# That "film look," are we creating a false memory?



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 20, 2019)

It has struck me after reading threads on other forums, and this one, that our ideas of what film looked like seem to be somewhat distorted.

To create that "film look" the filters almost invariably seem to go for the faded/cross processed/tinted/overly grainy look. On many photo forums they talk about the flaws in film, old lenses.

It is true that images are faded by leaving them out in the sun too long, faded slides that are 50 years old can impart a sense of something that is a more distant rather than recent memory. But that's not accurate of how film looked at the time. But also it's as though many photographers want to believe film is flawed and that their digital photography is better simply because the cameras are better in ways which you can measure with a number. (_I'm still flummoxed by equivalence as for all it's maths in working out the relationships it is fundamentally a way of comparing shot noise, and yet the one thing it can't tell you is how much noise will be in any one shot. Only that shot B will have *2 stops* more noise than shot A, whatever 1 stop of noise is...  _). Many photographers on digital forums seem to buy into the *nostalgia* and the old film look as being faded and flawed with far too much ease and willingness. As I said it's as if that's what they wish to believe, a view that fit's with how digital is so much better.

It is getting to the point that if you want to make an image *look* like it was made on film you have to artificially, (and digitally), add these flaws to it to convince an audience. To be film it must have visible grain yet HP5 on 35mm exposed and developed well then printed on 10"x 8" and you would be hard pressed to see any grain without a magnifier.

Don't get me wrong here, film does have it's limitations. But it was never as bad as a fair few of the digital crowd want to believe. Personally I find that a lot of poorly exposed and over-processed digital shots show far worse artefacts in noise/noise reduction, halos, colour flattened and thinned by tone-mapping/saturation and poor WB than well exposed film. Sure you can stick your digital camera into dark places and shoot a subject in shadow while capturing the sunlight on a distant mountain peak made minuscule with a UWA lens. But I never found that sort of photography very compelling even if you can prove that it has 2 stops less noise than *camera A* would've done... 

Film is still a viable proposition to those who wish to pursue it, it has bright and vivid colour, sharpness and detail. It also captures an honesty that a reliance on Lightroom sliders rather than vision has subtracted from digital.

I was just shuffling through a few holiday snaps, below is one of the rare times I put colour film into the Nikon F2. Shot on basic Kodak negative stock and processed in one of the many *chemist* developing shops that used to litter the high street. Its a scan of a 20+ year old 6"x 4" print. There was nothing fancy about it, I just used to halve the ASA and use a basic reflected meter reading. It's what I had, what I used, and to be quite honest I would still be happy with the result if I took it again tomorrow. If I brought up the shadows (_don't read too much into the DR of film as the shadows are lit by light reflecting off the white sandy beach_), upped the contrast and saturation, sharpened it, and cloned out the scratches I could make it look like a digital shot and receive plenty of equivalent advice...


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 20, 2019)

Don't get me started.... You left out light struck. No half decent film photographer missed the step of opening the camera back with film in it.

Joe

And don't forget the dust and lint -- good film photographers dropped their negs in the vacuum cleaner bag for a shake before they printed them.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 20, 2019)

This showed up on DPReview yesterday under the title "Great new film look:"






Joe


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 20, 2019)

Digital does seem to be sharper with more clarity and resolution than film.  Soap opera look?  Film has a more relaxed look.  You tend to look at the content rather than the technique.  But I could be wrong.  I do enjoy shooting medium film format.  It;s so slow and relaxing and contemplative.  Digital tends to be staccato manic.  That could be wrong as well.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 20, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> This showed up on DPReview yesterday under the title "Great new film look:"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lordy...that video...how tedious. I watched a good six minutes of it before I had to switch it off. As far as film goes, and the title of this post, I think that YES, indeed, now two  full decades into the digital photography era, we are creating (well,some people are creating) a false memory of how pictures made on film looked. More accurately, I think for the most part, the false memory is designed to emulate/evoke the way badly-stored color prints looked; faded colors,mostly, but also with film grain, perhaps processing flaws that lead to image quality loss,and so on. In other words, I think the so-called false memory under discussion is an effort not to belittle film,but more designed to evoke a sense of nostalgia, of age, of the image having "lived" in the real world, for some time. A similar effect, the adding of noise and scratches to video images, to invoke the idea of old, aged motion picture film, is another similar endeavor that some people have done.

I shot a lot of Tri-X 400 in the 1980's...and a lot of Kodacolor Gold 200, and Kodachrome 64 and 64 Professional, and also a good deal of Ektachrome 100. I can and could easily see the grain of Tri-X, or HP5, with no magnifier needed; the difference between 400-speed B&W and 125-speed B&W was easily,easily seen. I can STILL recall my first two rolls of T-MAX 100...WOW!!!! Medium format-like resolving power, minimal grain, and from 35mm size negatives. I think that the old Panatomic-X, Plus-X, Tri-X black and white trio from Kodak, of slow-speed,medium-speed, and fast panchromatic B&W was pretty much fine-grain,medium-grain, and acceptable gain with amazing tonality. The T-grain films in B&W were another story,entirely.

