Digital like analog

[MattKing]

A much simpler and much more general scanner could consist of a backlight that could be selectively cycled through RGB with spikes according to the RA4 paper characteristic.

Or even simpler, an electronic flash source, plus a removable filter that converts the output to the correct RA4 characteristic, plus two built in software profiles - one for inverted C-41, the other for transparency film.,

 

[Helge]

Or even simpler, an electronic flash source, plus a removable filter that converts the output to the correct RA4 characteristic, plus two built in software profiles - one for inverted C-41, the other for transparency film.,

That would make using a monochrome sensor (with all the advantages of that) much harder.
And I’d think a flash source would actually be more expensive.
You’d still easily be able to punch through Velvia or really dense black and white with a good LED source.

 

[MattKing]

Electronic flash light sources with continuous spectrum matched to photographic film are already manufactured in quantity and put into very inexpensive products - e.g. disposable cameras.
There are lots of quite inexpensive sensors out there with quite high resolution capabilities.
It is the optics and the film handling capacities that are the sticking points.
The monochrome sensor plus three narrow cut filters may very well be better for high throughput and higher cost approaches - again depending on how much needs to be spent on optics and film handling.

 

[Sean]

I think AI will soon be doing this to a level that no one would be able to tell a difference. It will be similar to an AI 'deep fake'. The AI will be trained with millions of film images. It will then 'know' what film looks like. It will be given a digital image then make it look identical to a variety of films. It will not fail like filter effects fail, as editing a digital image is making various adjustments what the AI will do is re-imagine the image as a film shot image and output that. It will not be very fun though!

 

[radiant]

I think AI will soon be doing this to a level that no one would be able to tell a difference. It will be similar to an AI 'deep fake'. The AI will be trained with millions of film images. It will then 'know' what film looks like. It will be given a digital image then make it look identical to a variety of films. It will not fail like filter effects fail, as editing a digital image is making various adjustments what the AI will do is re-imagine the image as a film shot image and output that. It will not be very fun though!

You can already fake film look very well without AI. But yes deep fake film emulation would be really interesting to see!

I've realized that for me film photography is about the whole process, not only the looks. As I try to convince myself and others that only outcome should matter, I still believe the method and process matters sometimes even more.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I still believe the method and process matters sometimes even more.

And I'll have to agree, it matters. Very much. One is a process I'm looking forwards to, other - the opposite. Although I scan and upload to Flickr, screentime is easily the lesser part of the craft that I'm not looking forward to.

And sometimes I don't even know which comes first. You can reach your destination by car and a bike. But I find the long, hard walk to be the most rewarding.
Artists often quote limitations as a driving force, I'll have to agree with this too. I find no satisfaction in digital workflow, but to somebody else just the opposite will be true and I love this diversity!

 

[Helge]

look

I think AI will soon be doing this to a level that no one would be able to tell a difference. It will be similar to an AI 'deep fake'. The AI will be trained with millions of film images. It will then 'know' what film looks like. It will be given a digital image then make it look identical to a variety of films. It will not fail like filter effects fail, as editing a digital image is making various adjustments what the AI will do is re-imagine the image as a film shot image and output that. It will not be very fun though!

Physical filters would still be making the work of the AI much easier. You can’t fake data.

AI will contribute to film in a more important way: Grain removal. We all love grain as photographers. But interpolation and even artificially raising resolution is hard when grain is involved.

Grain is not really noise in the Shannon - Nyquist sampling sense.
That makes it hard for conventional algorithms to identify and remove/filter out grain, with the aim of raising contrast and interpolating detail.

C-41 film has an insane amount of detail south of MTF 20, north of 100 lppmm, partially masked by grain.
Real resolution, that could come in handy for any number of applications. Unique to film.

CMOS sensors has low contrast in those ranges too, but due to the predictability and lack of a pseudo stochastic physical substrate structure, contrast is easily pulled up (and of course an incredible amount of research has gone into that by now).

Look at some of the sparse sampling ray tracing examples from the last few years to get an idea of the real immediate potential.

Won’t that take out the uniqueness of film? Not at all!
It will only give us more data to work with.

Of course we will need the inexpensive, good scanner alluded to above first, to be able to extract the detail without all the artifacts and plain inability of decades old scanner technology.

 

[Helge]

Electronic flash light sources with continuous spectrum matched to photographic film are already manufactured in quantity and put into very inexpensive products - e.g. disposable cameras.
There are lots of quite inexpensive sensors out there with quite high resolution capabilities.
It is the optics and the film handling capacities that are the sticking points.
The monochrome sensor plus three narrow cut filters may very well be better for high throughput and higher cost approaches - again depending on how much needs to be spent on optics and film handling.

It’s not impossible you are right of course. But a flash tube is rated for a certain number of flashes. On a roll of 36 you be over 200 flashes. It quickly adds up.
Phosphor LEDs just seem a whole lot simpler, even if the flash tube light is brighter (easier to diffuse and “waste”) and cleaner.

