3D-Kraft.com Posted December 30, 2024 Share #41 Posted December 30, 2024 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not everyone wants to create art all the time. Many of us have been influenced by the look of analog film for decades - for me it was Kodak Ektar for a long time. Many positive memories were associated with it, which may also be a reason why, despite today's sensors being much more perfect, people would like to bring back this less perfect look and the associations. That is one of the reasons that brought me back to the M9, which is simply closer to that look shaped by the past. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 30, 2024 Posted December 30, 2024 Hi 3D-Kraft.com, Take a look here Why do photographers want to make their digital images look like film anyway…?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Anthony MD Posted December 30, 2024 Author Share #42 Posted December 30, 2024 1 hour ago, 3D-Kraft.com said: Not everyone wants to create art all the time. Many of us have been influenced by the look of analog film for decades - for me it was Kodak Ektar for a long time. Many positive memories were associated with it, which may also be a reason why, despite today's sensors being much more perfect, people would like to bring back this less perfect look and the associations. That is one of the reasons that brought me back to the M9, which is simply closer to that look shaped by the past. I shot film exclusively with Kodak Ektar 100…! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
costa43 Posted December 30, 2024 Share #43 Posted December 30, 2024 Besides the output, I think film’s biggest strength is also its most talked about weakness. Time. It is the slower, more considered approach that I find enjoyable. The anticipation of the result. The journey basically, yet for opposite reasons I also enjoy digital. There is a place for both in my world, I just really enjoy photography. I’d shoot with a turnip if it could be adapted🤣 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherproof Posted December 30, 2024 Share #44 Posted December 30, 2024 The same reason why many people prefer movies at 24 fps vs 30 fps. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted December 30, 2024 Share #45 Posted December 30, 2024 7 hours ago, hansvons said: Intriguing. Care to share an example, Adan? Sure - but give me a couple of days. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted December 31, 2024 Share #46 Posted December 31, 2024 (edited) 13 hours ago, adan said: I suppose someone really has to first ask "What does film look like - and which film - and in which format?"... ^ This ^ In terms of finished-output there is an astronomical gulf (well; not quite) between shooting Panatomic-X, Tri-X, Technical-Pan, High-Speed Infrared, Kodalith...etc...etc.... Personally I've never been greatly interested in achieving golf-ball sized grain from shooting with high-speed film which has been push-processed using high-acutance / high-contrast developers. Sometimes it is, absolutely, the correct technique for the job-at-hand and often there was no choice in the matter but to use that approach, by choice, day-in-day-out regardless of the subject-matter involved is - for me - tiresome in the extreme. Probably not a terribly popular stance but, well, there it is. Philip. Edited December 31, 2024 by pippy 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted December 31, 2024 Share #47 Posted December 31, 2024 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 10 hours ago, pippy said: Personally I've never been greatly interested in achieving golf-ball sized grain from shooting with high-speed film which has been push-processed using high-acutance / high-contrast developers. Can’t agree more. Back in the days when most of what I did was shot on film, I was craving for those lush colours (still do!), the cool look (zeitgeisting the lighting and colour grading), and equally importantly for sharp, fine-grained images. I also shot a few music videos on Double-X 5222, which wanted tons of light (preferably from the back) to shine in its full, silvery glory. And I never felt the urge to push it for nitty gritty imagery. The same applies today. I shoot 90% of what matters to me on film, 60% of it on Tri-X because of speed and skin tones, and develop the film as fine-grained as possible (Xtol). I still use Double-X (mostly people, nothing can beat it here) and love Delta 100 for its resolution and sharpness. All of that is very different from what digital has to offer. But I do get that many prefer digital over film and are happy with their colour and monochrome sensors. That said, the beauty of this discourse is that it’s triggered by Leica‘s unique approach to support film until today, acknowledging its importance to some of their customers (and they make money off it!). Edited December 31, 2024 by hansvons 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 31, 2024 Share #48 Posted December 31, 2024 I have no idea which photographers want their digital images to look like film, but i wanted my slides to look like digital when digital didn't yet exist. My dream has always been K25 with 1000 asa, fine grain and fast processing without juggling chemistry. 5 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