As far as COLOR film...400-speed color negative was invented when I was in high school. Color negative film of consumer type, in the late 1970's, was actually....kind of crappy in the hands of most people,when processed by many labs and later, mini-labs. There were hundred of millions of CRAPPY images made,and developed and processed, on consumer-type color negative film in the 1970's,1980's,and 1990's; color print processing (I worked for a camera store chain that had 13 stores, our own in-house developing and printing lab,and a high-end lab we outsourced to for trickier or more-advanced film and printing needs) was all over the map, as were the cameras, and the people who used color neg film. I saw,with my own eyes, some amazingly crummy images shot in the late 1980's, and so....the idea that accidental light exposure was not a thing is erroneous: MANY people had problems with the first frame on rolls being light-exposed; camera backs DID pop open: people opened camera backs before rewinding, first/last images were *I.D. flashed* and numbered on many rolls, by accident, etc.. Scratches and dust were legion....rolls left in pockets and purses for months before developing lead to a lot of dust getting into developing equipment,etc..

Anyway...I dunno...*film was what it was, and now is what it is*...a capture medium. There are many types of film, many types of developers,B&W, negative,positive (reversal),etc. It's sad that we lost Kodachrome, that's one thing. Overall, today's digital cameras offer easy image capture, and no essential need to outsource the developing to a lab that might,or might not, ruin the film, or the prints. High-end, quality film shots were always good, but hey, I worked at stores and literally SAW how dismal many peoples' film pictures were. For the rank and file, non-photo-enthusiasts, today's smart phones yield better pictorial results, just because one can SEE a bad shot, and re-take it, immediately; opening up film processing envelops was, for many people, an exercise in disappointment. And for many today, with digital images, I think they're trying to re-create some of the common flaws that millions of film-based photos suffered from...scratches, bad exposure, etc, as well as to make images look "old", as if they are old prints that are now 50,40,30 years of age.

We need to separate the idea of film and "prints"...prints were, often times, poor to average, and there are hundreds of millions of old,faded,bad-condition printed pictures all over the world. High-end,skilled work and regular-person work, done on film--the two are and were *very different *things.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Jan 21, 2019)

Agree - I try to use my digital camera and prime lenses to create a 'cinematic' look, using strong colors, high contrast, ultra sharp subject and blurred backgrounds.

I want the image to be the same or better than what I saw with my eyes, I don't want to recreate the limitations of an old, chemical based technology.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 21, 2019)

Derrel, I seem to recall that photographers back then mainly hated grain.  That's why Tmax and other finer grain film were developed.  Each improvement was greeted by the photo community with applause.  It followed, pretty much, digital's higher resolution development for sharper clearer pictures.  

I shoot medium format film for fun.  It slows me down, allows a little contemplation.  You can fidget more with the equipment, scanners,  and light meters.  On the other hand, I shoot cellphone or 1" camera shots and video when I'm around town, or on vacation and make digital "slide" shows for UHDTV playing at home from a flash drive connected to the TV.  They're different processes done for different reasons and results.  It's like owning a pickup truck and a sedan.  Both will get you to where you want to go more or less.  But it's a different drive.  Nice to have both.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 21, 2019)

I shoot a lot of film and I like the look. I don't get the pre set thing...I've tried the Nik film sets and I don't think they look anything like TriX or at least how I develop. Acros is pretty close on Fujifilm to actual Acros but that has been the exception. I see a few professional photogs doing some real interesting edits on their fine art stuff but they are not telling how they get the look. Nor would I. I suppose software technology will figure out at some point but all this other stuff, scratches, distressed looks, are gimmicky IMO. The real unique stuff in film, that I see, is coming from wet plate photographers.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 21, 2019)

This is an odd one to get your head around, and I've been thinking about it a lot. I think many have got things a little back to front... 

No, not that film is better than digital but in the belief that digital is better and so it not only does more but also can do the same.

[Caveat:_ Digital blows film out of the water with resolution and colour editing, though this is also it's Achilles' Heel as nearly all the pre-programmed sliders are subtractive in nature and therefore subtract differences and equalise values whichever way you move them. For example colour is either moved towards grey or the pure hues with saturation/vibrance/contrast/tone-mapping it never moves towards the beautiful neutrals and semi-neutrals you get when mixing pigments._]

Digital when it was being conceived naturally avoided many of the pitfalls of film photography...

@Derrel, oh yes, I think the main problem with nearly all the very poor film shots was under-exposure and over-compensation. Nothing kills film more than under-exposure. Film requires light, energy to form a reaction and density, and light that matches the characteristics of the film. If there's one thing I've learnt with film it is that if you start with a poor, flat negative then you end up with a poor, flat image.

Let me float this:

I've tried to simulate film with digital and always found it elusive, and I don't consider myself a slouch in PS or observation. What I've found is the opposite of what many photographers, especially on some forums, wish to believe. What I've found is that it's almost impossible to recreate the *flawed* look of film on digital with a well exposed image, and that it's actually very easy to re-create the flawed digital look with a well exposed and developed film. Again this does not say that film is better, but it does indicate that the design and evolution of digital was successful in that it avoids the common flaws of film.

John Sloan said, (_I've tried to find the quote but after a glass of red with dinner and a belt of scotch my speed reading has gone the way of under-exposed Kodak Gold..._ ), something along the lines of; art is not about capturing the visual reality of something but it's visual essence. You do not need to re-produce the visual reality of film with digital but only evoke the memory. But it still fails...

There is something about digital that makes it almost impossible the edit in a deliberate *accident*. And that is what is sometimes so appealing about film, not only the accidental but the way it is indiscriminate of  global colour/contrast/acutance in a way that digital can never be by it's controlled nature. In fact I've found my most endearing failures to be ones where I've resorted to drawing *flaws* by hand with the graphics tab. Perhaps that's it, the random and indiscriminate nature, digital is too precise.