 

[Helge]

You can already fake film look very well without AI. But yes deep fake film emulation would be really interesting to see!

I've realized that for me film photography is about the whole process, not only the looks. As I try to convince myself and others that only outcome should matter, I still believe the method and process matters sometimes even more.

As much as I enjoy “the process” (as seems to have become the prevalent moniker for developing and printing, in recent years) the second it didn’t give me a unique, superior product, I’d quit.
In the same way I wouldn’t slave for hours in the kitchen to make a close equivalent of McDonald’s. I’d just go to McDonald’s.

And I don’t think that was at all what Sean alluded to. It was colour correction for C-41 he meant, I’m almost certain.

If you really think you can fake the “film look” it’s probably because of your scanner and your experience with darkroom printing.
It’s quite like saying you can fake a Ferrari by dressing up a Volkswagen in nicely painted plate and play prerecorded engine sound to an external speaker.
Film is completely and fundamentally unique in how it records an image. It cannot be faked.

 

[radiant]

And sometimes I don't even know which comes first. You can reach your destination by car and a bike. But I find the long, hard walk to be the most rewarding.
Artists often quote limitations as a driving force, I'll have to agree with this too. I find no satisfaction in digital workflow, but to somebody else just the opposite will be true and I love this diversity!

I think your car/bike/walking comparison is very very good. Well said.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

...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)

My scans and digital shots look pretty good on a 75" 4K TV. (6'3" image) I don't have a digital projector to compare. But because the projector reflects light off a screen unlike a TV that backlights, a TV seems very eye-popping. More light output and contrast.

 

[Cholentpot]

I think AI will soon be doing this to a level that no one would be able to tell a difference. It will be similar to an AI 'deep fake'. The AI will be trained with millions of film images. It will then 'know' what film looks like. It will be given a digital image then make it look identical to a variety of films. It will not fail like filter effects fail, as editing a digital image is making various adjustments what the AI will do is re-imagine the image as a film shot image and output that. It will not be very fun though!

Have you seen Get Back? That's where we are heading.

 

[radiant]

I've now tested few film emulation softwares and mostly from the grain part.

My conclusion is that grain is just very unpractical to emulate. The reason is that grain is very small, much smaller than the smallest details in your photo. And this means you need to generate many many many times larger digital file to have grain visible. Well, actually the grain clumps to be exact.

But still.. It looks quite digital noise.

This is my best try. There is some grain going on for sure but you can actually see the effect of low resolution here. The original was 800x800 and output was 3200x3200. Why so small original? Because it takes ages to render because the algoritm is trying to emulate grain behavior.

This is a crop just to show you the grain:

Resized from the original because forum file size limitation:

 

[Cholentpot]

I've now tested few film emulation softwares and mostly from the grain part.

My conclusion is that grain is just very unpractical to emulate. The reason is that grain is very small, much smaller than the smallest details in your photo. And this means you need to generate many many many times larger digital file to have grain visible. Well, actually the grain clumps to be exact.

But still.. It looks quite digital noise.

This is my best try. There is some grain going on for sure but you can actually see the effect of low resolution here. The original was 800x800 and output was 3200x3200. Why so small original? Because it takes ages to render because the algoritm is trying to emulate grain behavior.

This is a crop just to show you the grain:

View attachment 299026

Resized from the original because forum file size limitation:

View attachment 299027

Or you can emulate a stock that doesn't have quite so much grain. Which was the goal back in the day, to have a grainless photo...

 

[radiant]

Or you can emulate a stock that doesn't have quite so much grain. Which was the goal back in the day, to have a grainless photo...

Of course. I could also reduce the amount of grain but then it starts to look like a digital photo more and more. Even if the stock doesn't have pronounced grain, the fact is that the photo is still made of grains. More smaller probably but still grains.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

This assumes that analog is superior to digital photography. To me, they're just different. I shoot film because it slows me down and I shoot much more carefully. When I shoot digital, I tend to shoot more knowing I could delete the outtakes. For me, film is delayed gratification in seeing the image. Having rolls of undeveloped film is like a cold beer waiting for me in the fridge. I enjoy the anticipation. With digital, there's no anticipation.

 

[Helge]

This assumes that analog is superior to digital photography. To me, they're just different. I shoot film because it slows me down and I shoot much more carefully. When I shoot digital, I tend to shoot more knowing I could delete the outtakes. For me, film is delayed gratification in seeing the image. Having rolls of undeveloped film is like a cold beer waiting for me in the fridge. I enjoy the anticipation. With digital, there's no anticipation.

Where does it assume that?

 

[Cholentpot]

This assumes that analog is superior to digital photography. To me, they're just different. I shoot film because it slows me down and I shoot much more carefully. When I shoot digital, I tend to shoot more knowing I could delete the outtakes. For me, film is delayed gratification in seeing the image. Having rolls of undeveloped film is like a cold beer waiting for me in the fridge. I enjoy the anticipation. With digital, there's no anticipation.

There's all that and the cameras are more fun to use. I like clickity clackity knoby-twisty things.

And aside from all the back-and-forth. Instead of messing around with filters and AI to get the look it's just easier to shoot film. I also like pretending I'm a mad professor mixing up chemicals in the basement lab. An evil cackle every few rolls is needed.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

There's all that and the cameras are more fun to use. I like clickity clackity knoby-twisty things.

And aside from all the back-and-forth. Instead of messing around with filters and AI to get the look it's just easier to shoot film. I also like pretending I'm a mad professor mixing up chemicals in the basement lab. An evil cackle every few rolls is needed.

I'm a cheap old fart that mixes his own chems. I don't poo poo digital because I studied photography in college back in the 80's when it was all film. When I graduated and became a professional, I got caught in the digital revolution and couldn't find work. I learned about Photoshop and the internet and found a job and had a very good carrier with a university working in digital media. It was adapt or die. I'm retiring this year after working here 24 years and turning 60. I see both sides of photography. I'm glad to see some people are shooting film again. The young kids find it cool. My retired colleague that graduated from Brooks I worked with back in the 80's can't stand shooting film. To each their own.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The scuba show is V600 scanned slides from Ektachrome.
The other slide shows are digital photos originals.
All look pretty good on 75" 4K UHDTV. Of course, you can see it on your computer monitor as well, or cellphone.
Set the resolution and turn sound on.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDzogShfhgCHh2rVvEsFOJQ

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm a cheap old fart that mixes his own chems. I don't poo poo digital because I studied photography in college back in the 80's when it was all film. When I graduated and became a professional, I got caught in the digital revolution and couldn't find work. I learned about Photoshop and the internet and found a job and had a very good carrier with a university working in digital media. It was adapt or die. I'm retiring this year after working here 24 years and turning 60. I see both sides of photography. I'm glad to see some people are shooting film again. The young kids find it cool. My retired colleague that graduated from Brooks I worked with back in the 80's can't stand shooting film. To each their own.

I'm a gigging photographer these days. I always take a film camera on shoots. Clients either love it or can't even. One or two were completely baffled and even almost upset that I'm shooting film.

I've not yet done a gig fully film but I have done stuff on my own time, volunteer or stuff like that on film. I document most of my family's growth and day to day on film. I like being proficient in both camps. Sets me apart from the masses.

 

[jtk]

I'm a gigging photographer these days. I always take a film camera on shoots. Clients either love it or can't even. One or two were completely baffled and even almost upset that I'm shooting film.

I've not yet done a gig fully film but I have done stuff on my own time, volunteer or stuff like that on film. I document most of my family's growth and day to day on film. I like being proficient in both camps. Sets me apart from the masses.

The masses don't even imagine film is relevant. I'm not gigging (never "gigged" when I was paying bills with photography). My clients appreciate and pay for images. I don't demean them as "masses."

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...what digital camera produces an image that reminds you most of an analog image and why?

No rainbow unicorn, sorry. Where are many self-doping who self-illusion what some digital camera has film look. They are just self blinding.

Get into film if you want film look. Keep using digital, if you want more than just a look.

 

[Cholentpot]

The masses don't even imagine film is relevant. I'm not gigging (never "gigged" when I was paying bills with photography). My clients appreciate and pay for images. I don't demean them as "masses."

My clients pay for my time and the enjoyment of my company as document precious moments in their lives. Or organizations that view me as an asset to their growth and appreciate my presence documenting their ideas and goals. Very fulfilling and it pays the bills. And a few of these weirdos who hire me have an active say in the work I put in. Some even enjoy the look of film and ask for a few frames to grace their wall or phone. Again, it's nice to deal with nice people. So, I don't feel I deal with the masses. I deal with a very select group of clients who appreciate my work and I appreciate them. Of course there are some bad apples but they pay me the same as others do.

The best part? I get to do what I love and get paid for it! I even imagine that some of the 'gigging' work I do has artistic merit, who'd have though?

When my book comes out you all can have a the privilege of buying it.

 

[jtk]

My clients pay for my time and the enjoyment of my company as document precious moments in their lives. Or organizations that view me as an asset to their growth and appreciate my presence documenting their ideas and goals. Very fulfilling and it pays the bills. And a few of these weirdos who hire me have an active say in the work I put in. Some even enjoy the look of film and ask for a few frames to grace their wall or phone. Again, it's nice to deal with nice people. So, I don't feel I deal with the masses. I deal with a very select group of clients who appreciate my work and I appreciate them. Of course there are some bad apples but they pay me the same as others do.

The best part? I get to do what I love and get paid for it! I even imagine that some of the 'gigging' work I do has artistic merit, who'd have though?

When my book comes out you all can have a the privilege of buying it.

That's fine.

My clients paid me for photographs I made per their requirements (per their orders). They didn't need me to be their close friend or to "grace their walls" because they had plenty of other artists and friends already when they started working with me. Most were art professionals of some sort, typically graphic artists or advertising agency art directors. I never had "bad apples" because I worked only with people I sought out or that came to me by referral. Meanwhile, at least half of my photos have been my own personal work.