# Please, take me out of this misery...



## galapagos1859 (Apr 10, 2012)

It's been almost a year since I got my first DSLR and since then I can't get an answer to a simple question: 

Why does digital look so... digital? 

I have asked this question to many photographers and I've spent hundreds of hours searching the web looking for an answer... but nothing.

Maybe you, like many others, think that the answer is easy and would reply with one of the options bellow:

1) "It's not the fact that it's digital. It's just a bad photo."

2) "Lighting is the secret."

3) "You need a good camera and, most importantly, good lens."

4) "You need to master the digital darkroom. The answer is in post processing."

5) "It's the dynamic range, stupid."

Well... none of these is false, but they do not close the discussion.
There's a "quality" in film photography that is not comparable to digital.

Before anyone thinks that I'm a nostalgic old man... I must say I'm a 28yo guy who has never owned a film camera in his life. But realized since day 1 that the look and feel in photography that made him get his first SLR is not achievable in digital.

A feel examples (please tell me that you see the diference and understand my frustration)

Film:
Scan-6478-003 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!_ | Flickr - Photo Sharing!Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Digital (5D mkII):
Rhea portrait | Flickr - Photo Sharing!Hindu pilgrim in Varanasi | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Please, put me out of my misery and enlight me.

ps: this is my first post here. I registered just to ask this question.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 10, 2012)

Well, even a scanned film image can be post-processed.  Unless we know it isn't we can't really address the 'quality' of it.  It would be exceedingly easy to take the 'digital' image and make it look like a scanned 60's-era image.


----------



## Delphititan (Apr 10, 2012)

I have been an avid photographer for 35 years. I have used everything from Hasselblad to pinhole cameras. I now use digital cameras. While I do use some very high end glass, I was able to get excellent results from kit lenses. 

You are young. You are stressing too much about this. Let it go. Go out with the gear you have available and have fun. Spend your time with thoughts about what you can do to improve your composition. Play with the many tools and software apps that will test your creativity. 

Life is good. Focus on enjoying its potential.

If you still have angst about this, reply back and lets discuss how to have more fun with your current gear.

Dan


----------



## galapagos1859 (Apr 10, 2012)

Delphititan said:


> I have been an avid photographer for 35 years. I have used everything from Hasselblad to pinhole cameras. I now use digital cameras. While I do use some very high end glass, I was able to get excellent results from kit lenses.
> 
> You are young. You are stressing too much about this. Let it go. Go out with the gear you have available and have fun. Spend your time with thoughts about what you can do to improve your composition. Play with the many tools and software apps that will test your creativity.
> 
> ...



Hi, Dan.

Thanks for your kind reply. 

I understand your point and I really try to make the most of my current gear. But what bothers me is spending so much time in photoshop trying to achieve a 'look'.

I took this picture in a trip to Paris: http://i.imgur.com/t2r3t.jpg
I really like it as a whole, but it's too digital. Too flat... no depth... 
(you're seeing the raw file, btw)

I have spent countless hours post processing it, but I feel like it's never good enough.
Then I see a simple photo taken with a medium format and I'm stunned by the 'look and feel' of it. This would be a perfect example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianadams/7065871047/in/pool-31794144@N00/
There's nothing special about the photo... but the tones make me wanna cry. =) 
They look so good.

Why?! Am I going crazy?


----------



## Tony S (Apr 10, 2012)

Some company just paid a billion dollars for an application to make images look like your first example and other film "looks" ....... :er:


I guess I don't see the issue, since you can get any "film" look you want with digital with the right post processing and not be able to tell the difference.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 10, 2012)

I drive one of these every day.  A couple weeks ago, I was given the opportunity to drive one of these.  I just don't understand why they're so different.

Seriously.... I don't see how you're comparing the two images.


----------



## galapagos1859 (Apr 10, 2012)

I can't agree, Tony.

Instagram is for fun. It's overdone and it doesn't qualify as what I'm describing here.

Even with serious post processing, in 90% of cases you can tell when it's fake.


----------



## galapagos1859 (Apr 10, 2012)

480sparky said:


> I drive one of these every day.  A couple weeks ago, I was given the opportunity to drive one of these.  I just don't understand why they're so different.
> 
> Seriously.... I don't see how you're comparing the two images.