Film can, in the right lighting, produce stunning results and when pushed in the wrong lighting, (_or darkroom by the wrong hands..._ ) can also produce that happy accident of *human* flaws rather than precision inconsistency. Does that make digital better, or does it just make film harder to understand and use? Perhaps that's why we refer digital, because it's more consistent than film. It certainly produces more consistent results than film.

If that's it's strength, then why do we want to believe that it also does random and unplanned as well? I think many are turning back to film in search of that *happy accident* rather than the programmed consistency of the LR sliders.

Below; it is the nature of negative film that you can expose the subject correctly and just take pot luck on the flare and highlights when shooting a subject in shadow against very bright backlight. To do it with digital you have to compromise the exposure on the subject and adjust. What can I say? The two will always look different. And as for the scratches all I can say is that I find them far easier to reproduce in a makeshift *backroom* darkroom and a dodgy squeegee than I ever have with a digital filter...  







jcdeboever said:


> I see a few professional photogs doing some real interesting edits on their fine art stuff but they are not telling how they get the look.



I bet they are mainly doing it by hand, for instance adding scratches is easer to do if you have a pure white layer and paint them in on a black mask with a graphics tablet and a ruler. Inconsistency is a human  habit not a computer trait...


----------



## Dave442 (Jan 21, 2019)

When I was last at the camera store the Olympus gal was there showing off their new model and how they have custom curves and all sorts of other in-camera settings, pretty soon the salesman was showing me his favorite way to dial in his digital reincarnation Tri-X. Between that and Fuji with their film settings, the camera makers know many of their customers want to get that "film-look" from digital. 

I don't have any problem with it, if that is what gets someone interested in photography that's fine with me.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Jan 21, 2019)

Dave442 said:


> When I was last at the camera store the Olympus gal was there showing off their new model and how they have custom curves and all sorts of other in-camera settings, pretty soon the salesman was showing me his favorite way to dial in his digital reincarnation Tri-X. Between that and Fuji with their film settings, the camera makers know many of their customers want to get that "film-look" from digital.
> 
> I don't have any problem with it, if that is what gets someone interested in photography that's fine with me.



I'm guilty of that one - Despite what I posted earlier, I'm partial to the Fuji Acros black & white film simulation.

The shot below was just a jpeg available- light snap when trying out different settings with a second-hand manual lens I'd just picked up at a market.

The Acros film simulation gave a classic 'Hollywood" look to what was just a test snap in a bedroom.


----------



## mrca (Jan 24, 2019)

How about shooting a half dozen shots and going to remove the film to discover there was no film in the camera.  That film look?  My pentax had a dial on top of the film spool that I learned to automatically watch as I advanced the film.  If the film spool dial didn't rotate, red flag.  That only happened a couple of times and I ran  between 2 to 8 rolls a day through that camera for 15 years.   I liked it because it had a meter and if the battery failed it shot without a battery at 1/125 sec.  That saved my butt on location no where near a store  twice.  We don't forget those oh sh t moments.  Now, when I shoot with my mamiya medium format that has no battery, it is strange going to shoot without checking or charging a battery first.


----------



## Peeb (Jan 24, 2019)

Here is a 34 year old image.  Apologies for the lack of light leaks and scratches and water stains.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 25, 2019)

I shoot both film and digital, and color correct my digital to mostly match my film.  Why?  Because I like certain colors on film better.  Most people these days associate film with light and airy, but that's not always the case.   You can create different looks and colors by simply expose them differently.   Kodak Portra 400 can be dark and contrasty at box speed,  but over expose 2 stops and you get a whole different look and feel to it.  In the end, it's an artistic expression IMHO.

Portra 400 box speed, metered for midtones, Nikon F100.


 


Portra 400, metered for shadows, over exposed 2 stops, Pentax 67ii


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Jan 25, 2019)

.... very nice images.  I like the muted tones.  Do you recreate this for digital, I guess it would be reasonably practical in post, and even in camera?


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 25, 2019)

Tropicalmemories said:


> .... very nice images.  I like the muted tones.  Do you recreate this for digital, I guess it would be reasonably practical in post, and even in camera?



I created my own LR presets to get close., then I tweak some of the individual colors. to get it even closer.  Matching is easier when lighting is good and even.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 25, 2019)

When I shoot Velvia 50, I don't try to match the chrome's colors lighting and contrast when I adjust the scanned image.  Rather i adjust to my taste.   Neither I nor the viewers care I used Velvia. As long as the results satisfies me on my calebrated monitor, that's what counts.  After all,  a film palette was designed by some guy's vision who worked for the film manufacturer 50 years ago.   So what I do is what you do with digital RAW issues.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 26, 2019)

A person may have fun trying to digitally create a certain "film look" based on a group of photos, but I do not think that even film can capture all the variation one sees in film photography. 

Often I find digital images too perfect. They remind me of the old super bright, deep color movie posters of the "Technicolor" era. Sunsets, waterfalls, icebergs and even caves are crisp and clear, devoid of the natural dirt smudges, water stains, matted vegetation etc.

Sounds like an interesting pastime project.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 30, 2019)

LR vintage PP !!!
Hmm, my B&W film images look much better.




vintage by Dennis, on Flickr


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Jan 30, 2019)

"dxqcanada, post: 3931377, member: 36391"]LR vintage PP !!!
Hmm, my B&W film images look much better.

- Very Nice Edwardian look - works well when the subjects are so appropriate.

