Why do photographers want to make their digital images look like film anyway…?

[Anthony MD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shot film for many years.  The cost of film, development and waiting made it a burden. Then acquiring the MD 262 changed everything!  
The images taken with the MD 262 look much better to me than what I previously took with film. 
Why would I try to make the digital images look inferior…?

[Advertisement]

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

[oekoek]

Nostalgia i suppose 😏

[hansvons]

29 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

Why would I try to make the digital images look inferior…?

Where to start? Maybe with the term inferior. (The term inferior does not exist as an argument in my understanding of the creative world. Perhaps what I say does not have much meaning for you, but I try anyway).

What could be properties that pay into a feeling of inferiority? The resolution? The amount or lack of texture? The colour range? The colour separation? The roll-off in the whites? The saturation of the shadows? The delicacy of skin tones? 

Digital and film images can differ in these properties a lot. But one thing can't be done: digital will never look like film. It will hardly exude that timelessness. And even if you invest a fortune in presets, there will only be an approximation. 

There's quite a list of famous artists who consider digital an inferior medium for their work. To name a few: Spielberg, Tarantino, Nolan, Anderson, and many less famous directors. Countless photographers still believe that film conveys their vision better. 

I've tried many times to shoot landscapes digitally and print them large, but I failed. The je ne sais quoi is missing every time I try. Film was and still is my medium of choice. However, I happily acknowledge that digital technology is technically better in most fields and that developing film is somewhat of a chore. 

Edited December 30, 2024 by hansvons

[evikne]

I'm jealous every time I see someone posting photos taken with the same lenses I have, but with film instead of digital, because they look so much better! It's mostly about the tonality and contrasts. I sometimes try to mimic some of this in my images, but I never quite succeed.

[satijntje]

Maybe it’s also a matter of taste?
Why do some music lovers prefer vinyl over hight quality sound?
Do analogue images have more character? Maybe…..
 

[costa43]

The answer to me is quite obvious. Some prefer the look of digital and some prefer film. Those who prefer the look of film may try and imitate it with a digital camera as that is their preference and it is how they wish to show their vision without going through some of the ‘hardships’ of shooting and developing film that you mentioned. There is also a cost to shooting a lot of film now that is quite prohibitive for many.

You clearly prefer digital so it’s an easy one for you. I am with @evikne and @hansvons with my view. Film looks more pleasing to me. I’ve tried to emulate it but it’s never quite right so I shoot a lot more film now. I am now of the mindset that maybe I should work to the strengths of both mediums and go ultra modern with digital for a while to see how I get on whilst shooting film on my M with the lenses I enjoy very much.

 

Edited December 30, 2024 by costa43

[jankap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps film is more in the direction of art. Tech art, like this, pointillismus. 

Sharpness is a bourgeois concept, isn't it.

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!

Edited December 30, 2024 by jankap

[a.noctilux]

Why do photographers want to make their digital images look like film anyway…?

Not me !

[pgk]

17 minutes ago, costa43 said:

Some prefer the look of digital and some prefer film.

And since the two are still available there's an obvious solution.

Being obtuse about this, I would suggest that trying to make digital look like film requires a great deal of understanding about what the difference actually is. I remember studying the mathematical modelling behind the way film worked a very long time ago, and it was complex, and there were a number of models (at least). Not my forte at all. So determining what the difference between film and (the potentially simpler to define) digital is not easy. If I wanted a filmic look I'd simply shoot film.

[hansvons]

12 minutes ago, costa43 said:

I am now of the mindset that maybe I should work to the strengths of both mediums and go ultra modern with digital for a while to see how I get on whilst shooting film on my M with the lenses I enjoy very much.

Good approach and good framing: going ultramodern with digital. I can't do it with landscapes, but I can do it with portraits. Below is an example I posted here elsewhere, but I believe it fits into the topic, so I am posting it again. It is not an M264 but an SL2-S and a Summicron 50mm V4 at f/2. The other picture is from my Windows series, shot on Kodak 5207 and my 90% lens Summicron 35mm ASPH. Click to enlarge to 2.4K long edge (the originals are 6K but you can't post that size here).

 

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!

 

 

[hansvons]

1 minute ago, pgk said:

Not my forte at all. So determining what the difference between film and (the potentially simpler to define) digital is not easy. If I wanted a filmic look I'd simply shoot film.

Editing is supposed to be somewhat my forte (I taught it at university, but uni is full of mediocre teachers, so take it with some grain of salt), but I never managed to transform a digitally acquired image into an image that looked convincingly like film despite years-long rabbit-holing. If that were possible, I'd happily ditch film and move on.

[Anthony MD]

40 minutes ago, satijntje said:

Maybe it’s also a matter of taste?
Why do some music lovers prefer vinyl over hight quality sound?
Do analogue images habe more character? Maybe…..
 

I listen to vinyl instead of CD.

CD tends to be flat and harsh and can’t listen long without getting listening fatigue, go figure…!

[LocalHero1953]

The thread title emphasises the critical factor: it's a preference of photographers, not of those looking at photographs. Viewers look mainly at the content of an image.

[evikne]

It is my search for this indeterminate, inferior thing that has led me to the Mandler lenses I use today. They give me something of the same as with film. I'm not looking for lenses with obvious flaws; just enough to remove the digital sting that I think makes images “boring”.

But I think modern lenses can look great with film, and I even experienced a bit of the same with my old M9. When I switched to the M10, I started to get kind of restless, because I noticed that “something” was missing. 

[Anthony MD]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

Where to start? Maybe with the term inferior. (The term inferior does not exist as an argument in my understanding of the creative world. Perhaps what I say does not have much meaning for you, but I try anyway).

What could be properties that pay into a feeling of inferiority? The resolution? The amount or lack of texture? The colour range? The colour separation? The roll-off in the whites? The saturation of the shadows? The delicacy of skin tones? 

Digital and film images can differ in these properties a lot. But one thing can't be done: digital will never look like film. It will hardly exude that timelessness. And even if you invest a fortune in presets, there will only be an approximation. 

There's quite a list of famous artists who consider digital an inferior medium for their work. To name a few: Spielberg, Tarantino, Nolan, Anderson, and many less famous directors. Countless photographers still believe that film conveys their vision better. 

I've tried many times to shoot landscapes digitally and print them large, but I failed. The je ne sais quoi is missing every time I try. Film was and still is my medium of choice. However, I happily acknowledge that digital technology is technically better in most fields and that developing film is somewhat of a chore. 

I thought you said inferior doesn’t exist as an argument in your understanding…!

[Anthony MD]

56 minutes ago, costa43 said:

The answer to me is quite obvious. Some prefer the look of digital and some prefer film. Those who prefer the look of film may try and imitate it with a digital camera as that is their preference and it is how they wish to show their vision without going through some of the ‘hardships’ of shooting and developing film that you mentioned. There is also a cost to shooting a lot of film now that is quite prohibitive for many.

You clearly prefer digital so it’s an easy one for you. I am with @evikne and @hansvons with my view. Film looks more pleasing to me. I’ve tried to emulate it but it’s never quite right so I shoot a lot more film now. I am now of the mindset that maybe I should work to the strengths of both mediums and go ultra modern with digital for a while to see how I get on whilst shooting film on my M with the lenses I enjoy very much.

 

I like film also, but digital is more real for me.

The film camera I used is a Nikon F2.  Camera shake and design, light path longer resulting in more distortion, is probably why I prefer digital…!

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Anthony MD said:

Why would I try to make the digital images look inferior…?

Unless you are a total photography noob you'll remember digital images did once resemble film with lots of noise and dodgy colour. Which begs the question, does each time you buy a new upgraded digital camera relegate all your previous photographs to inferiority because the new ones are demonstrably 'better'? It's kind of a nihilistic approach that you aren't able to make a distinction between different media and how people want things to look rather than how a team of boffins at Leica say things should look. Despite how much you pay for a camera it is not impossible to disagree with the manufacturer over many things that come under the umbrella of creativity. That is why photographers enjoy using older lenses on their new camera, or doing more in pp to improve the image maybe with some grain, or decide their idea of colour doesn't match with Leica's, etc.

[adan]

I suppose someone really has to first ask "What does film look like - and which film - and in which format?"

Kodachrome 25 does not look like Tri-X pushed to EI 1600 does not look like Trix-X exposed at 200 in a 4x5/8x10 format does not look Portra of any speed does not look like Ektachrome 400. Especially in the Barnack format.

And then there is Polaroid.

Nor do any of them "look like" (using the term broadly) a Daguerrotype or a wet-plate photograph - nor film-based prints made via the carbon-print, oil-print, gum-bichromate, platinum, palladium, or silk-screen separation processes. Among many many other "looks" of photography from the past 200 years.

Of course, the untutored, unimaginative, and inexperienced "Boob-boisie" of the amateur photo world usually don't have a clue about those. Therefore they often have a cramped, narrow, naïve idea of what film (or more generally, chemical silver) photography is "supposed" to look like. Usually only "what they grew up with." - which is indeed a very - limited - form of nostalgia. 

Personally, in my "growing up with film," I aspired to be a National Geographic/Paris-Match-style magazine photographer. With a little "Ernst-Haas Kodachrome" thrown in. Using K25 (very briefly K II) - for which "straight" digital is actually a pretty good match already (virtually grainless, very sharp, limited dynamic range, dynamic saturated colors (properly exposed)).

But I started out with the whole different look of Agfa Isopan ISS 120 in a secondary-school's loaned-out Diana. And of course eventually also used high-speed 35mm B&W, because i was also a student of W. Eugene Smith's social-documentary work (along with other photojournalists: Magnum and LIFE/LOOK,and the AP and newspapers) The pictures that affected the world, not just one little "personal soul." The audience was never me - it was everyone else i wanted to communicate with.

I used almost no color neg film - at the time (1970s) that was for family snapshooters and "hack/production-line" wedding/student-portrait photographers, not meaningful publication photos.

Anyway, I still shoot film. In 6x6 format. And mostly I try to make my film pictures "look like digital!!" Invisible grain/noise, crisp edges, "the thing itself." (Learned that from Edward Weston's Daybooks.)

To see the Thing itself is essential: the quintessence revealed direct without the fog of impressionism... This then: to photograph a rock, have it look like a rock, but be more than a rock. Significant presentation - not interpretation.

And of course, the workflow is basically "digital" anyway, once I put the processed film into the scanner, and pull my exhibition prints from the Epson. 😁

Edited December 30, 2024 by adan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Anthony MD]

57 minutes ago, jankap said:

Perhaps film is more in the direction of art. Tech art, like this, pointillismus. 

Sharpness is a bourgeois concept, isn't it.

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!

My landscape photos from my MD 262 have been described as paintings numerous times…!

Edited December 30, 2024 by Anthony MD

[adan]

If someone tells me my photographs "look like paintings," I consider that a deadly insult. 🤪