Digital like analog

[SomewhereLost]

Hello. Long time digital shooter, dipping their toe back into analog. I was just a child when analog started fading away and don't have much experience in the medium. I'm curious about something from people with more experience in both worlds. In your opinion, what digital camera produces an image that reminds you most of an analog image and why?

 

[George Mann]

There are no digital cameras that can convince me that I am looking at an image shot on film.

 

[MattKing]

Moved to the Digital Cameras sub-forum.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

From what I've heard/seen online, Fuji digital cameras have built-in profiles to pull this fakery off: https://havecamerawilltravel.com/fujifilm-film-emulation/

One can disregard this (built-in or not) and do whatever they wish in post, making this a strange feature to have in a digital camera. It's like if your Tesla came with various gasoline/oil aroma packs embedded in the car to fake internal combustion engine.
It's like a noise being fed to the car speakers to fake bigger engine - something being done today by car manufacturers!

Fake this, fake that - to what end?

 

[foveon_m]

Merrills

 

[shuddered]

its the lens not the camera. if you photograph an overcast scene with each you won't be able to tell them apart after they are printed. the lenses have to be the same quality, you can'tdothis with a modern camera and lens and a argusFA from 1934

 

[wiltw]

Some cameras or some postprocessing programs have combinations of parameters said to mimic certain kinds of film emulsions. There might also be combinations of parameters said to makeRAW conversion programs mimic certain film emulsions.

As a film company and a digital camera company, Fuji has become somewhat known for its own 'film emulation'.
They simulate the look of classic color and black-and-white films Fuji's Film Simulations involve far more, and use a lot of color science to achieve their effects. Yet, if you want to mimc a different emulsion, if you shoot RAW files you can change your mind about what Film Simulation you want to use after the fact.
But Fuji's efforts (unless I am unaware of what they have done in recent years) do not include emulation of other manufacturer emulsions.

 

[radiant]

its the lens not the camera. if you photograph an overcast scene with each you won't be able to tell them apart after they are printed. the lenses have to be the same quality, you can'tdothis with a modern camera and lens and a argusFA from 1934

Partly. I've used FD lens that has heavy fungus on my Fujifilm XT3 and it gives more analog vibes, but it is still very digital.

I shoot all my photos with the film emulation on XT3, be it color or B&W because I just don't like the look of "native" digital and I don't want to color grade photos in post. I've found pretty nice settings that produce nice look straight out of the camera.

I think essential part which is the anti-haliation effect is missing. Of course a simulated grain too. It is not just digital noise.

There is a plugin called Dehancer which does both, I think pretty well:

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Vv7lB7n1Fak
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=eLJODjlG5dA

 

[Paul Howell]

Sigma, SD 9 or 10, the 3 layer Favon sensor is very film like, one of the reason I hang on my 9 and 10. The 10 has the same sensor as the 9 but uses 4 AA lithium batteries as opposed the the 4 AA and 2 123CV batteries. I also have a SD 15, the 9 and 10 seem to me to be closer to film. The newer mirrorless models still use a Favon sensor but not all Pixles have 3 layers. Downside, really poor low light, need to shoot the SD 9 or 10 at 100.

 

[radiant]

Sigma, SD 9 or 10, the 3 layer Favon sensor is very film like, one of the reason I hang on my 9 and 10. The 10 has the same sensor as the 9 but uses 4 AA lithium batteries as opposed the the 4 AA and 2 123CV batteries. I also have a SD 15, the 9 and 10 seem to me to be closer to film. The newer mirrorless models still use a Favon sensor but not all Pixles have 3 layers. Downside, really poor low light, need to shoot the SD 9 or 10 at 100.

I think this doesn't look film at all. It looks like very processed mobile phone picture with plenty of strange digital artifacts. And the "HDR" factor is very high which is also unrealistic for film.

 

[Paul Howell]

To me it looks a lot like well exposed Kodachrome, I don't shoot with a cell phone, so cannot really comment other than most cell phones have or had CCD sensors which in general have pretty good color. This is right out of the camera, only change was to it save as a JPEG file. I have Sony and Pentax digital SLRs, a Nikon and Fuji film point and shoots, of all the Sigma is closer to film. Maybe a early Nikon with CCD sensor, or the early Fuji S2 or later model with the hexagon sensors come pretty close to film as does the Kodak DSLRS.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Sorry, but that's overprocessed and quite glaring, nothing like film.

Is the source a soft image that's over sharpened with (perhaps) too much radius applied? Because that'll do this to an image.

 

[radiant]

There is some really sketchy processing going on:

The artefacts on the hay (?) in front looks like it has some really heavy JPG compression going on. Maybe the rest could be also explained with low quality JPEG compression?

I don't know how old the camera is but I would either guess the settings cause this or it is really old digital camera?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

IMO digital is digital and film is film. They are different. It is better to regard them as such and use them to their strengths rather than trying to get one to look like the other.