This is just a mobile phone snap edited on the same phone to try to give it a '30's Hollywood  look.  Perhaps the digital watch needs to be cloned out



[/QUOTE]


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 30, 2019)

I've posted this image before ....but I thought I should show it ... film photography ain't vintage just because it is old tech.
Agfa 400 B&W negative film 4x5 format (scan of print) ... correction, this was 120 format, scanned with Minolta Scan Multi II.
I'm not even sure why I am adding more to this topic.




My dad by Dennis, on Flickr


----------



## JonFZ300 (Feb 27, 2019)

Derrel said:


> We need to separate the idea of film and "prints"...prints were, often times, poor to average, and there are hundreds of millions of old,faded,bad-condition printed pictures all over the world. High-end,skilled work and regular-person work, done on film--the two are and were *very different *things.



To me, this is the bottom line. To me, the "film look" that is all the rage is just trying to replicate the look of old prints that sat in a shoebox for 30 years fading and getting scratched. I shot a lot of Velvia and Provia back in the day. I had a projector and a large screen that I would use to view them and none of the shots had "that film look." I think the "film look" of today is really "the old, faded, beat-up print look." For example, here's a scan of a print and a scan of a slide. This is an extreme example, to be sure, but can you tell which is which? lol


----------



## Peeb (Feb 27, 2019)

JonFZ300 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > We need to separate the idea of film and "prints"...prints were, often times, poor to average, and there are hundreds of millions of old,faded,bad-condition printed pictures all over the world. High-end,skilled work and regular-person work, done on film--the two are and were *very different *things.
> ...


I would guess the top one (arch rock) is the slide. 
Maybe ektachrome?


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 27, 2019)

They both look like film.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 27, 2019)

My guess is that the arch is from a print,and that the flowers were recorded on slide film....so much for guesses...


----------



## JonFZ300 (Feb 27, 2019)

You're correct. The arch is a scan of a print and the pansies is a slide. I agree that they both look like film but the print has what I'm thinking of as the "film look."


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 27, 2019)

IF they both look likfe film, what do you mean only one has the "film look"?


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Feb 27, 2019)

I see quite a few people shoot film through the various FaceBook forums I am on and even those who are friends, who seem to think the more dust and hair on the scans, the more it makes it relevant as an artistic means. Bugs the hell out of me. I keep wanting to tell them to clean up their images. The filters and editing on digital images are trying to emulate the faux nostalgia feel of dated and poorly kept film prints. Film when properly printed or scanned, will have correct colors like digital. Various films will shoot a bit more warm or cool than others but it was adjusted for in post. I don't know. I doesn't really bother me, just makes me roll my eyes a little bit.


----------



## limr (Feb 27, 2019)

AlanKlein said:


> IF they both look likfe film, what do you mean only one has the "film look"?



His point was that the alleged "film look" that people talk about now is not what film images really look like, but rather imitates the look of old faded prints. The pictures he posted was an illustration. The image of the arch was a scanned print. It looks like it has faded and has some color shift, and it fits the perception of what people these days think "looks like film." Meanwhile, the image of the flowers was shot of slide film, yet doesn't have that "film look" that is now created by a dozen or more software filters that people apply to make it look like their digital images were shot on film. 

In other words, people now don't have a realistic idea of what film really looked like. Yes, they are both film images, and yes, we know that the vibrant images of the flowers are what film really looks like and the faded one is what a print looks like, but only the faded one is what people think of when they think of film. Thus, the ironic quotation marks around "film look" - because they really mean "faded print look." 



> To me, the "film look" that is all the rage is just trying to replicate the look of old prints that sat in a shoebox for 30 years fading and getting scratched...I think the "film look" of today is really "the old, faded, beat-up print look." For example, here's a scan of a print and a scan of a slide.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 27, 2019)

Hmmm, I wonder what a 40 year old inkjet print looks like ?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 27, 2019)

I think Tim in the OP makes a good point about there being what I'd call misconceptions 'out there' about how images shot on film look. JonFZ I've thought the same thing, that images that are supposed to look like film look more like pictures that were left in a shoe box in somebody's basement for years! And I have some myself! lol  

I use the same lenses on my digital camera and film rangefinders and if you put some nice fresh film in, the images are comparable in sharpness, color, and quality to shooting digitally. I love the color of Portra, although I shoot it at box speed because I like the color I get. And Vtech you are loopy going out on that cliff, mountaing, iceberg, whatever...! lol but what a photo you got!


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 27, 2019)

Uhggg, I keep commenting on this thread ... I can't help it.

Here is the FILM LOOK ... I think this was from my first roll of Kodachrome shot in the late 80's.
Is it the tone/temp ... sharpness ... colour ... though this is a digital reproduction?

I want my digital stuff to look like this again, sadly someone moved the boots.




Boots by Dennis, on Flickr


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 28, 2019)

I think digital tends to be sharper.  It often has that "soap opera" look.  Film seems to blend more.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Feb 28, 2019)

It is obvious that the "film look" is as much a matter of opinion that anything else.

My wedding photos are 50 years old or more and they look great, they ought to, because they sit on a shelf in a fancy album and probably have only been viewed perhaps a dozen time in the last 45 years.

As stated previously, most film photos shot what is there. They were cropped a bit, a touch of burning and dodging here and there but they showed what was photographed.

Today many of the digital photo have been so heavily doctored in post processing the look like they we painted by an artist, vivid colors, crisp images and nary a blemish or item out of place. I would offer that many are superb works of artistic talent. I refer to them a photo-art.