Sparky, don't get me wrong. I never meant to compare them as equivaent images.

I'm asking for you to focus on the quality of tones, depth and colors. Please feel free to add a digital image that you consider a 'Ferrari'. We can go on from there.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 10, 2012)

galapagos1859 said:


> Sparky, don't get me wrong. I never meant to compare them as equivaent images.
> 
> I'm asking for you to focus on the quality of tones, depth and colors. Please feel free to add a digital image that you consider a 'Ferrari'. We can go on from there.



The only way you can compare two images is for them to be taken with the same lighting, subject, etc.  To compare those two images is like comparing apples & spark plugs.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Apr 10, 2012)

I'm in the "you're looking too closely" camp, but between the images you posted, the biggest differences I see are in "grain" and white balance.  The film shots are warmer and have more grain/noise than the digital shots.

Both grain/noise and white balance can be altered in post.  If you like warm/grainy images (and many do) there are plenty of tools to achieve the look.  Lightroom is one of them.  There are numerous others.

Here's a <3 min edit of one of the digital shots you linked to:


* Image used for illustration/educational purposes.  The original can be found via the OP's link above and is presumed copyright by Yago Veith at yago1.com

Does this edit address any of your likes/dislikes?


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Apr 10, 2012)

galapagos1859 said:


> Delphititan said:
> 
> 
> > I have been an avid photographer for 35 years. I have used everything from Hasselblad to pinhole cameras. I now use digital cameras. While I do use some very high end glass, I was able to get excellent results from kit lenses.
> ...



The images really aren't comparable, as others have pointed out.  One is a landscape (sort of) and the other is portraiture (sort of).

The biggest diff (other than the obvious above) is depth of field.  The landscape shot looks to be shot with a very deep depth of field.  Everything is in focus.  The portraiture shot is fairly shallow depth of field.  The subject(s) are in focus, but the background is not.

DoF is achievable (easily) in both digital and film.


----------



## galapagos1859 (Apr 10, 2012)

WhiskeyTango said:


> I'm in the "you're looking too closely" camp, but between the images you posted, the biggest differences I see are in "grain" and white balance.  The film shots are warmer and have more grain/noise than the digital shots.
> 
> Both grain/noise and white balance can be altered in post.  If you like warm/grainy images (and many do) there are plenty of tools to achieve the look.  Lightroom is one of them.  There are numerous others.
> 
> ...



I appreciate your effort, Whiskey. Unfortunately, it's as 'digital' as it was.

This is my 3 min attempt and I can still see the digital behind the post process:
http://i.imgur.com/5ekK8.jpg

=(


----------



## galapagos1859 (Apr 10, 2012)

WhiskeyTango said:


> galapagos1859 said:
> 
> 
> > Delphititan said:
> ...



Yeah... I totally regret putting those 2 pictures together. It didn't clarify my point... 
But believe me, DoF is not part of the equation  =/


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 11, 2012)

Perhaps you're seeing the noise cause by ISO 2500.


----------



## galapagos1859 (Apr 11, 2012)

ok... so I found a side-by-side comparison







Can you guys see it now?


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 11, 2012)

Very little.  And the film look could easily be replicated in post.

What I'd like to know is the camera that took the film shot.


----------



## Tony S (Apr 11, 2012)

I really think you need to spend more time taking pictures and working on your post processing to get the look you are after..... any film type can be replicated in an image editor, there are lots of tutorials out there that even tell you how to make digital images look like specific film types.






How about trying a digital Velvia...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/DV/index.html

  And found this program to ge the film look referenced by Derrel in a post late last year...  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/dxo_film_pack.shtml


Of course your other option is to just shoot film.


----------



## MReid (Apr 11, 2012)

Film look, less contrast, less sharp, seems to have more of a 3d (richer, more depth) look.
From digital: reduce contrast, very slight gaussian blur, add smidge of glow effect or tiny bit of fog, add just a smidge of large grained noise, less black point.
....or just click a button on the numerous effects programs designed to look like film

Yes film does look different.


----------



## Mot (Apr 11, 2012)

It might be fun to test you! If it's so different we should be able to post photos we've taken on either film or processed to look like film and you should be able to tell us which one it is with ease. I'm not disagreeing with you that film has a 'look', I do disagree that it's not possible in post. There are several photographers that I was convinced shot on 120 but found they shot with a 5DII and were skilled processers.


​
How or what were these shot on? They still have the EXIF data so guess before you check, don't ruin it for others! In terms if film I use several brands in several film bodies and lenses, nothing specific. To scan film I usually use a Hasselblad X1, it's a serious-amateur/professional scanner. Digitally I use a 20D and a 5D with several lenses. Everything passes through Lightroom 3 and occasionally Photoshop.


----------



## bhop (Apr 11, 2012)

I think the issue you're having is caused by a combo of points 4 and 5


----------



## MReid (Apr 11, 2012)

The left one looks like film, the one on the right may or may not be.

...but as we have been discussing lots of ways to make digital look like film.


----------



## KmH (Apr 11, 2012)

galapagos1859 said:


> ok... so I found a side-by-side comparison
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The 2 are not shot at the same angle to the Sun, don't have the same exposure, and are also essentially invalid for demonstrating your premise.

You are seeking an answer to a question that has no one correct answer.


----------



## Compaq (Apr 11, 2012)

Maybe... and this is a pretty big maybe........ maaaybe, it's the fact that you know it's film that makes you like it better?


----------



## BlairWright (Apr 11, 2012)

They are different and that gives you 2 choices, life is grand...

Personally, I like the artistic freedom that digital gives you. Digital goes way beyond what film ever did in terms of processing.


----------



## Crollo (Apr 11, 2012)

The color grading of the images you posted are different. The film is 'incorrect' and is way too warm and IMO really bad looking, but the digital has correct white balance and toning so it looks 'different' but not worse. Digital images are also very very clean and smooth, but film is very grainy and rough looking.

In my opinion, the color grading we apply to 'cinematic' ("Filmic") shots are absolutely horrible. I do not want to see blue blacks, green midtones or yellow people... Please don't think that this style of grading is 'cool' or 'awesome' because it's repulsive. The direct film to digital images are both properly graded and therefore the difference between the two is very very minimal.


----------



## OscarWilde (Apr 11, 2012)

Maybe its the subject matter? You do realize that 90%+ of the emotion and mood you feel from a photograph comes from what your looking at. Look at your example of Paris vs the Hospital Bed.

Hospital Bed: Mother and her baby. Soft lighting. Pose expresses movement and candidness. Composition is great. Brings out nostalgic feelings because of the new life and the warm quality of the lighting. Its EXTREMELY narrative; even the DoF makes it seem timeless and as if a real "moment" was captured.

Your picture in Paris: Is (composition-wise) unbalanced, you have a big solid dark heavy building and you are attempting to balance it with sky. and not any where NEAR enough to balance that. Its dark, it is gloomy (underexposed) and it is completely still. No narration at all. 

So what would you expect? You could have taken the hospital bed photo with a digital camera... you could have taken it with a cell phone, or a pinhole camera and it wouldn't have made a difference. Because its the mood expressed by the timing and the subject NOT the medium. 

As an artist (I paint) I can say that what you are really trying to do is make watercolor look like oil paint. Can you have warm and embracing pictures painted with watercolor? Yes. Can you have warm and embracing pictures painted with oil paints? Yes. Will they look the same? No. Because they aren't the same. 

The point is the emotion. And THAT is the difference you are seeing. The photographers above all captured DIFFERENT moods in the different pictures. And as a result the medium is IRRELEVANT.

 Hope this helps; its the easiest way I can think of to understand it!


----------



## bhop (Apr 11, 2012)

I already commented once, but re-reading this thread, I'm just gonna throw this out there.. 

_You're not going to get the answer you want._

Film and digital both can look nice, but they do look different.  It's one of the reasons I still shoot mostly film for my personal photos.  It's less convenient than digital, but for me it's worth the extra hassle/cost for my photos to look how I want them to look, which is like film.


----------



## galapagos1859 (Apr 12, 2012)

OscarWilde said:


> Maybe its the subject matter? You do realize that 90%+ of the emotion and mood you feel from a photograph comes from what your looking at. Look at your example of Paris vs the Hospital Bed.
> 
> Hospital Bed: Mother and her baby. Soft lighting. Pose expresses movement and candidness. Composition is great. Brings out nostalgic feelings because of the new life and the warm quality of the lighting. Its EXTREMELY narrative; even the DoF makes it seem timeless and as if a real "moment" was captured.
> 
> ...



It helped. =)

I still don't think the medium is 'irrelevant' though, but you made a good point about the emotions involved.

About the hospital picture. Would you believe me if I told you it took me a while to decipher what was going on there? 
The 'look' of that picture caught my attention before I realized its composition or its emotions.

Btw, your comparison between oil paint and water color was perfect. It really helped adding some perspective here.

Thanks


----------



## galapagos1859 (Apr 12, 2012)

bhop said:


> I already commented once, but re-reading this thread, I'm just gonna throw this out there..
> 
> _You're not going to get the answer you want._
> 
> Film and digital both can look nice, but they do look different.  It's one of the reasons I still shoot mostly film for my personal photos.  It's less convenient than digital, but for me it's worth the extra hassle/cost for my photos to look how I want them to look, which is like film.



Yeah, you're right...

Let me ask you something about your film photos. Do you develop them yourself? What's the most difficult challenge when shooting film?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 12, 2012)

Film looks different because it's not neutral, it's not 1's or 0's. 

Digital can only represent 255 different variations of Red, Green, or Blue.

Film has random grain

Digital is generally clean, and devoid of grain or noise. 

Film is designed to give specific color pallets without major manipulation

Digital is designed to be neutral for manipulation. 





If you want that "3D film look", than for christs sake just shoot film.


----------



## bhop (Apr 12, 2012)

galapagos1859 said:


> Yeah, you're right...
> 
> Let me ask you something about your film photos. Do you develop them yourself? What's the most difficult challenge when shooting film?



I develop myself, both color and b&w.  I scan with an epson v700 scanner which works ok for my standards.  I'd love to have a darkroom and make prints, but I just don't have the space.  The biggest challenge?  Well, the only thing that annoys me is when the light changes and I can't change my iso, but other than that, film shoots the same way as digital.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 12, 2012)

Film is organic and beautiful to shoot


----------



## Kolander (Apr 12, 2012)

galapagos1859 said:


> ...There's a "quality" in film photography that is not comparable to digital...


Have you ever printed a digital photography? I wonder if you could identify the digital and the film in a hundred pictures.


----------



## adichiru (Apr 12, 2012)

galapagos1859 said:


> I took this picture in a trip to Paris: http://i.imgur.com/t2r3t.jpg
> I really like it as a whole, but it's too digital. Too flat... no depth...
> (you're seeing the raw file, btw)
> 
> ...



The main difference here is in light. Total different light quality! Also, the one taken on film was most definitely processed too and don't forget you are actually looking at two digital images. The one initially captured on film was digitized at some point.....

I have been studying this difference between film and digital for a while too and I've used film for years and I still am, mostly for "fun" in a serious way.
I have even made these shots just, for my pleasure, to see how it goes: http://www.adichiru.com/blog/2011/12/Film-vs-Digital-once-more

The main difference is the fact that one is digital and one is analogue. The digital image at some point is "black or white" - 1 or 0 - there is no value between them. The analogue, in the same concept, is more silver halide crystals clustered together or less of them - however, if you want to dig deep enough you may find out how many crystals/area are in a certain tone within the gray scale (I never understood if there is a way to keep the silver halide crystals in one layer or not) - you probably know that even the color film is still black and white at some point.

However, these differences does NOT matter.
What does matter, ALWAYS, is to have quality LIGHT and FUN!


----------



## adichiru (Apr 12, 2012)

Kolander said:


> galapagos1859 said:
> 
> 
> > ...There's a "quality" in film photography that is not comparable to digital...
> ...



I can identify 80% of them as long as the digital ones are shot with Nikon and no PP and the film ones are with ektachrome or elitechrome and printed on light-sensitive photo paper directly not by digitizing them. And no black and white! 

If you look at them side by side there are differences that indicates quite clearly the film - hard to explain. If you don't have them side by side it almost impossible.


----------



## bhop (Apr 12, 2012)

Kolander said:


> galapagos1859 said:
> 
> 
> > ...There's a "quality" in film photography that is not comparable to digital...
> ...



I print both film and digital, I can usually tell a difference, but I think it also depends what film is used.  Some newer films look a lot like digital these days, when printed.  Those might be harder to spot.


----------

