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

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

33 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

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

I used it purposefully and invertedly when dropping those names to make the point. Spielberg, Nolan, you name it, wouldn't use the term inferior. They'd frame it positively, like "more suiting my vision" etc. That's how I see it, too. It's probably my fragility that has issues dealing with terms like inferiority. I do know there's a reason for the existence of that word, though. Hope you don't feel insulted 🙂.

Edited December 30, 2024 by hansvons

[hansvons]

15 minutes ago, adan said:

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."

Intriguing. Care to share an example, Adan?

[jgeenen]

There is some sort of renaissance to film photography. It is - compared to it's best times - on a very low level, but it is a niche which is developing. On the other hand, digital imaging is like a tsunami covering all visual aspects. Everything seems to be photographed already and everybody contributes. No need for long training or experience, no technical myths, just a smartphone and a bit of AI and you get perfect shots for virtually every purpose.

But this flooding with perfection can get boring. Why should you take a photograph on the street that probably thousands have done already with at least equal perfection? The desire to create something outstanding drives us back to the niches - "exotic" look of film (with grain, false colors, limited resolution etc. "character" lenses that effectively are doing something "wrong", etc. 

I remember - back in the old film days - many of us looked for technical perfection - natural colors, fine (or invisible) grain, highest resolution. We knew the limitations of 35mm film and went to larger formats to get "better" images. The drivers during those days might have been the very same as the look for filmic (or cinematic) look today - to create something that stands out from the masses.

[hansvons]

18 minutes ago, adan said:

"the thing itself."

That's the Kantian approach with the idea that a "Ding an sich" exists without being looked at or otherwise represented. I guess, when taking a photo of a "thing", you automatically represent it and observe it; thus, it's not a thing-in-itself but rather a concrete version of infinite other versions of the same "thing". There's been tons of thought about that issue. Another way to explain "things" is Wittgenstein's approach to identifying reality via language, which he believes is based on pictures we see in our inner self. Thus, we all have different ideas of what a thing-in-itself is. 

I like this approach a lot. It might partly explain why we are drawn to specific images more than others. Their correspondence with us drives curiosity and, at times, readjustments of our inner catalogue of "things." OK. It has little to do with film vs. digital.

 

15 minutes ago, adan said:

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

I agree However, if you swap the term painting for picture, you arrive at where I am with my work's research. I try to lose the photo aspect and adopt the broader, less-restrictive picture terminology. Not an easy endeavour.  

[250swb]

However if a painting looks like a photograph I think most people would consider it a talented artist.

But photographers have always messed about with how things look, it didn't take long for photography to go from the novelty of realism to Pictorialism and then back to realism and some surrealism thrown in. After which everybody understood photography was a malleable medium and there were no rules, it's only photographers spooked by not knowing what to do with the choices they have that impose rules aimed at purity with a rallying cry of 'I don't do post processing' to proclaim their superiority,....in their own eyes.

 

[Anthony MD]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

I used it purposefully and invertedly when dropping those names to make the point. Spielberg, Nolan, you name it, wouldn't use the term inferior. They'd frame it positively, like "more suiting my vision" etc. That's how I see it, too. It's probably my fragility that has issues dealing with terms like inferiority. I do know there's a reason for the existence of that word, though. Hope you don't feel insulted 🙂.

No, I don’t even feel inferior…!😂

[Anthony MD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

That's the Kantian approach with the idea that a "Ding an sich" exists without being looked at or otherwise represented. I guess, when taking a photo of a "thing", you automatically represent it and observe it; thus, it's not a thing-in-itself but rather a concrete version of infinite other versions of the same "thing". There's been tons of thought about that issue. Another way to explain "things" is Wittgenstein's approach to identifying reality via language, which he believes is based on pictures we see in our inner self. Thus, we all have different ideas of what a thing-in-itself is. 

I like this approach a lot. It might partly explain why we are drawn to specific images more than others. Their correspondence with us drives curiosity and, at times, readjustments of our inner catalogue of "things." OK. It has little to do with film vs. digital.

 

I agree However, if you swap the term painting for picture, you arrive at where I am with my work's research. I try to lose the photo aspect and adopt the broader, less-restrictive picture terminology. Not an easy endeavour.  