I would also suggest, that though we may admire a good photo, intuitively we sense that icebergs really are not that pristine and sunlit, birds do not land in trees devoid of limbs between them and the camera and sunsets are not quite that blend of reds and oranges. To me that is what separates the old film photos from todays photos.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 28, 2019)

Grandpa Ron said:


> It is obvious that the "film look" is as much a matter of opinion that anything else.
> 
> My wedding photos are 50 years old or more and they look great, they ought to, because they sit on a shelf in a fancy album and probably have only been viewed perhaps a dozen time in the last 45 years.
> 
> ...



Put that in perspective: allowing that many digital photos are heavily doctored, the overwhelming majority of digital photos vastly exceeding in volume the entire amount of photos produced in the past with film are just shots of what is there and not "doctored" in any way. The processing done by the camera is analogous to the past processing of film to print and typically less disruptive of recording what was there. More cell-phone photos that are at least but typically more faithful to what is there than past film photos were taken in the past few years than the sum total of all film photos since day 1 both doctored and undoctored.

To also put that in perspective considering full-time practitioners: Someone like Ansel Adams or say Gene Smith doctored their film work with a much heavier hand than anything I tend to do using digital tools to process my photos.

To also put that in perspective thinking of photography as Art: When photography was first accepted into the Art world it gained that acceptance by creating images (*using film*) that were complete constructed fantasies and were as far from shots of what was there as the most extreme digital manipulations done today.




 

 

 

NOTE: In the first photo above by Robinson most people don't realize that it's a complicated composite. There are four people in that photo. None of them were photographed together.

To also put that in perspective: Oh for the good old days of film when you could trust Natl. Geo and a photog like Steve McCury armed with the purity of a Nikon and Kodachrome to show us what was really there.



 

It's not a digital/film thing.

Joe



Grandpa Ron said:


> I would offer that many are superb works of artistic talent. I refer to them a photo-art.
> 
> I would also suggest, that though we may admire a good photo, intuitively we sense that icebergs really are not that pristine and sunlit, birds do not land in trees devoid of limbs between them and the camera and sunsets are not quite that blend of reds and oranges. To me that is what separates the old film photos from todays photos.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 28, 2019)

dxqcanada said:


> Uhggg, I keep commenting on this thread ... I can't help it.
> 
> Here is the FILM LOOK ... I think this was from my first roll of Kodachrome shot in the late 80's.
> Is it the tone/temp ... sharpness ... colour ... though this is a digital reproduction?



Film is real. A film image is dirty -- it's flawed with imperfections and all the scars of real existence. Film has a soul -- the soul that inhabits anything that comes into existence by growing and being physically shaped, by molecules being moved around. Film is the opposite of just abstract numbers. You can't disguise or hide film's soul. The dirt doesn't wash off -- it won't scrub clean. Film is organic as opposed to artificial and it shows. Lay out a dozen mixed images and the film images are always immediately recognizable as genuine. Their soul shines through....... Nah, film has grain

Joe



dxqcanada said:


> I want my digital stuff to look like this again, sadly someone moved the boots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 1, 2019)

Obviously film could be doctored. Dog do not sit at tables and play poker. And yes, a few gifted souls labored for hour to produce the perfect print. Today those changes take a few minutes on mouse and keyboard.

But film is film and digital is digital. Each is unique in its own way. To compare the results of silver compounds interacting with light photons, to inks deposited on paper, is like comparing apple to oranges or one type of wine to another.

There is absolutely no reason to choose one over the other, when one can enjoy both. I love fly fishing but I still bobber fish at times. I love canoeing but a bass boat come in handy once in a while.

I like film because I enjoy the touchy feely diddling with mechanical things and it feels more natural to me. But I will admit, digital is quicker and easier and definitely the future of photography. 

Choose what is best for you.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Mar 1, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> Film is real. A film image is dirty -- it's flawed with imperfections and all the scars of real existence. Film has a soul -- the soul that inhabits anything that comes into existence by growing and being physically shaped, by molecules being moved around. Film is the opposite of just abstract numbers. You can't disguise or hide film's soul. The dirt doesn't wash off -- it won't scrub clean. Film is organic as opposed to artificial and it shows. Lay out a dozen mixed images and the film images are always immediately recognizable as genuine. Their soul shines through....... Nah, film has grain





But it does highlight a problem. Many don't ever question the nature of how they see but believe that the object that they *see* is in fact the object as it stands in front of them. It's an assumption that promotes what I find a *weird* idea, that what you see is absolute visual reality and exists in the absolute visual reality of an object. A smile exists on the face of the one smiling and also in the photograph, it's a visual reality that absolutely exists in the object.

And it leads to a false presumption about the nature of photography: *Cameras are able to capture subtleties we don't see, nuances of expression and light, the emotive impact of what's in front of us...* This leads us to the contradiction because if this is true and the absolute visual reality is contained within the image then the other half of the equation must be: *...and the human eye is a precision optical instrument that captures exactly what's in front of it*.

Which is kinda the wrong way around: Cameras capture exactly what's in front of them and the human eye is capable of picking up on subtle nuance. And emotive impact only happens as a reaction to what you see, it doesn't exist in the image at all. Happiness is our ability to recognise the shapes in faces and through experience and associate them with the emotions we feel when we smile and laugh.

