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.
who cares
This is what we all agree on: they are different.
What's stupid is to fake digital into film. You know? To say that digital is film. You know? That a D750 sensor is kodak tri-x.
Nik silver fx was the best in my opinion, but I don't think film can be emulated yet with our current software and silver gelatin prints made by a professional printer will never be bested by any digital ink jet.
I have a friend who has a good body of work, spanning quite a few years, in her black and white child photography portfolio. She has a recognizable style, and her customers hire her based on that style.
She depends on labs to print her work. When she started, she shot on film, and there were good commercial printers available that would print at a reasonable cost. Then, the reasonable cost commercial printers transitioned to a lightjet workflow, so she transitioned to a film plus quality lab scans plus digital post workflow. The lab quality scans then became more problematic, so she made the decision to move to a digital capture and Silver FX workflow, with lightjet printing.
The emulation software has enabled her to maintain consistency of style while adapting to the changing realities in commercial labs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?