As an artist my making digital images that look like paintings makes it much easier…🖌️

Edited December 30, 2024 by Anthony MD

[Anthony MD]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

Intriguing. Care to share an example, Adan?

I agree with that…📷

[Smudgerer]

2 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

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…!

The Nikon F2 was, still is, one of the icons of 20c cameras..........I had three of them in my early London professional years, they were beautiful cameras to use, utterly reliable built like a brick shithouse but a lot prettier, you could drive a nail with one then go on a shoot with it.............ok a bit of an exaggeration, but they were beasts of work, on some days on some jobs we'd put 60 or more rolls through an F2 and they hardly ever let you down, in fact I still have those three f2's now and apart from the built in meter that never worked well anyway after a week from new they are still perfectly serviceable.......Great cameras, love them.

[Derbyshire Man]

I like monochrome for starters, instant abstraction. I do take images as similitude in colour from time to time, although mostly I'd reach for my phone for that, eg a memory of a place I've been or a lunch with the family. While I could of course use a phone for monochrome it simply doesn't inspire me. I'm far too flitty to simply try to do only one thing but a major strand for me is to evoke a feeling or thought. Playing with black and white has such a long history that it's instantly acceptable. Once you're in that place you are going to want to have every level of abstraction available such as grain or bloom, dense shadows and blacks, etc., obviously you don't need to use them all at once!

I find that attempts to do this in colour have a completely different effect, I can't handle over sharpened over saturated colour images which could never have been created outside of the digital world.

Obviously it's up to everyone to take their own path.

[Anthony MD]

2 minutes ago, Derbyshire Man said:

I like monochrome for starters, instant abstraction. I do take images as similitude in colour from time to time, although mostly I'd reach for my phone for that, eg a memory of a place I've been or a lunch with the family. While I could of course use a phone for monochrome it simply doesn't inspire me. I'm far too flitty to simply try to do only one thing but a major strand for me is to evoke a feeling or thought. Playing with black and white has such a long history that it's instantly acceptable. Once you're in that place you are going to want to have every level of abstraction available such as grain or bloom, dense shadows and blacks, etc., obviously you don't need to use them all at once!

I find that attempts to do this in colour have a completely different effect, I can't handle over sharpened over saturated colour images which could never have been created outside of the digital world.

Obviously it's up to everyone to take their own path.

I use a vintage Summicron Rigid with the MD 262 for a more pleasant look…!

[Smudgerer]

Further to the last post I just remembered that there was a good friend of mine in the "business" who was one of the so dubbed "Un-Holy Trinty" of fashion photographers back in the late 60'/70's who loved the F2's and apart from when a larger format was required, ( Hassy' or Rollei TLR ), shot with them all the time........His great studio trick was to have four F2's lensed, loaded and ready to go at the start of the session and when he got to the end of the roll on one he'd just toss the camera to the assistant that was working the reload table at the back of the studio and start on the next awaiting camera without missing a beat! On the whole the cameras made their flights safely, good assistant attention training, but a couple did bounce now and again either off of a cack-handed assistant or a wall but even after the bad landings both the cameras and assistants would still work ok most of the time.........He did say though that he preferred the cameras to bounce off of an assistant, a softer initial landing and a better survival rate for the F2 that way.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Smudgerer
Additional

[spydrxx]

I can't find the elaborate terms to explain the attraction of B&W film for me...I grew up with it, loved it and at times hated it. Digital seemed so much easier in both B&W and color, but to me is just too perfect to my senses. Yet, I mostly use digital these days, coming back to film when I want to challenge myself with old Leicas, Canons, and Contaxes. So I guess film to me is a comforting place, filled with challenges which I don't feel with digital. Nevertheless it's nice to have the option of using either as the mood demands.

[charlesphoto99]

I think the question to ask is why do so many now seem to want/need to carry around the film equivalent of a 4X5? Sure, that quality is great when it hits, but also can be very unforgiving, and, dare I say it, dull and soulless, esp when no post is done. Even though I no longer shoot film, I find the vagaries of the film I shot in the past to be endlessly fascinating - hardly one roll looks like another (between shoots that is). Plus the mystery of not actually knowing what one was going to get, so it was a much more involved (and artistic/craftsman) process to actually see an image fully realized. 