Film has many restrictions, but does that make digital better? Digital can capture colour and sharpness in low light, it can capture detail in shadows, freeze action and capture the absolute visual reality of a moment. Great, but as absolute visual reality is not contained in a photograph but in our human interpretion and how we relate it to our experience is there really much point in chasing after it's existence and trying to *capture* that reality as a product of the light it reflects? When we are very young we learn to see by touch, our worlds extend to what we can feel. We associate touch to the 3D shape of objects and their textures, weight. Texture is the memory of touch, not the physical reality of contrast contained in a photograph...

Film has no soul, but it does have a history and that history has meaning in our experience and memory. It's restrictions and the creative solutions to the problem wrote the book on the *visual language of photography* that we still use today. Shallow DOF to secure shutter speed and silky water to secure DOF... The abstractions in images and how we interpret them are because of that history, they no longer show us anything we haven't seen before. Also those old images have to be viewed in the context of the time they were taken. Robertson's "Fading Away" and "Autumn" are composites by necessity of process rather than artistic intent and were a greater depiction of reality than the alternative of the time, an artist with a brush. In fact today they are seen for what they are, and have been lampooned as a vision of complete falsity. In their day they weren't really seen as *artistic*, "Fading Away" being against the sensibilities of what many wished to hang on their walls but both were slightly *kitsch*.

The abstractions in images are the result of process, the deserted streets in old images a direct result of slow emulsions not lack of people and was seen as *unreal* hence the impact of *real* street scenes when light and emulsion speed allowed.

In many ways that *old film look* is as much a process of subject matter, the limitations of film and our association of the image with nostalgia and memory rather than the *absolute physical reality* of a film *look*. Film was actually far more varied than the current trend in digital with the number of different formats, emulsions, lenses and the restrictions each placed on images. It's look is much more diverse than the modern digital trend of sharpness, detail and the need to capture an absolute physical reality in an image.

This trend to nail photography to absolutes has always been present, mainly because those who photograph were predominantly *left brain* thinkers concerned with science and the exact way a camera captures and forms an image, very few women were taken seriously until recently. Artists however have always been concerned with the way we as humans see and respond to the visual stimulus placed in front of us. It continues today but with a technical precision that promotes the idea we can capture reality and present it in an image, and with it comes the idea that the *look* is absolute and contained within the image itself.

We are capable of seeing very subtle differences in images, mostly subconsciously. It's these subtitles that really distinguish digital from film rather than the other way around. We see digital as *all encompassing* and the pinnacle rather than the history and variety of film images against the lesser historical narrative of digital. We believe that we can create anything with digital because it is more advanced, more capable. But is it? Film defined the language of photography in a way that digital has not had the time to. We want to believe that digital can do everything that film did because we want to believe that it's better. We have this fixed idea that more DR, sharper lenses, better sensors transforms into better images where all of photographic history has shown the opposite. That the artistic side is only revealed when we forget about absolute visual reality and technical correctness and start to explore how the camera abstracts our world.

In film that abstraction was the result of the limitations. Now because we've removed those limitations we think that we can reproduce the look of film more easily. To me the way to do it is to put the limitations back and there's no easier way than to use film. However I don't really tell people what I used to capture an image, I don't feel it's important for them to know or that it has any relevance to the subject. I'm taking a picture *on* film, not *of* film...


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 1, 2019)

Simulating film in digital processing is somewhat like the "Elephant  and the blind men" ELEPHANT AND THE BLIND MEN film is not a fixed medium it changes with type, process, age, storage........ like the Elephant anyone attempting to simulate film is likely only looking at one part.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 1, 2019)

If I take a digital image and try to replicate a 'film look' on the data, it's not so I can recall what the scene looked like back when I took the shot.  I'm trying to create something artistic, not a snapshot.  Snapshots are what you take at family reunions, graduations, weddings and when your kids to something funny during the day.  You don't edit them to 'look like film'.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 1, 2019)

The folks have had over a century of photo viewing. When you say photograph, many think paper. Digital has been around for about a quarter century and growing rapidly.

When my grand kids grow up, photo will mean a digital a image hung on a video screen. Film photos will be looked on like we look at old tin types; an interesting old technology that some folks like to play with.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 1, 2019)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Obviously film could be doctored. Dog do not sit at tables and play poker. And yes, a few gifted souls labored for hour to produce the perfect print.



When I referenced photogs like Adams and Smith I'm not talking about hours to make the perfect print I'm talking about hours to manipulate what was there into something else. Smith is known for creating composite images taking what was there along with what was somewhere else and combining those with what was there on another day and turning them into what was never there. Eugene Smith - Albert Schweitzer — ALTERED IMAGES Adams wasn't as extreme but he was also an image "doctor" as were many of his contemporaries.



Grandpa Ron said:


> Today those changes take a few minutes on mouse and keyboard.
> 
> But film is film and digital is digital. Each is unique in its own way. To compare the results of silver compounds interacting with light photons, to inks deposited on paper, is like comparing apple to oranges or one type of wine to another.



"When the film is exposed to light energy, the photons of light release electrons from bromide ions, which collect at defects in the crystal (sensitivity specks), which in turn attract an equal number of free silver ions. The combination is silver atoms (black deposits), which in the processing stage are amplified by chemicals to a negative image."*

"CCDs consist of etched pixelated metal oxide semiconductors made from silicon, sensitive in the visible and near infrared spectrum. They convert light that falls onto them into electrons, sensing the level/amount of light rather than colour.... The electron-to-voltage conversion is done on the chip, leaving the supporting camera circuitry (three to eight additional chips) to digitize this analogue data."*

Sounds to me like we're comparing a process where photons push around electrons with another process where photons push around electrons. Interesting that you mention ink on paper. My very first job in the photo industry (1970s) was working at a press shop making press plates that we used to transfer photos from film to ink on paper which until pretty recently (and if only considering still images) was the most common way that we all experienced photos -- newspapers, magazines, books, etc.