setuporg Posted January 4 Share #49 Posted January 4 Most of the time film looks duller, lower contrast and resolution, than digital. The only great film look better than digital I've made are the Xpan panoramas with Ektachrome, scanned to 168 MB TIFFs. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RQ44 Posted January 4 Share #50 Posted January 4 (edited) Is it really the film look they are after? I also am curious. The only thing I noticed is that when instagram started to release the color filters " instagram look ' . People started to be more interested in more rustic, off color look and feel of an image. Perhaps society is just not colorful anymore from an architectural, design view point. I recently had some friends return from a trip to Japan and Korea. They made one odd comment. Japan looked boring, the colors were so drab and muted in comparison to Korea. Just a thought. Edited January 4 by RQ44 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 5 Author Share #51 Posted January 5 On 12/30/2024 at 7:34 AM, Smudgerer said: 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. The Nikon F2 was my only camera until the Leica MD 262. It’s amazing I shoot both cameras with the same technique. The MD 262 is always shot in manual mode to mimic the shooting experience of the F2…! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo Faber Posted January 5 Share #52 Posted January 5 Am 30.12.2024 um 10:35 schrieb hansvons: 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 agree with everything but one: Zitat But one thing can't be done: digital will never look like film This is maybe true today, but probably won't be tomorrow . Or the day after tomorrow. Digital simulations are constantly evolving and I am sure that one day in the not too distant future they will deliver results whose differences to real film will be so small that they will exceed the limits of our perception. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 5 Author Share #53 Posted January 5 23 minutes ago, Homo Faber said: I agree with everything but one: This is maybe true today, but probably won't be tomorrow . Or the day after tomorrow. Digital simulations are constantly evolving and I am sure that one day in the not too distant future they will deliver results whose differences to real film will be so small that they will exceed the limits of our perception. Why would someone want digital to look like film? That’s what film is for…📷 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo Faber Posted January 5 Share #54 Posted January 5 vor 3 Minuten schrieb Anthony MD: Why would someone want digital to look like film? That’s what film is for…📷 Simple: To combine the convenience of shooting digital and still getting the look of analog film. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 5 Author Share #55 Posted January 5 26 minutes ago, Homo Faber said: I agree with everything but one: This is maybe true today, but probably won't be tomorrow . Or the day after tomorrow. Digital simulations are constantly evolving and I am sure that one day in the not too distant future they will deliver results whose differences to real film will be so small that they will exceed the limits of our perception. I’ve compared images from my F2 and MD 262. The word “inferior” represents realness as opposed to nostalgia. Landscape imagery from the MD 262 just look more real than film to me…! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 5 Share #56 Posted January 5 3 minutes ago, Anthony MD said: Why would someone want digital to look like film? That’s what film is for…📷 For someone who REALLY wants digital to look like film (i.e. scattered grain and preferably lots of it) there are many reasons. Cost, of course, is a BIG one. Practicality is another. Work-flow a third. In my 'Film' days my preference was for as slow a film as I could find(*) processed in fine grain developer - hence my current prediliction for Digi over Film... Philip. * 32ASA / 50ASA / regular emulsions and, my #1 favourite, Kodak's Technical Pan which I rated at 12ASA. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 5 Author Share #57 Posted January 5 20 minutes ago, Homo Faber said: Simple: To combine the convenience of shooting digital and still getting the look of analog film. Doubt if digital would ever look like film, they’re two different mediums. The same with audio, at home most of my listening is with tubed equipment and a turntable playing audiophile LP’s from the Golden Era. I have the CD’s by RCA of the same recordings that are on vinyl. The CD sounds flat, dry and harsh compared to vinyl…🎙️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreiPunkte Posted January 5 Share #58 Posted January 5 Because they can !!!! I think the main reason is motives on digital where shot and later on the Monitor "reshooted", to become a picture. In this workflow it is easier to handle the shot in BW than to have the hole hussel with colorbalancing and prooving. When shooting on film most decisions have to be made before the trigger ist pressed. When grain or no grain you have to plan it and it is set. In my eyes digital and analog photografy takes the same amount of work and knollege to achieve a prime picture but in digital easy to forgive failors because you a go back key in your workflow. For me I find out that analog photografie is the cheaper way to get my pictures. The tools last and last and last once bought and maintanced well, I love my M, my LF, my enlarger .... Digital stuff have compared a short lifetime until the are spent and it is expensive! Printing costs are the same when you compare the same quallity. The most important aspect is to see a well done picture and don't think about how it was taken. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanillasludge Posted January 6 Share #59 Posted January 6 That film tonal range, particularly in the toe and shoulder of the response curve, are hard to beat. In terms of adjusting my digital images to look “like film” I admit that I work the response curve to mimic films rolloff. As to adding grain, fake halation etc, I abstain. Couldn’t we ask a similar question: “Why do photographers want to use old inferior lenses when new ones are so much better?” 😎 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelG Posted January 6 Share #60 Posted January 6 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Vanillasludge said: Couldn’t we ask a similar question: “Why do photographers want to use old inferior lenses when new ones are so much better?” 😎 This +1 Discussions re using old lenses on digital Ms often boils down to using them as a way of taming the “digitalness” of the image into something “less” and then that is then always inevitably called “filmic” 🫣 Edited January 6 by NigelG 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now