[charlesphoto99]

9 minutes ago, Smudgerer said:

Further to the last post I just remembered that there was a good friend of mine in the "business" who was one of the so dubbed "Holy Trinty" of fashion photographers back in the late 60'/70's who loved the F2's and apart from when a larger format was required, ( Hassy' or Rollei TLR ), shot with them all the time........His great studio trick was to have four F2's lensed, loaded and ready to go at the start of the session and when he got to the end of the roll on one he'd just toss the camera to the assistant that was working the reload table at the back of the studio and start on the next awaiting camera without missing a beat! On the whole the cameras made their flights safely, good assistant attention training, but a couple did bounce now and again either off of a cack-handed assistant or a wall but even after the bad landings both the cameras and assistants would still work ok most of the time.........He did say though that he preferred the cameras to bounce off of an assistant, a softer initial landing and a better survival rate for the F2 that way.

The Nikon F was my first real camera. When that was stolen, I switched to an FE2 (yay, no more removable back!). Later though I would pick up an F2AS, which I would take one of my most famous photos with. Great cameras (except for the no hot shoe nonsense). 

[Tom R]

2 hours ago, hansvons said:

That's the Kantian approach with the idea that a "Ding an sich" exists without being looked at or otherwise represented. I guess, when taking a photo of a "thing", you automatically represent it and observe it; thus, it's not a thing-in-itself but rather a concrete version of infinite other versions of the same "thing". There's been tons of thought about that issue. Another way to explain "things" is Wittgenstein's approach to identifying reality via language, which he believes is based on pictures we see in our inner self. Thus, we all have different ideas of what a thing-in-itself is. 

I like this approach a lot. It might partly explain why we are drawn to specific images more than others. Their correspondence with us drives curiosity and, at times, readjustments of our inner catalogue of "things." OK. It has little to do with film vs. digital.

 

I agree However, if you swap the term painting for picture, you arrive at where I am with my work's research. I try to lose the photo aspect and adopt the broader, less-restrictive picture terminology. Not an easy endeavour.  

I don’t know if the following reference will be helpful to you and your research. While Kant & Wittgenstein are well-established and seminal thinkers, a more “modern” treatment of photography (its ontological and epistemological ramifications) is presented in a small volume that summarizes some contemporary philosophical approaches to photography:

“On Photography” A philosophical inquiry, Costello, Diamuid, published by Routledge, Copyright 2018—ISBN (for the softcover version) 978-0-415-68449-1

This small text might provide you with some additional contributions and questions that take into account post-modern as well as traditional approaches to these kinds of questions.  

[Crem]

5 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

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…?

The answer to your question is hidden in all of your assumptions. Your digital camera’s output is not better for everyone. I do think replicating film is a fun and challenging problem for some people. I tried it for a while and came to the conclusion I’d rather shoot film instead of trying to replicate it. Many of the digital film looks don’t even look like film to me. 

Edited December 30, 2024 by Crem

[Anthony MD]

13 minutes ago, Crem said:

The answer to your question is hidden in all of your assumptions. Your digital camera’s output is not better for everyone. I do think replicating film is a fun and challenging problem for some people. I tried it for a while and came to the conclusion I’d rather shoot film instead of trying to replicate it. Many of the digital film looks don’t even look like film to me. 

I never said digital is better for everyone.

For me it is.. !

[Crem]

3 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

I never said digital is better for everyone.

For me it is.. !

Fair point! It’s clear that digital is better for the vast majority of people. I certainly won’t deny it!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

5 hours ago, hansvons said:

..... 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.

To do so you would probably need a massive, detailed file in order to apply a transform to which created a final output image which mimicked 'grain clumping' rather than 'digital noise' (depending on film look required - type, ISO, etc.) so I'm not sure that its really worth the effort. My point being that in order to be able to mimick 'grain clumping' you would need an effectively noiseless iage as a start point. Its rather easier to shoot film, assuming that the film you want to use is still available - tricky for Kodachrome though. Personally I would much rather use digital than film for many reasons and I have no desire to try to reproduce a filmic look via digital.