Speaking of images that don't show us what was photographed I'm sure you recognize this one.





Taken in 1985 on Kodachrome film by Steve McCury it's considered the most recognizable photo in the world today. When you first saw it did your intuition kick in -- those eyes huh? Oh oh, wait a minute, or were you just another member of the public duped by a doctored film image?

Think about commercial advertising: All those fashion models that today are photoshoped into idealized fantasies were presented decades ago showing them as they were photographed because film was used? Not a chance.

It's not a digital/film thing.

Joe

*https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/silver-bromide


----------



## ayapx (Mar 1, 2019)

I think though digital can be touched up enough to look like old style film, I don't like it often even if I know it's just being creative. It's all about what you associate it too personally, whenever I think of old photos I don't feel very comfortable, they often feel a bit ominous to me. But I know that's just me whether it's the old family pictures I found sitting around untouched for years that look like they were taken on another planet at this point or seeing old photos in some place that had really bad vibes to me one too many times. I can't be upset at what anyone else enjoys taking pictures of though, if I don't like it then I just don't look at it.


----------



## limr (Mar 1, 2019)

Interesting you bring that photo up since there is yet another new 'scandal' surrounding the image.

No reason or point to make on my part - just commenting on a case of curious timing 

https://petapixel.com/2019/02/28/the-disturbing-true-story-behind-the-iconic-afghan-girl-photo/


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 1, 2019)

My point is if you take the hours to bend and massage your photograph negative and paper into a not so real photograph, in my opinion it becomes Photo-art. We still use the term "Fine Art" photography to refer to these and other photos. There is a certain level of understanding that the photo has received more than the typical exposure and contrast adjustment.

I believe this was the exception in the day of film. One only has to go to the library (we all remember them) and peruse the old Time, Life, Look and National Geographic magazine photo collections, to realize that the majority of the photos capturing the news of the day are "as shot". Sure they were cropped and trimmed for affect and certainly the commercial and glamour photos were enhanced. But the background was not "Bokehed" except for the lens depth of field.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the majority of the digital photos one sees today are more Photo-art than "as shot". Except of course snap shots, and even they have gotten better because you can take eight shots and cull out the ones you do not like.

I attribute this change to more artistic photos to three things.

People have moved away from day to day still photos and are using more cell phone videos to capture almost everything.
Those who like to share photos can digitally enhance their photos in minutes not hours. Before they email them.
Many digital photos never see paper, they are photographed, download, post processed, sent, and stored electronically;  then viewed on a brightly back lit monitor.
So getting back the OPs original comment of reproducing film-like photos. There is no standard photo to compare to. My slide photos of the Grand Canyon in the 1960's shot with Ektachrome, look very different from the Kodachrome and other film brand prints I shot on that vacation.   

To say that a person enhancing a photo to their liking is trying to dupe someone, is like saying an artist laying brush to canvas, to paint a  light house, is duping the viewer because he omits the birds nest that has not been removed yet.  

A good post processed photo can take a lot of talent to get it the way the person wants it. That is why I call it Photo-Art. Basically painting with pixel. My own bias leans towards the "as shot", they look more natural to me. The fact that other may have a different opinion is normal.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 1, 2019)

limr said:


> Interesting you bring that photo up since there is yet another new 'scandal' surrounding the image.
> 
> No reason or point to make on my part - just commenting on a case of curious timing
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2019/02/28/the-disturbing-true-story-behind-the-iconic-afghan-girl-photo/



News to me -- hadn't seen that and sorry to see that. Thanks.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 2, 2019)

Grandpa Ron said:


> My point is if you take the hours to bend and massage your photograph negative and paper into a not so real photograph, in my opinion it becomes Photo-art. We still use the term "Fine Art" photography to refer to these and other photos. There is a certain level of understanding that the photo has received more than the typical exposure and contrast adjustment.
> 
> I believe this was the exception in the day of film.



It was and it remains the exception today with digital.



Grandpa Ron said:


> One only has to go to the library (we all remember them) and peruse the old Time, Life, Look and National Geographic magazine photo collections, to realize that the majority of the photos capturing the news of the day are "as shot".



As they are now with digital. In fact probably more so today with digital since we're aware that it's easier to alter digital photos and ethics expectations and rules have tightened up: https://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/



Grandpa Ron said:


> Sure they were cropped and trimmed for affect and certainly the commercial and glamour photos were enhanced. But the background was not "Bokehed" except for the lens depth of field.



And if you're still talking about journalistic photos background is not "bokehed" using SOOC digital images -- see link above. As for past film photos that weren't journalistic we used to do that in the darkroom all the time. We "Ortonized" them too. In the darkroom a sheet of clear acetate did the trick to make the out of focus background blurrier. I was teaching students to do that 30 years ago.



Grandpa Ron said:


> Personally, I am of the opinion that the majority of the digital photos one sees today are more Photo-art than "as shot".



No way. Nearly all the photos one sees today are digital. We are inundated with them constantly all day long and the huge majority of them are "as shot" SOOC JPEGs from the cameras. Because digital has increased the overall volume of photos by a huge amount the photos that are not "as shot" if anything are a smaller percentage of the whole than they were during the film era.



Grandpa Ron said:


> Except of course snap shots, and even they have gotten better because you can take eight shots and cull out the ones you do not like.



