particular people on the internet 👍

[a.noctilux]

Second is film without hesitation 😉.

[a.noctilux]

In this following pic,

I can not "try to render digital" 😇

 

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!

 

seen here

Edited May 28, 2021 by a.noctilux

[Einst_Stein]

42 minutes ago, Steven said:

Here are two random photos I took this week from the same lens, on M10R and MP. I selected them because I think one looks like film, one looks very digital. But the question is, without knowing, can you really tell ? 

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!

Can't tell, but I prefer the 1st. 

[Steve Ricoh]

13 hours ago, pgk said:

Actually when I stop to think about it, I cannot think of a single photograph which I have taken which would benefit from added grain. I can think of many which would benefit from reduced grain/noise possibly/maybe. I'm with ianman, in that a boring photo is a boring photo and no amount of messing around with it will turn it into something better. Its one of my concerns with manipulated/created/composite 'photographs' which is another 'in thing', which are only viable if they originate from a clear concept whilst too many seem cobbled together from a disparate set of mediocre images.

I think there’s a case for increased grain - just take a look at the ‘dreamscape’ article by Tyrell McBride. 

https://www.35mmc.com/20/05/2021/making-dreamscapes-by-developing-film-at-30-degrees-by-tyrell-mcbride/
 

My next step is to try and replicate the look using hot development. I like film to be significantly different to digital and I see no point shooting film if it turns out to be smooth and clinical devoid of grain. Just my opinion of course.

[a.noctilux]

👍

Victime consentante (sorry in french 🔞).

 

💬

Nicely done, I flipped a coin 😝,

the coin was an ignoramus then.

 

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

Dear Arnaud, 

i am sorry, you were the victim of my little trick ! 

the first photo is shot in Kodak Portra 400 + MP. I passed it in LR, sharpened it, denoised it, and modified the colors to remove the Portra look and make it more digital. 

the second photo was shot today on my M10R ! I downsized it and edited it as best as I could to make it look like a film photo. 
 

sorryyyyyyy 😂😝My goal was to see if I could make film look like digital and vice versa. I can post both originals before editing if anyone is interested. They are the opposites of what I posted! 

You've convinced me your digital look is better than your film look, regardless the original. 

In fact,  since it was digitized, you can't get real film look anyway.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Einst_Stein

[Guest Nowhereman]

There is a thread on the Fred Miranda forum on color profiles and film emulations that may be much more accurate than any of the others, the website for which is here: Cobalt-Image. Does anyone have any experience with these profiles?

Interestingly, the Cobalt-Image packages provide for not only film emulation but also emulation of one digital camera from another digital camera: for photographers who want an easy way of getting similar output from several digital cameras. A separate package has to be bought for each camera, even for the M10 vs the M10-P.

I haven't tried these profiles, but you can see their subtlety in this example of skin tones in the difference between the C1 generic profile and Cobalt standard profile. 
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Edited May 29, 2021 by Nowhereman

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

There is a thread on the Fred Miranda forum on color profiles and film emulations that may be much more accurate than any of the others, the website for which is here: Cobalt-Image. Does anyone have any experience with these profiles?

Interestingly, the Cobalt-Image packages provide for not only film emulation but also emulation of one digital camera from another digital camera: for photographers who want an easy way of getting similar output from several digital cameras. A separate package has to be bought for each camera, even for the M10 vs the M10-P.

I haven't tried these profiles, but you can see their subtlety in this example of skin tones in the difference between the C1 generic profile and Cobalt standard profile. 
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Can it emulate M9 for any other digital camera? If it can, I will give it a try!

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Einst_Stein

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ianman]

16 hours ago, Steven said:

the first photo is shot in Kodak Portra 400 + MP. I passed it in LR, sharpened it, denoised it, and modified the colors to remove the Portra look and make it more digital. 

the second photo was shot today on my M10R ! I downsized it and edited it as best as I could to make it look like a film photo. 

You certainly know your way around PP but I'm not certain what this test is supposed to achieve. According to your description you have manipulated both images so much that neither retains it's inherent qualities. It's like doing the coke/pepsi blind test and serving 7up.

It might be interesting for you to post originals.

[Martin B]

I believe you can get very close these days in digital PP to both color and B&W films. Leica's monochrome cameras even provide more latitude when it comes to high ISO B&W shooting than what can be achieved with film (I never used a M10-M but can tell from posted photos). This said, I enjoy shooting both digital and film (color and B&W). With digital, I don't even try to get a look similar to a color film as discussed in this thread. For me the whole film shooting is simply a different experience and process - even if the same results can be achieved now or at some point with digital and PP. When shooting film, I don't expect the perfectionism in the photo as I do it more so with digital - there are so many factors with films and developments which make a difference in the outcome. The whole digitalization of film frames is a whole other story. 

So yes, film emulations and additional PP with modern high dynamic range cameras which allow to pull highlights likely can achieve any "look" needed. It won't stop me from shooting film though in specific situations, and in others I will used digital. I simply embrace the differences in the process and outcome - I never had and have the interest to make one look like the other. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Martin B