Imitating film

cowanw · Jan 16, 2020

Except that the medium may be the same. It remains undefined in this thread, but if the film look to emulate is scanned and computer screen viewed or inkjet printed, then we are back at Matt's first sentence. "Most of what you see when you use digital (for film output) is as much a function of the firmware and software as it is of the medium."
Blockend references this in the original post. If we are comparing the same medium, then it must be a digital medium and so the film look is not the film look. If we are comparing a darkroom print to computer screen or inkjet print, that would be fine as a point of comparison; its just that not many people today will have a darkroom colour print in hand and the comparison is becoming imaginary.

Kino · Jan 16, 2020

MattKing said:
Most of what you see when you use digital is as much a function of the firmware and software as it is of the medium.
Anything that involves software and firmware incorporates preferences and judgments of those that created that software and firmware.
It isn't surprising that people like to modify those preferences and judgments to their tastes. If what they like is closer to how films (and a film based workflow) render an image, where is there a problem with those modifications?
Surely "because I like how it looks" is a good answer to the question about why people use those adjustments.
By the way, I prefer "emulating" to "imitating".

True film profiles and LUTS, for something like the output on a Arrilaser film recorder, are based on actual Kodak LAD (Lab Aim Density) values and are an accurate representation of how the film stock reacts.

Most other "profiles" are simply to taste based on experience and desired end result.

All in all, unless you are trying to create a repeatable, measurable, certifiable output to a physical element (print of some sort; digital files don't count), then who cares?

Adjust until "good"...

blockend · Jan 16, 2020

John51 said:
the Foveon sensor used in Sigma cameras has a look that is close to slide film

Some cameras turn out more pleasing jpegs than others. I keep a 12mp Canon 5D and a 16mp Fuji X-Pro because I dislike the OOC jpegs less than other cameras I've used. I'm not technically informed enough to know the truth, but have heard that very high megapixel cameras typically have poorer colours and a more "digital" look, as a trade off for increased resolution and dynamic range.

cowanw said:
If we are comparing the same medium, then it must be a digital medium and so the film look is not the film look.

Indeed so.

cowanw said:
If we are comparing a darkroom print to computer screen or inkjet print, that would be fine as a point of comparison; its just that not many people today will have a darkroom colour print in hand and the comparison is becoming imaginary.

Exactly. I'd say it's easier to simulate/ emulate/ imitate film in a print than on a screen. Only gallery prints are larger than 16 x 20", and then not often. A suitably matt archival ink jet paper cues the viewer towards the older medium. At 10 x 8" or smaller it's very difficult indeed to tell the origins of a photograph. On a screen just click 200% enlargement and image structure leaves little ambiguity. Few people routinely print that large.

4season · Jan 16, 2020

Sometimes while hiking, I’d catch glimpses of something intriguing up ahead through the foliage, only to be disappointed when I reached a clearing and discovered that it wasn’t so interesting after all. What I’ve been striving towards with my photos is the feeling I’d get just before the big reveal, when my sense of anticipation was at it’s peak.

To that ends , I’ve fussed with grainy film, switching off chroma- and luminance noise reduction, toy cameras, adding noise and darkening corners, manipulating curves. I have had some success, but can’t say that I know of one particular formula which always delivers the goods. In fact, my current challenge is to discover how I might achieve my ends using modern, highly resolving cameras and lenses without the use of built-in effects or other gimmicks.

jtk · Jan 16, 2020

4season said:
Sometimes while hiking, I’d catch glimpses of something intriguing up ahead through the foliage, only to be disappointed when I reached a clearing and discovered that it wasn’t so interesting after all. What I’ve been striving towards with my photos is the feeling I’d get just before the big reveal, when my sense of anticipation was at it’s peak.

To that ends , I’ve fussed with grainy film, switching off chroma- and luminance noise reduction, toy cameras, adding noise and darkening corners, manipulating curves. I have had some success, but can’t say that I know of one particular formula which always delivers the goods. In fact, my current challenge is to discover how I might achieve my ends using modern, highly resolving cameras and lenses without the use of built-in effects or other gimmicks.

All photography consists of gimmicks.

markjwyatt · Jan 16, 2020

I think the depth of field does not change at all with crop sensor size. A 50mm lens has the same DOF on any camera (at a given focus distance and f-stop).

One difference I hear between film and digital is that digital sensors do not handle off-axis (i.e., non-normal) rays as well as film, and that drives digital camera lens design. So swapping to an analog lens can heighten some effects of older lens designs (especially moving out from the center. On the other hand, crop sensors compensate by disposing of the edges...

Sometimes with my Fujifilm XT-2, I end up with images that look film like (sometimes even SOOC, especially w/Acros sim). Sometimes, they just do not look film like.

removed account4 · Jan 16, 2020

CropDusterMan said:
An interesting point. I shoot with digital Leicas and Leica lenses. When I do decide to go B&W with those images,
I was often studying the images and wishing they looked more like TRI-X. I experimented, I added grain, structure
contrast and clarity, and got to the point where they looked like film.

Then I just said, EFF IT, and bought an M3 and started shooting film again, alongside my digital work. The added workflow
is therapeutic.

J

i know what you mean its a lot of fun and tinkering but why not go to the source . its like shooting platinum prints and trying to get them to look like silver chloride prints
or digital files and making them look like cyanotypes .. its fun and useful, but why not just let cyanotypes look like cyanotypes and digital files look like digital files

eddie · Jan 16, 2020

Have you ever heard anyone say, "how can I make my film images look digital"?

blockend · Jan 16, 2020

eddie said:
Have you ever heard anyone say, "how can I make my film images look digital"?

Ironically, that's what many professionals wanted in the film era. Clear, unblemished, sharp, high contrast, high ISO images to share instantly. They still do. It's enthusiasts and artists who trouble with aesthetics.

markjwyatt · Jan 17, 2020

blockend said:
Ironically, that's what many professionals wanted in the film era. Clear, unblemished, sharp, high contrast, high ISO images to share instantly. They still do. It's enthusiasts and artists who trouble with aesthetics.

I think you are right, but maybe film photographers did not realize what they did not want to give up that makes some people do a double take now. Film images have an inherent pointillist structure to them which is hard to get in digital. This is true even with added (simulated) grain, because added grain does not produce a pointillist image, but rather a near perfect image with added noise. I wonder if the Fujifilm Acros simulation starts to move in the pointillist direction?

wiltw · Jan 17, 2020

jnantz said:
im kind of confused why do people want to make digital images look like film images ?
they are 2 different things each with their own thing going on.

^^^
Does an artist painting with oils lament about how he cannot achieve the same effect when using acrylic paints?! Both make a 'painting'.
Does a pianist lament the inability to make it sound the same as an organ?! Both make 'music'
Film vs digital...Different means of achieving a 'photograph'

The the OP points, I respond:

If you shoot RAW rather than JPG, you are not constrained to the built-in Styles programmed into the digital camera by the manufacturer. In fact, a Nkon dSLR makes photos that look different from a Canon dSLR...should someone choosing Nikon lament the different appearance, too?
You CAN adapt SLR lenses to dSLRs, if you like the photo with fuzzier appearance, and if you like poorer edges than centers you merely need to choose the right (digital lens) zoom@
If you like less dynamic range, for blocked up shadow areas rather than seeing detail, set the digital camera to a high ISO value rather than using ISO 100-800.
If shooting RAW files, the photographer has TOTAL control over the amount of Sharpening which is applied to a photo.
When I used to shoot film professionally, for commercial photography I often sought COLOR ACCURACY and selected my choice of emulsion accordingly...now I get color accuracy as good if not better than the best of the emulsions I could choose from! I don't bother with the 'Kodachrome' vs. 'Ektachrome' rendtion, I prefer accuracy to hues even for a simple snapshot. Yes, I could choose emulsion in the past, to achieve a certain 'look' for an image to meet a particular purpose, and with digital I can alter one photo to many, many different 'appearances' or interpretations for the same original image!

I still own my film gear, and I own digital gear, and I own adapters to use my Olympus OM lenses on my Canon dSLR. So I still have the ability to simply go out and buy my preferred emulsion to achieve a certain 'look'. I lament that the variety of emulsions are far, far fewer than I am accustomed to choosing from in the 1980s and 1990s !. I also lament, it is increasingly difficult to find a lab with the proper process controls in the processing, so it is harder to ensure that what you shoot (with a particular emulsion) will come back from a lab correctly balanced as the emulsion manufacturer intends!

MattKing · Jan 17, 2020

wiltw said:
If shooting RAW files, the photographer has TOTAL control over the amount of Sharpening which is applied to a photo.

Provided you can defeat the built in settings imposed by the various RAW converters!
Even with RAW files, you are dealing with software and firmware settings that are buried and inaccessible.
You do, however, have lots of tools available to try to offset any effects you may not want.

wiltw · Jan 17, 2020

MattKing said:
Provided you can defeat the built in settings imposed by the various RAW converters!
Even with RAW files, you are dealing with software and firmware settings that are buried and inaccessible.
You do, however, have lots of tools available to try to offset any effects you may not want.

I won't try to dispute your statement about built-in sharpening, even when the photographer adds None. But one really has to keep in mind that there is an antialiasing filter that is inherent to almost all sensors and this filter adds inherent 'blur' to the image...which is why a few camera manufacturers eliminate that filter in select models for those obsessed with max sharpness. IOW, there is a fundamental need to cancel out some of the blur inherent to the sensor stack!

Kino · Jan 17, 2020

Every RAW editor must impose some form of default gamma curve and colorspace information on the image in order for you to even view it. It is up to YOU to set up and profile your monitor in the proper colorspace while working with the images in that application.

You better get heavy into color management if you want precise, repeatable results. Ironically, this is only guaranteed if the other person's computer monitor is properly profiled, reading the imbedded color profile in the image tags AND viewing the file image on a color managed application or program.

If you're mainly going to display on the Web, stick with sRGB or work in a more precise colorspace and down convert images to the sRGB colorspace to display them on the web.

A lot of browsers do not implement color management properly. Also, a lot of default image viewers and third party image editors will not or can not display the image properly without heroic intervention.

It can be a mess...

EDIT: Here is an article on how to profile the imposed baseline LUT of your camera: https://pixls.us/articles/profiling-a-camera-with-darktable-chart/

I'll have to try it.

Imitating film

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency