This is just cheating

Mainecoonmaniac · Oct 31, 2014

That's fine

MattKrull said:
Sorry Mainecoonmanic, I completely disagree with you.

That's perfectly fine. I just wanted to start some discourse. We all approach photography differently. We have a wide range of opinions here. Just making food for thought

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 31, 2014

Mainecoonmaniac said:
That's perfectly fine. I just wanted to start some discourse. We all approach photography differently. We have a wide range of opinions here. Just making food for thought

And I am starving! As a person with extremely limited skill in any format, these public discourse's really add to my need of learning!

tkamiya · Oct 31, 2014

jnanian said:
who cares

I agree with this.

I don't understand why some of us care so much about product of this type or about people who use this type of stuff. The best we can hope for is some of them to actually try the real film, like it, and start using it for their work. But I think that will be a minority.

My take is that if someone likes the look of film and this is how they achieve it, that's a compliment. Many photographers of today will probably not invest in a full darkroom and spend hours and days in it to do what we do. So this is their way of doing what they can with what they have.

I have no problem with this.

NB23 · Oct 31, 2014

moose10101 said:
You go ahead and believe whatever helps you get through the day.

Day in, day out.

NB23 · Oct 31, 2014

tkamiya said:
I agree with this.

I don't understand why some of us care so much about product of this type or about people who use this type of stuff. The best we can hope for is some of them to actually try the real film, like it, and start using it for their work. But I think that will be a minority.

My take is that if someone likes the look of film and this is how they achieve it, that's a compliment. Many photographers of today will probably not invest in a full darkroom and spend hours and days in it to do what we do. So this is their way of doing what they can with what they have.

I have no problem with this.

The problem about it is that it's all Bullsheet.

First of all, people can't even agree on what's the Tri-X look. A VAST majority can't distinguish a Tri-X print from a HP-5 print, and yet they "hate" HP-5 and they "Love" Tri-X and vice-versa.

These digital "emulations" are completely arbitrary. The developers tweak a Black&White look and then they go "hey, let's call this one Fomapan 100 and when we up the contrast by 25% we're gonna call in Delta400".

The problem with this blatant Bullsheet is that it causes a bigger Bullsheet issue: it makes people think that it's accurate. And then they go on various forums and they spread the bullsheet and are sounding very professional about it. Goes like "hp5 is very woody while trix has long tones and a nice contrast while tmax 100 is digital-ish but delta 100 has a long scale" and so on. And they base their observations on "real-world" observations, because those programs are "real-world".

The only way to cut through all this stinking, global, general bullsheet is to have your own darkroom and to print. Anything else exposes you to severe bullsheet. Even forums (with all the stand-development bullsheet, and so on), is bullsheet.

This is why I do care.

tkamiya · Oct 31, 2014

Take it easy there....

It's very true people can't distinguish difference in film. Even with a given film, they can have different looks based on how the image was exposed and delivered, then printed. So it makes sense it's arbitrary.

But this type of thing only seems to matter on internet forums, this one included. I have never seen or heard of even a seasoned collector say, "I'm glad this was done with xyz film pushed 1 stop with abc developer. It would have totally destroyed the image if it was done with qex film and processed with ab2."

I TRY NOT TO get caught up in something like this myself. (But that's just me) Final image on paper is what I care. How I got there is only important as long as I get there.

Even in full darkroom only days, everyone getting a darkroom is not practical. They will only do what is reasonably possible (or easy) within their limitations. For that, many prefer software like this. Plus, "kind of looks like film" is all it does, and that's enough for a lot of people.

Shawn Rahman · Oct 31, 2014

jnanian said:
who cares

andrew.roos · Oct 31, 2014

NB23 said:
The problem about it is that it's all Bullsheet.... These digital "emulations" are completely arbitrary. The developers tweak a Black&White look and then they go "hey, let's call this one Fomapan 100 and when we up the contrast by 25% we're gonna call in Delta400".

This may be true of many film emulations, but is not the case for all of them. DXO Filmpack is calibrated by photographing colour calibration targets at various different exposures using the actual film to be emulated, and then scanning the developed film to determine the actual tone curves in each of the colour channels, as well as measuring the grain characteristics.

(See http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/photo-software/dxo-filmpack/features/calibration)

NB23 · Oct 31, 2014

Yeah but a sensor, with its linear response can NEVER emulate a film, no matter the dxo bullsheet. I've had a friend extensively print ektar negatives on ra-4 and i can tell you, ektar is not nearly as what emulated like, evenly "expertly"

Siompa · Oct 31, 2014

I agree with the opinion that it's not cheating, however, why don't just use the thing that actually makes it look the way you want it to instead of emulating it.

