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

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 9 Stunden schrieb pippy:

I am getting the impression that you are a "Glass Half-Empty" chap?

Such a loss.

Philip.

Whatever gave you that impression? Which loss? 
 

Maybe I did not express myself in the right way, but I’m really glad this discussion still can exist and that a digital and an analog way of photography still exists. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Paulus]

Am 30.12.2024 um 12:48 schrieb 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.

Ansel Adams is imho stil the best in that way! 

[Paulus]

Am 5.1.2025 um 14:40 schrieb Homo Faber:

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.

Maybe a great deal of the “ digital look” is also in its converters. The way Adobe Lightroom is changing and making “ digital” look more digital looking? When I click on “ automatic “ in develloping, the picture doesn’t always looks so realistic in comparrison with 10 years ago in lightroom. Looks are changing there also. Not always for the worse. 

[david strachan]

I'm just not understanding "more digital looking"...

Transmissive light on a screen is sooooo very different to a print.

 

So why are we still doing this endless circuitous discussion?

..

 

[Paulus]

Am 6.1.2025 um 22:20 schrieb Dazzajl:

Terms like inferior and better are completely vague and wooly in this context aren't they? We're talking about realising a personal vision and expression, the 'best' lens is the one that gets you closest to where you're going. That is not always the lens that performs best in bench tests.

The other point that doesn't seem to have come up yet in this discussion is that if you're not wet printing from negatives, it's still a digital image. If you scan negs then it's no longer a question or film or digital but at what point in the process you become 1's and 0's. I'm not convinced that actually makes the difference that many like to believe it is??

If the negative is made in an analoge way, I believe there is a difference: the lens is not corrected in the camera, and will not be corrected by scanning the negative. I thing that there is a difference in analoge and digital in this way. The rest of the “ enlarger “ chain can be digital , but the analogue footprint will be seen. 
 

I shot this series beginning with analogue and later went to digital. Can you with certainty see which are the analogue ones? :
 

https://pauljoostenfotograaf.smugmug.com/Portfolio/Ik-ben-al-groot-mooiste

 

 

Edited January 12 by Paulus

[DreiPunkte]

On 12/30/2024 at 12:48 PM, jgeenen said:

.... 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.

Digitally editing images reminds me more and more of painting with numbers, which can also be a satisfying and relaxing activity.
It often feels a bit like playing it safe when taking photos, and it feels nice too.

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, DreiPunkte said:

Digitally editing images reminds me more and more of painting with numbers, which can also be a satisfying and relaxing activity.
It often feels a bit like playing it safe when taking photos, and it feels nice too.

Interesting admission : "Painting With Numbers".

So can we conclude that you have tried digital Post-Prod but were disappointed to discover that you are simply incompetent with processing-out Digital Files?

If so then 'Chapeau!' (in one respect) and I admire your honesty.

Philip.

 

Edited January 12 by pippy

[DreiPunkte]

6 hours ago, pippy said:

Interesting admission : "Painting With Numbers".

So can we conclude that you have tried digital Post-Prod but were disappointed to discover that you are simply incompetent with processing-out Digital Files?

If so then 'Chapeau!' (in one respect) and I admire your honesty.

Philip.

 

Thanks for the flowers.

I use the phrase 'Painting by numbers' for the 'Art of using presets'.
By the way, painting by numbers is said to have therapeutic benefits that help people reduce stress and improve their mental health.

'....simply incompetent...'
Yes, you have me,
I try to take pictures that do not need cropping, perspective correction, reexposure, HDRI........
That is what I learned before Photoshop was gifted with layers and sharpening was done on the LAB chanel.
It's the same as in using film but while shooting film you don't have that little help from your friends.

 Take it easy, it's only photography and we like it.
Also sorry if you feel addressed.

[pippy]

6 hours ago, DreiPunkte said:

...I use the phrase 'Painting by numbers' for the 'Art of using presets'.
By the way, painting by numbers is said to have therapeutic benefits that help people reduce stress and improve their mental health.

'....simply incompetent...'
Yes, you have me,
I try to take pictures that do not need cropping, perspective correction, reexposure, HDRI........
That is what I learned before Photoshop was gifted with layers and sharpening was done on the LAB chanel.
It's the same as in using film but while shooting film you don't have that little help from your friends.

Our approaches to taking snaps are hardly different from one another and no; I didn't feel you were addressing me. Nothing personal.

I don't have presets, have never used HDRI, don't know what "reexposure" is and cropping is only used to reframe an image once any sloping horizons (or whatever) have been corrected. I HATE sloping horizons. If perspective correction will be beneficial then I might tweak an image otherwise all will be left alone. That is what I learned from my tutors back in 1977/'78 and it has worked well for me ever since.

The techniques I use Photoshop perform exactly the same functions as I learned to use when shooting film and printing in the darkroom - and that includes tilting the basebord  to allow for perspective correction. I'm very much 'Old School' despite my using modern kit.

Having said all that, however, I would never deride a photographer who chooses to use any and all tools which they might feel will improve an image. There is nothing 'Superior' about not cropping and using such techniques as might be deemed beneficial.

There is one forumite here who frequently has photographs shown in the 'Favourite Images' section and this member will often have created their final picture from an assemblage of perhaps half-a-dozen different files. It's not an approach which I will ever adopt for my own stuff but if the final result is popular enough with the viewers here does it matter how the result was obtained?

Not to me.

Philip.

Edited January 13 by pippy

[Paulus]

Am 12.1.2025 um 03:02 schrieb adan:

He never said specifically, that I know of.

But he was always a purist regarding optical design, and no doubt was disturbed by Leica's creeping adoption of built-in, non-optional in-camera/non-optical/computational corrections of lens distortion and similar, in the Q and SL (and maybe CL) lines. He probably thought that was "cheating."

The 28mm f/1.7 Summilux-Q intentionally has significant native fish-eye distortion, thus can only be used on a Q camera, which corrects it electronically and automatically. (Not sure about the new 43mm Q lens.)

As compared to the M lenses - which have to be fully corrected optically, since they have to be useable on completely non-digital, non-computational, film MPs. M-As, and the "new M6" revival.

Yes, something like that :

 

Erwin Puts:” 

 

I also found out after long years of analysis and comparison that the classic 35mm lenses don't show their best sides when used in the digital workflow: the improvement of sharpness lies in the programs and not in the sensor. The current super voluminous lenses are indeed tuned to the digital process, but the real cost is not so much money as inconvenience.  “
 

https://photo.imx.nl/blog/

 

 

Edited January 13 by Paulus

[adan]

On 12/30/2024 at 4:34 AM, hansvons said:

Intriguing. Care to share an example, Adan?

Finally go around to this. The attached images are from my book project Colorado Transect. Most of the book was shot on 6x6 film (Mamiya 6 and Hassy SWC).

But in a few cases I found something nice for the project, but only had my M10 with me.

In the 4 examples below, at least one picture was made digitally with the M10, and at least one was made on 120 film.

My technique for film was - medium-format B&W negatives 54 x54 mm; modern-ish high-contrast lenses - generally stopped down for max. DoF; finest-grain films available for their speed (TMax 100/400); development for finest grain (HC-100 1:31); scanned** with "soft-light" illumination - not point-source LEDs.

** naturally, scanning and posting as jpegs means even the film images shown here are digital.

Here goes - which one(s)s are digital, and which one(s) are film? Click for larger versions.

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 January 14 by adan

[adan]

And the other two:

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!

[BradS]

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

 

I don't know. Why do people do any editing of their digital files at all? Why doesn't everybody just accept the JPEGs straight out of camera? And what's with all this artsy-fartsy use of color and composition and stuff like this? Moody lighting.... and what about that intentional camera motion....and monochrome conversions, What's with all this stuff?