 

[faberryman]

There is some really sketchy processing going on...

For starters, this is a scan, so it is digital. If you want your images to look like film, shoot film, and then make chromogenic prints. Scanned film and inkjet prints are fake film. Some people like the look of fake film. I like some fake film images, especially when they don't try to look too much like film. Take advantage of the special properties of fake film. I like this image for its graphic qualities. I like that the tall grass is super sharp. No one is going to confuse this image with film.

 

[Algo después]

It is very difficult to objectively answer this question. Some prefer the suggested filmic emulation that your camera offers you, sometimes better achieved, other times not so much. Others prefer to use VSCO-type filters. On the other hand, when scanning a real film, the file no longer belongs to the analog realm, being prone to undergoing the classic post-production touch-ups. However, I would like to add a comment about the uniqueness of SIGMA's FOVEON sensors and how they look in contrast to other cameras. Although they have many limitations to the point that you can hate them, I must admit that the aesthetics of their images can make you doubt if it´s digital, I clarify again, it is a personal opinion.

I attached an example that I did this weekend with a DP QUATTRO 2 (a camera released around 2014), while testing the Brenizer method with some JPGS files. It is a screenshot because the example with the highest compression that I could do for web format did not allow me to upload it. I must add that this photo does not have any previous processing

 

[George Mann]

For starters, this is a scan, so it is digital. If you want your images to look like film, shoot film, and then make chromogenic prints. Scanned film and inkjet prints are fake film. Some people like the look of fake film. I like some fake film images, especially when they don't try to look too much like film. Take advantage of the special properties of fake film. I like this image for its graphic qualities. No one is going to confuse it with film.

Shooting slide film, and viewing it directly with a high quality loupe will dispell all of this digital is better/can look like film garbage!

 

[faberryman]

Shooting slide film, and viewing it directly with a high quality loupe will dispell all of this digital is better/can look like film garbage!

Oh boy, here we go again…

 

[gone]

After writing a long paragraph, I decided to get to the heart of it....I prefer the look of B&W film images, to me they're "better" than digital, and none of the digital cameras are capable of making the sort of images you can get w/ B&W film. This I know from experience, it's not a stance or a belief, it is what it is.

I mean, why else would we go through all the expense and work to make film images? This sort of decision ain't rocket science

 

[wiltw]

1. The 'film look' is a rather oversimplified concept, that ignores the fact that color neg could be printed on the manufacturer's color paper or a competitor's color paper, totalling changing 'the look' of the final print!
2. It also ignores the fact that B&W negs could be printed on any of dozens of papers, and the papers themselves might also be toned, again totally changing 'the look' of the original negative.
3. The only film which could have a set 'look' are color transparencies, since there generally was not a second process -- unless the photographer chose to have a print of the transparency...and then you get back to how the paper itself was designed to behave!

Yes, indeed, a digital B&W is not at all like a film neg printed on light sensitive paper.

 

[Cholentpot]

After writing a long paragraph, I decided to get to the heart of it....I prefer the look of B&W film images, to me they're "better" than digital, and none of the digital cameras are capable of making the sort of images you can get w/ B&W film. This I know from experience, it's not a stance or a belief, it is what it is.

I mean, why else would we go through all the expense and work to make film images? This sort of decision ain't rocket science

I'm going to agree.

B&W digital looks nothing like B&W film. Color can more or less be replicated to my eyes but not b&w.

 

[radiant]

I believe none of digital cameras will reproduce halation - it is really important part of film "look". Of course it depends on light conditions but I think it should be emulated too. Example:

Or that the grain cannot be just digital noise:

 

[faberryman]

After writing a long paragraph, I decided to get to the heart of it....I prefer the look of B&W film images, to me they're "better" than digital, and none of the digital cameras are capable of making the sort of images you can get w/ B&W film. This I know from experience, it's not a stance or a belief, it is what it is.

So you "prefer" film and think it is "better" than digital. Isn't that like saying that blue is better than red or that vanilla is better than chocolate? Aren't they all just preferences? I like film. I like digital. They both have their pluses and minuses. Why do you think there is a need for ranking them, with one being better than another?

 

[wiltw]

Shooting slide film, and viewing it directly with a high quality loupe will dispell all of this digital is better/can look like film garbage!

...and shooting Medium Format color slide and projecting as a 6' image on a screen is so very much more impressive than looking at even a digital image with 4k digital projector...the affordable digital projector cannot even recreate what the digital camera captured with its sensor!!!
(You have to spend tens of thousands to get 8k projection...the cheapest Panasonic or JVC 8k is $11k)

 

[Helge]

Shooting slide film, and viewing it directly with a high quality loupe will dispell all of this digital is better/can look like film garbage!

Even half frame slide on a little Patterson slide viewer, upgraded (in luminosity) with a LED bulb is far superior to how photos look on an iPhone screen.

People, including many here, don’t realize how much scanning, including good DSLR scanning, misrepresents film photos.