What does taking more "as shot" photos so you can select the better "as shot" photos have to do with them being "as shot" or not?



Grandpa Ron said:


> I attribute this change to more artistic photos to three things.
> 
> People have moved away from day to day still photos and are using more cell phone videos to capture almost everything.
> Those who like to share photos can digitally enhance their photos in minutes not hours. Before they email them.


But the overwhelming majority of them don't alter them at all or do any more than your accepted exposure and contrast adjustment.



Grandpa Ron said:


> Many digital photos never see paper, they are photographed, download, post processed, sent, and stored electronically;  then viewed on a brightly back lit monitor.



What does seeing paper or being displayed on a backlit monitor have to do with photos "as shot?"

Joe



Grandpa Ron said:


> So getting back the OPs original comment of reproducing film-like photos. There is no standard photo to compare to. My slide photos of the Grand Canyon in the 1960's shot with Ektachrome, look very different from the Kodachrome and other film brand prints I shot on that vacation.
> 
> To say that a person enhancing a photo to their liking is trying to dupe someone, is like saying an artist laying brush to canvas, to paint a  light house, is duping the viewer because he omits the birds nest that has not been removed yet.
> 
> A good post processed photo can take a lot of talent to get it the way the person wants it. That is why I call it Photo-Art. Basically painting with pixel. My own bias leans towards the "as shot", they look more natural to me. The fact that other may have a different opinion is normal.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Mar 4, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> those eyes huh? Oh oh, wait a minute, or were you just another member of the public duped by a doctored film image?



Why do you say duped by the image?  I thought the Afghan girl in Pakistan did have striking green eyes, and they went back again 20 years later and found her in Afghanistan, and the new photos also showed her green eyes.

A bit of light adjustment maybe, but the image showed a real girl with striking coloured eyes - so who was duped?


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 5, 2019)

Tropicalmemories said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > those eyes huh? Oh oh, wait a minute, or were you just another member of the public duped by a doctored film image?
> ...



Very difficult to show in this venue (Internet forum) since there's such a huge variation in all the reproductions available online, but in the original presentation of that photo many believe that Natl. Geo/McCury crossed the journalistic line with more than just a bit of light adjustment and so the term "duped." It is controversial to say the least with many Natl. Geo/McCury defenders claiming this and other of his photos were not substantially altered and suggesting that the Natl. Geo format should be given more leeway as it is not strictly a news publication. On the other side critics insist the journalistic line applies to Natl. Geo and it's a zero tolerance line. I've been aware of the controversy and so used it in the context of this thread making the point that whether an image is manipulated isn't a "digital/film thing." Here's an article that addressed the controversy: https://petapixel.com/2016/06/07/eyes-afghan-girl-critical-take-steve-mccurry-scandal/ and a Google search will turn up much more.

Joe


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 5, 2019)

I think it is interesting how folk like to overthink an issue.

While I prefer an "as shot" photo because to me it is more natural. There is nothing wrong with wanting to enhance a photo.

Yes, to me it makes things look artificial, but other feel it makes the object more life like.

Photography is one of my many hobbies , so I do not have to worry if my photo will sell. Nor do I need to track the latest market trends. I am free to do what I like.

However, if I had to feed my family, I would have to do whatever the market required. There is nothing mystical here.


----------



## Soocom1 (Mar 20, 2019)

Tom Sawyer Abroad by Mark Twain: 
Tom and Huck are in a hot air balloon... 
Tom and Huck argue over where they are at...

_“What’s the reason we ain’t?”

“I know by the color. We’re right over Illinois yet. And you can see for yourself that Indiana ain’t in sight.”

“I wonder what’s the matter with you, Huck. You know by the COLOR?”

“Yes, of course I do.”

“What’s the color got to do with it?”

“It’s got everything to do with it. Illinois is green, Indiana is pink. You show me any pink down here, if you can. No, sir; it’s green.”

“Indiana PINK? Why, what a lie!”

“It ain’t no lie; I’ve seen it on the map, and it’s pink.”_


Now that is because the impression given Huck is because he interpreted the map colors to being in real life. 

When I hit about 23, I had noticed that on VHS the movie Oh god LOOKED old, rater than the sharp realistic colors I remember when i went to see it in the theaters. And I had wondered why that was? 
Colors can also fade on magnetic tape from what I found out. 

I have seen Kodachrome slides of Coney Island from 1946 that look as clean now as they did in the 1940's and saw images of WWII shot on slide film that are about as clean as something out of a 80D Canon. 

This "film look" is IMO only because those trying to emulate it see it as older images probably not kept in good shape. 
I still have pictures from 1985 that look as clean today as when they were shot. 

But moreover there is something else most do not consider: 
Film is 3 dimensional. ergo: Silver hylaide and the color layers create a microscopic depth aspect that digital simply cannot emulate because it is almost perfectly flat. 
I know that digital sensors have depth, but not the same way silver is. 
Moreover, digital is also not subject to the color variation (burnt orange anyone) of color film, or the off whitish grey of B&W. 

I understand the grain aspect but the TMAX and later the Kodak color film that sped up the 100 speed grain meant that grain was becoming less an issue. then whamo..digital. All bets off. 

Medium format is better off than small format for obvious reasons. But the grain size was still the same. it simply didn't need as much enlargement (I thing someone already pointed that out.) 

The digital kids dont know about this because when they were mostly born, digital was starting to take off. sorta like those who grew up with color TV and never saw an old Phiclo 9 inch.


----------