If it is for moving pictures it's a different story imho. It's just to pricey.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Oct 31, 2014

I think it will take another 40 years to software mimics a leitz lens. I looked to the link and I would not invest in to film photography with seeing these pictures , never , ever. They have the worst color , tonal , spatial versions of holga site.

If people will invest to 8 dollar portra with liking these bullshit , I wouldnt expect any new costomer. People are not Da Vinci but either not idiot.

removed account4 · Oct 31, 2014

Shawn Rahman said:

LOL

exactly

who cares if they have software to mimic film
plug ins have been around for 5 years maybe more
people use wet plate lenses with film
they use dag-lenses, cini, projection with film too
people make uber sharp uber contrasty HDR - TYPE traditionally printed images
they manipulate the hell out of their negatives when they print too

is it cheating when someone cross processes their film or uses a staining and graining developer
to get a certain look too ?

who cares

pdeeh · Oct 31, 2014

I want a plugin for my enlarger that lets me emulate a jnanian picture ...

removed account4 · Oct 31, 2014

there will be one soon ... im working with a developer now

tkamiya · Oct 31, 2014

Just plug a coffee maker into your darkroom timer. That should do it.

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 31, 2014

tkamiya said:
Just plug a coffee maker into your darkroom timer. That should do it.

Them are fighting words! Bring it all everyone, show your best right here, right now, unless you are chicken! Exclude me, as I have no real example to show. Well, ok, I'm your huckleberry!

Scorn by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

Shawn Rahman · Oct 31, 2014

You know what is ALSO cheating? Dodging & burning in the darkroom.

Go ahead someone, thrash me about how that is all about creative vision & artistry!

Sorry to be a party pooper, people. The digital v. film arguments will never go anywhere. Enjoy the images.

cliveh · Oct 31, 2014

Shawn Rahman said:
You know what is ALSO cheating? Dodging & burning in the darkroom.

Go ahead someone, thrash me about how that is all about creative vision & artistry!

Sorry to be a party pooper, people. The digital v. film arguments will never go anywhere. Enjoy the images.

Not me, I think you are correct.

gone · Oct 31, 2014

I'm waiting for the film that emulates digital. Might be a while :]

pdeeh · Oct 31, 2014

I thought that was Ektar?

Bill Burk · Oct 31, 2014

aRolleiBrujo said:
Them are fighting words! Bring it all everyone, show your best right here, right now, unless you are chicken!

aRolleiBrujo,

No more posts from you tonight! I command you to get out in the real world and take pictures. Don't get back on the computer until Monday... The next few hours are crucial to you and the style of your photography. This is your night.

Shoot until you run out of film - then run a roll through twice to make double exposures.

p.s. tkamiya that was really funny. coffee maker... plug-in... I can't stop laughing

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 31, 2014

Bill Burk said:
aRolleiBrujo,

No more posts from you tonight! I command you to get out in the real world and take pictures. Don't get back on the computer until Monday... The next few hours are crucial to you and the style of your photography. This is your night.

Shoot until you run out of film - then run a roll through twice to make double exposures.

p.s. tkamiya that was really funny. coffee maker... plug-in... I can't stop laughing

Beat you to your own advice this morning. :devil::wizard:::alien: However, tonight is witching hour to some, and Halloween to others.

20141031_143356 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

Americo J Rodriguez-2 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

summicron1 · Oct 31, 2014

I agree with the others -- why go to digital to emulate film when you already shoot film and get that look?

Kind of nice to know I still shoot what is considered the standard, though.

Chan Tran · Oct 31, 2014

It's simply stupid! Both film and digital has its pro and con. If you like the look of film then simply use film. Neither is more realistic or better they are simply different.

NB23 · Oct 31, 2014

Shawn Rahman said:
You know what is ALSO cheating? Dodging & burning in the darkroom.

Go ahead someone, thrash me about how that is all about creative vision & artistry!

Sorry to be a party pooper, people. The digital v. film arguments will never go anywhere. Enjoy the images.

Party pooper? You're perhaps giving yourself too much importance.

And yes, dodging and burning a wet print could be seen as Cheating if you we're trying to pass that said print as an inkjet print, once finished.

Let's keep the logic logical.

This is just cheating

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency