Anthony MD Posted January 21 Author Share #301 Posted January 21 Advertisement (gone after registration) The only gift I have is the MD 262 gifted by my wife who loves red…💋 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! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/418225-why-do-photographers-want-to-make-their-digital-images-look-like-film-anyway%E2%80%A6/?do=findComment&comment=5744205'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 21 Posted January 21 Hi Anthony MD, 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!
pippy Posted January 21 Share #302 Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Anthony MD said: No one is stopping you or criticizing your opinion…! I never thought that anyone might have been! 🙂 Philip. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 21 Author Share #303 Posted January 21 1 minute ago, pippy said: I never thought that anyone might have been! 🙂 Philip. Correct…🤓 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 21 Share #304 Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Anthony MD said: Poor Yehudi, nobody appreciates him…😥 I'm sure a great number of music-lovers appreciate his works very much and he was greatly liked by the public. Philip. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 21 Share #305 Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Anthony MD said: This is the first time I’ve heard anything negative about Yehundi…🤨 Has anyone written anything negative about him? Philip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 21 Author Share #306 Posted January 21 16 minutes ago, pippy said: Has anyone written anything negative about him? Philip. Not that I’m aware of…🥸 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dstierer Posted January 23 Share #307 Posted January 23 Advertisement (gone after registration) On 1/12/2025 at 5:58 AM, david strachan said: 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? .. This is so true. Why do we care whether it is film or digital anyway. Just make images. If I hung two prints up and one was digital and one was from film and printed by Epson 900, I bet no one could tell the difference. If you want to test me, just come to my house. I also make silver gelatin prints from my digital files on real photo silver fiber paper and they look amazing. It's the final print we care about. Get over this film versus digital BS and just make images and final prints. If you don't make final prints, you're like a painter, who buys paint, paper, canvas and just looks at it, but does not paint. Just my half-cent worth. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bchalifour Posted January 23 Share #308 Posted January 23 On 12/30/2024 at 4:35 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)." Please do not patronise your audience. If anyone mentioned "inferior" comparing film to digital it is related I think (as I read it) to pure objective and scientific facts: today's control of color and exposure is far better with digital than film. Dynamic range is superior, ISO range is superior. It is that simple. There are more possibilities and accuracy with digital than film, it is just a fact. {plus no issue with X-rays, bad conservation by retailer, bad processing by lab... shall I go on?] "Digital will never look like film." That is very presumptuous of you (or to use your tone "very arrogant"). It is in fact far easier to make digital look like film and far harder to make film look like digital. So again, more flexibility and versatility, more opportunities with digital. "It will hardly exude that timelessness." This is amusing why not go to daguerreotypes or collodion while you are at it or in fact to lithographs or simply hand-drawings far more timeless don't you think? The timelessness of film, I am of the opposite opinion, film and the cast that time and pollution will inevitably add to the images (not mentioning discolouration, loss of some pigments depending on the type of film) shows its time. Conservation is a big problem for color film and it is a well-known fact. "And even if you invest a fortune in presets, there will only be an approximation." 1- who says you have to invest a fortune when you can create them, 2- to be proven, 3- who needs to imitate film and its limitations, for what purpose? Nostalgia, pretending to be something it is not and should not want to be ;o) "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." This has nothing to do with "inferior" or "superior": it is where you are very mistaken. It has to do with habit and look. These are tools they worked with when they started, they are happy with the results and they keep on doing it regardless of costs (film as a starter). It gets sometimes a little ridiculous when the end result for many is digital (because it is more convenient, faster, and it is today's ost used of distribution. Let us remain realistic here. Now there is quite an even longer list of famous artists that use digital over film; it is getting longer by the day whereas is other one slowly shrinking. That is also a fact. Of the two lists which one do you think is the longest today? Tomorrow? And tomorrow, and tomorrow? ;o) The fact that you think having failed and missed le je ne sais quoi you were looking for may have to do with a few things: un à priori vis à vis du film, not having tried hard enough or maybe not with the right tools and/or competence (do you print your own large format prints? Do you scan your negatives (or have them scanned) to print them digitally (which may definitely not be improve the results), or simply the fact that you have enjoyed working with film and do not see the point in investing time and finances in digital, and these are fair arguments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bchalifour Posted January 23 Share #309 Posted January 23 On 12/30/2024 at 4:44 AM, evikne said: 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. Hmmm, the other BIG difference is who the author is, don't you think? The technical aspect is just a matter of craft (probably easier and faster to solve). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bchalifour Posted January 23 Share #310 Posted January 23 On 12/30/2024 at 5:22 AM, 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! Art is probably more a matter of authorship than tools. I may try the same kind of quills as Shakespeare used I do not think I would come even close to him! ;o) As for "bourgeois concept" what is it? That the concept/attitude comes from people living in towns? ["bourgs" in French] That we are forgetting that most artists came from middle-class families if not for a lot from upper middle-class ones, in other words bourgeois if not haut-bourgeois backgrounds (as a lot of the pointillistes and impressionnistes)? ;o) Could you be more precise and explain ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bchalifour Posted January 23 Share #311 Posted January 23 On 12/30/2024 at 5:38 AM, hansvons said: 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. Well good news: it is possible. But just like with any craft with the right knowledge and tools... and the hours of practice. ;o)_ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bchalifour Posted January 23 Share #312 Posted January 23 On 12/30/2024 at 6:11 AM, 250swb said: 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. Well being a total photography noob may also consist in forgetting that before film there were daguerreotypes and salt-paper negatives... I do not quite get where the "nihilistic" reference comes from here. Can you explain more clearly? I must have missed something and I would like to follow your reasoning more closely. Tools and creativity may be sometimes related but they still remain two distinctly separate things. Creativity remaining something that should show regardless of the tools. In the same way grain or optical flaws have little to do with creativity, just looks (form and not so much content). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bchalifour Posted January 23 Share #313 Posted January 23 On 12/30/2024 at 8:16 AM, Anthony MD said: As an artist my making digital images that look like paintings makes it much easier…🖌️ ??? What makes you an artist? [seriously, I am always interested in the definition people have of the term and how it applies to them] 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 23 Share #314 Posted January 23 35 minutes ago, bchalifour said: Tools and creativity may be sometimes related but they still remain two distinctly separate things. Creativity remaining something that should show regardless of the tools. In the same way grain or optical flaws have little to do with creativity, just looks (form and not so much content). So you are saying Goya would have been equally expressive using a tiny water colour paintbrush instead of a thick wide impasto in paintings like 'Saturn Devouring His Son'? There is the old saying relating to the general media from Marshall McLuhan that 'the medium is the message', so how something is interpreted is a vital function of how it is read. Tools and creativity are never 'sometimes related', they are always related. It is true that a good photographer using a Holga will often make a 'better' photograph than a rank amateur with the latest SL3-S, but it doesn't remove the viewer from being visually educated in art, using the medium of photography, and culture in general for it to be appreciated. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 23 Share #315 Posted January 23 53 minutes ago, bchalifour said: ??? What makes you an artist? [seriously, I am always interested in the definition people have of the term and how it applies to them] And given you are intent on dragging up long dead posts to make an argumentative point I would say the only person that can call themselves an artist is somebody who delivers the results for peers to judge, or who have been accredited with an educational achievement, or make their money with 'artistic' work. So somebody simply saying they are an artist may be in response to the mother-in-law telling them they make very nice photographs, and it doesn't make them an artist. But somebody who posts on the LUF photo forums (or a wider sphere) and gains a reputation for great work even though they may be an accountant in real life may well be considered artistic if the photographs are loved by other photographers. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 23 Author Share #316 Posted January 23 1 hour ago, bchalifour said: ??? What makes you an artist? [seriously, I am always interested in the definition people have of the term and how it applies to them] When others insist my images resemble paintings. I painted oil landscapes and Chinese pine soot ink landscapes before, maybe I incorporated that into the digital photography…🖼️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 24 Share #317 Posted January 24 9 hours ago, Anthony MD said: When others insist my images resemble paintings. I painted oil landscapes and Chinese pine soot ink landscapes before, maybe I incorporated that into the digital photography…🖼️ Sounds nice - can you post a link to some? Images or paintings? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 24 Share #318 Posted January 24 12 hours ago, 250swb said: Tools and creativity are never 'sometimes related', they are always related. This statement should be made a 'sticky' because it is all too accurate. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 24 Share #319 Posted January 24 On 1/21/2025 at 6:13 PM, lct said: Too bad i wanted to discuss the effect of carbon fiber brush on analog recordings 😄 Doesn't this depend on how hard you press down while the record is playing? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 24 Author Share #320 Posted January 24 4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said: Sounds nice - can you post a link to some? Images or paintings? These were painted in the 80’s at college. The first Chinese painting represents the Flat Irons in Boulder Colorado. The best ones were given away…🖼️ 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! 3 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/418225-why-do-photographers-want-to-make-their-digital-images-look-like-film-anyway%E2%80%A6/?do=findComment&comment=5745733'>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