Why don't people accept the soul-less plasticy perfection that the little computer behind the lens gives them and be happy? I mean, isn't that what ya paid yer money for?

</sarcasm>

Straight answer, they do it because they want to. It is a perfectly valid and complete answer. It's called artistic expression. Live with it.

Edited January 14 by BradS

[david strachan]

15 minutes ago, adan said:

Finally go around to this. The attached images are from my book project Colorado Transect. Most of the book was shot on 6x6 film (Mamiya 6 and Hassy SWC).

But in a few cases I found something nice for the project, but only had my M10 with me.

In the 4 examples below, at least one picture was made digitally with the M10, and at least one was made on 120 film.

My technique for film was - medium-format B&W negatives 54 x54 mm; modern-ish high-contrast lenses - generally stopped down for max. DoF; finest-grain films available for their speed (TMax 100/400); development for finest grain (HC-100 1:31); scanned** with "soft-light" illumination - not point-source LEDs.

** naturally, scanning and posting as jpegs means even the film images shown here are digital.

Here goes - which one(s)s are digital, and which one(s) are film? Click for larger versions.

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!

 

14 minutes ago, adan said:

And the other two:

Cannot tell.  All produce well as monochrome on LF.

Surely it's just guessing, to make a definite choice.

All best...

[david strachan]

It'll be another year or so when this argument will be rested...then it'll come up again, and again. And again.

Don't know why we can't just accept...different media. Accept both without some prejudice.

...

[adan]

5 minutes ago, david strachan said:

Don't know why we can't just accept...different media.

Trolls, click-baiters and attention-seekers, probably.

[hansvons]

12 hours ago, adan said:

Here goes - which one(s)s are digital, and which one(s) are film? Click for larger versions.

Can't say. And it doesn't matter because in your pictures it’s more about complex greyscale sequencing (and the subject, of course!), than what I would typically look for in 35mm film B&W photography. Nice!

[hansvons]

12 hours ago, adan said:

But in a few cases I found something nice for the project, but only had my M10 with me. 

I don’t own a digital M and likely never will. When on the move, I always take at least one camera with me, mostly loaded with B&W. One thread I follow is water. Below is a picture that was shot in France last spring with my M6 and 35mm Summicron on Kentmere 400 and pushed by a stop. I printed it in 60x80 cm.

As you can see, my approach can't possibly more different from yours. Cheers!

 

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!

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Erato]

Drum scanning is the culmination of film photography, offering unparalleled resolution, detail, sharpness, dynamic range, and color reproduction. It is the final scanning method required, as no other technology can match its capabilities.

In essence, images scanned using a CCD (typically a flatbed scanner) or sofeware simulation will never attain the same level of quality.

Rangefinder cameras are selected for their compactness compared to larger formats such as 120/6x7/6x9/4x5 or even 8x10. This is not due to chemical reactions, but rather their superior performance.

I have selected a few Leica digital camera because it provides an optimal combination of alternatives between a PMT and film camera.

I rarely modify the results generated by a Leica camera, as I acknowledge that even professional services from NORITSU KOKI or Kodak Eastman are inferior to drum scanning, as well as Hasselblad Flextight X5.

However, Leica cameras are highly effective in the contemporary era. If I desire a CCD scanner result, I utilize my M4 or Barnack Camera.

[jjroroek]

On 12/30/2024 at 10:35 AM, 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. 

it is not a question of better or worse but rather which medium best suits the expected result.
 for example, painting was long intended as a true-to-life representation of reality.
 Photography has taken over that role but that does not mean that there was and is no future for painting. 
it is the same with the different types of photography. the sharpness and detail of digital photography is 
unparalleled but if you want to make expressionistic images, for example, you are at least dependent on old lenses. 
I myself have the impression that the medium on which the image is ultimately recorded is less important than the optics used.
 film itself has of course also developed drastically in the hundred years that it has existed.

Edited January 15 by jjroroek