# Film or digital?



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

That is the question.  These are either Ilford HP5 400 straight from lab OR digital file with VSCO edit.


----------



## mikemueller2112 (Jul 28, 2012)

Photos aren't showing up. "content protected by owner".


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

mikemueller2112 said:


> Photos aren't showing up. "content protected by owner".



#$!@#%!!@..  Ok fixed


----------



## Derrel (Jul 28, 2012)

The first and second photos have such a STRONG, distracting pattern on them...they look absolutely horrible, no matter what the process was. Same problem with shots 3,5,6,7,8, and 9...all those images also have a very obvious "pattern" to them when viewed at the maximum TPF viewing size on an Apple 30 inch Cinema Display monitor...they all look terrible. Low-resolution. And patterned. So, not quite sure if those are film or digital in origin, but I surely would never want to have my photos look like that on the web or in print.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

Derrel said:


> The first and second photos have such a STRONG, distracting pattern on them...they look absolutely horrible, no matter what the process was. Same problem with shots 3,5,6,7,8, and 9...all those images also have a very obvious "pattern" to them when viewed at the maximum TPF viewing size on an Apple 30 inch Cinema Display monitor...they all look terrible. Low-resolution. And patterned. So, not quite sure if those are film or digital in origin, but I surely would never want to have my photos look like that on the web or in print.



Pull that stick out of your derrel... seriously..  It is getting old.  All you do is bashing me.  Has anyone told you that you have multiple personalities?  What do you want me to do to make you take the test?  Send you the prints?  Send you high res?  Tell me.


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 28, 2012)

could be both. I am sure you can emulate film on digital so that you do not see the difference *if you do not know what the light was like.* The difference between Ilford FP4 and a digital sensor might become obvious if you have scene with a very wide dynamic range originally. In easy light conditions you probably cannot spot much of a difference.

Also, when you scan, a lot of the extra information in the ilford emulsion will get lost, and the grain will look more pronounced.

Anyway, what would the lab be good for if this was classic b&w film? So easy to develop the negatives


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

Alex_B said:


> could be both. I am sure you can emulate film on digital so that you do not see the difference *if you do not know what the light was like.* The difference between Ilford FP4 and a digital sensor might become obvious if you have scene with a very wide dynamic range originally. In easy light conditions you probably cannot spot much of a difference.
> 
> Also, when you scan, a lot of the extra information in the ilford emulsion will get lost, and the grain will look more pronounced.
> 
> Anyway, what would the lab be good for if this was classic b&w film? So easy to develop the negatives



Ill attempt it one of these days.  One step at a time!


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 28, 2012)

As Alex says ... your Film has been copied to a Digital image, so now we are not comparing apples to apples ... so I think a better comparison would be a print from a B&W neg vs. a print from a Monochrome Digital file.


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 28, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Ill attempt it one of these days.  One step at a time!



But you are aware of the fact that there is an almost infinite number of ways to process classic B&W film? The results will vary in terms of grain, gradients/contrast ... if you send the film to the lab you will always get the same, but maybe never what you want.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 28, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > The first and second photos have such a STRONG, distracting pattern on them...they look absolutely horrible, no matter what the process was. Same problem with shots 3,5,6,7,8, and 9...all those images also have a very obvious "pattern" to them when viewed at the maximum TPF viewing size on an Apple 30 inch Cinema Display monitor...they all look terrible. Low-resolution. And patterned. So, not quite sure if those are film or digital in origin, but I surely would never want to have my photos look like that on the web or in print.
> ...



I am not bashing you. Your images, as listed, look patterned on this Apple Cinema Display 30 inch monitor. The images shown look awful--on this monitor. No matter "how" you created them. I think you are deliberately trying to game the results. I took a couple of these images, #1 and #2, and cropped out the face section, and enlarged them 200 percent. The images are SO LOW REZ, and so bad, that it is pretty much impossible to even tell HOW they were made. I am not bashing you. I simply stated, the results look really BAD, and with samples that low-rez, with a horrible "patterned look" to them, it's hard to determine what the origin is...

How did you manage to make the images so poor? Is your daily monitor so poor that you can NOT see the pattern noise overlaying the images???????


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

What do you want me to do? TELL ME!  Save it at higher res?  It was my first roll ever. Josh recommended the film. I wanted some grain (not saying those 2 photos are either film or digital ).


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 28, 2012)

OMG! I love the dog on the can and the triplets on the blanket!  Almost makes me wish we had triplets instead of just one....ALMOST.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

dxqcanada said:


> As Alex says ... your Film has been copied to a Digital image, so now we are not comparing apples to apples ... so I think a better comparison would be a print from a B&W neg vs. a print from a Monochrome Digital file.


Ok... I'll print them.  When ate you guys coming to Denver?


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 28, 2012)

That is something for you to do ... if you seriously want to compare both mediums, then try to reduce the number of transformations equally ... and I think that may be the point that photographers who have used both are trying to convey.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

Don't know dxq, it is not like you are comparing one with print and the other one with digital. You look at both on same media.


----------



## BlackSheep (Jul 28, 2012)

I don't understand the question you mention in your OP - are you asking people to say which ones were shot on film and which were digital?  That would be hard to do with the photos posted, they are all low res and different shots. And there is a generation difference between the film vs the digital - the film is a scan of the neg, while the digital is not. Perhaps a better comparison would be to shoot the same subject at the same time with both film and digital, and then see what the difference is?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

Good point...  Maybe I'll shoot a static subject all same settings.


----------



## Corto (Jul 28, 2012)

Good compositions and beautiful kids.


----------



## timor (Aug 1, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Don't know dxq, it is not like you are comparing one with print and the other one with digital. You look at both on same media.


 The only practical medium you can make any comparison is the paper print as it is the ultimate goal of both systems of catching image. Do you want to compare them on the computer screen ? How about to be fair and make a drum scan from the film ?


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 3, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> I am not bashing you. Your images, as listed, look patterned on this Apple Cinema Display 30 inch monitor. The images shown look awful--on this monitor. No matter "how" you created them. I think you are deliberately trying to game the results. I took a couple of these images, #1 and #2, and cropped out the face section, and enlarged them 200 percent. The images are SO LOW REZ, and so bad, that it is pretty much impossible to even tell HOW they were made. I am not bashing you. I simply stated, the results look really BAD, and with samples that low-rez, with a horrible "patterned look" to them, it's hard to determine what the origin is...
> 
> How did you manage to make the images so poor?<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=15147"/><img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=15148"/> Is your daily monitor so poor that you can NOT see the pattern noise overlaying the images???????



That's a rather biased opinion, Darrel. I value 99% of your input. However, you cannot classify an image as "poor" just because of noise level. Clarity is not always key. It really depends on the type of look that the photographer (the OP in this case) is going for. I tend to like b&w's on the grainy side. It creates a vintage and raw feel to the image, regardless of whether the noise is processed or naturally occurring. I also like high contrast. It's a personal preference, but the people looking at my work also like it. So, if it appeals to the public, why does it matter if it was "processed poorly" in the eyes of Darrel on TPF? It doesn't.

I have learned in the past 2 months that a technically correct photograph is not always a good one. I have noticed in my work that the people purchasing them tend to go for the ones that have technical errors, than the ones that are by definition, composed perfectly (or as close ad possible).

People buy things off of emotion. Logic only goes so far in the deciding factor for the purchase or ownership of something. I have some imagery by Ansel Adams (not originals of course) that appear grainy and flat in the mid tones in portions of the images. So, are you implying that, by your current logic, that he developed poor photographs because of this? Because if you are, I can find a billion people that will agree that Ansel Adams is a better photographer than you or I could ever fathom of being.


----------



## terri (Aug 3, 2012)

I tend to agree with Derrel's points (though he could have taken a minute to make the points come across a little less harsh in tone).        That said, he is right IMO.    And I might add, Schwetty, that the images are also a bit flat (too much gray overall).    Again, it's impossible to say whether your negs are actually fine and you lost tonality when you scanned them and turned them into digital files, or whether the development was overdone.    There is no way to know.

That's why these kinds of comparisons fall rather flat on the web.    Give us 2 prints on a table, side by side under good light.    There is no question digital has come a long way in B&W conversions, but you have to know what you're doing.    90% of the B&W I see from digital shooters is pretty poor.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 3, 2012)

Terri,  

Some of these shots were from my first ROLL ever!  I tried film like a month ago.  Some of these photos (the film ones) are STRAIGHT from the lab high res scan.  So I did nothing but resizing the photo to fit the web.

What can I do so my images aren't flat?  This is the part im still not following because I took no involvement in the processing part.  Do I blame the lab? (pretty well known local non chain camera store) Do I blame the film?  Blame the camera? Blame my self?

And yes.. I have seen other members here post b&w film that are noisier.  No complain there.



terri said:


> I tend to agree with Derrel's points (though he could have taken a minute to make the points come across a little less harsh in tone).        That said, he is right IMO.    And I might add, Schwetty, that the images are also a bit flat (too much gray overall).    Again, it's impossible to say whether your negs are actually fine and you lost tonality when you scanned them and turned them into digital files, or whether the development was overdone.    There is no way to know.
> 
> That's why these kinds of comparisons fall rather flat on the web.    Give us 2 prints on a table, side by side under good light.    There is no question digital has come a long way in B&W conversions, but you have to know what you're doing.    90% of the B&W I see from digital shooters is pretty poor.


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 3, 2012)

I don't understand why everyone wants such deep blacks and bright whites in every photo.  I mean I get that contrast can be important.

But I don't see anything wrong with an image made up of entirely grey.  It just imparts a different mood.


----------



## terri (Aug 3, 2012)

You need to learn how to assess your negatives so that you can tell whether or not the lab is to blame.    Yes, it starts with your exposure.    For decades, many B&W shooters almost routinely used a light yellow filter to give the negatives some snap (yellow filter added some contrast), and that was when labs processes virtually everything.    Best immediate advice?   Get some more film and snap away.        Grab a notebook and write down the exposures (exposure log).    Shoot one scene with a yellow filter on, then re-assess the exposure, make a note, and shoot it again without the filter.    Do this for the whole roll, and send it to the same lab. 

Do you have a light box?    If not, invest $15-20 in a small one, because it's the best way to review your negs.    A good quality loupe will be more expensive, but there are cheap ones available and while you're learning you want to keep the costs down.   Lay the negs flat on the light box and get up close and personal with them. ​ It's cool!!    :razz:    Look at the grain as well as the tonal values.   You're probably familiar enough with the concept of tonal values - look for them from side to side, up and down.   You should see a range of whites, grays, and blacks.  

Your shots above have a veiled gray running throughout them, there is no real bright white or solid black - in other words, they're "flat".     But that doesn't mean your negatives are - it just means that's how they scanned, and you may have to play a bit in Photoshop with scanned negatives.     Use the contrast/brightness function.   Go wild with it so you can study the effects.    If the negs are indeed the problem, you won't get anywhere because the tonality isn't there to start with.     

Oh, and if your negatives have fingerprints on them, or dust and debris embedded in them - find another lab, or think about learning how to develop your own.    (We film geeks aren't just whistling Dixie here - it really IS an easy process, and you can do it at the kitchen sink.    I'm just sayin'.)    :mrgreen:

:chatty:    Sorry.   Does any of this sound helpful?    I just hate to see anyone beat themselves up over ONE single roll.


----------



## terri (Aug 3, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> I don't understand why everyone wants such deep blacks and bright whites in every photo.  I mean I get that contrast can be important.
> 
> But I don't see anything wrong with an image made up of entirely grey.  It just imparts a different mood.


Agreed, but it depends on subject matter, too.    This isn't a picture of the ocean where you'd expect a wide expanse of gray, he was shooting people.   Gray skin tones = ugh.


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 3, 2012)

terri said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why everyone wants such deep blacks and bright whites in every photo.  I mean I get that contrast can be important.
> ...



I understand what your saying but it seems that some people just expect every picture to have max contrast.

If you're trying to convey something peaceful or serene general contrast is not what you want.  It makes images look dynamic not calm and serene.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 3, 2012)

I have 2 more rolls.  One it is the same b&w film and the other one is a fuji tmax400?  I dont think ill shoot another roll after that.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 3, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> I don't understand why everyone wants such deep blacks and bright whites in every photo.  I mean I get that contrast can be important.
> 
> But I don't see anything wrong with an image made up of entirely grey.  It just imparts a different mood.



In the early 1980's I had a fine art photography professor who absolutely LOVED high-contrast B&W images, and really tried to get his students to go "down that path". I took multiple classes from him. HIs instruction focused on 1) ALWAYS using a tripod 2) Always SELLING (never giving away!) every image that people wanted and 3)Using HC-110 developer and 4)Printing on HARD, grade 4 fiber-based paper and 5)Never using on-camera flash and 6)Striving to create bold,strong, and HIGH-contrast images. 7)Printing ONLY on the multiple Leitz Focomat (very crisp-imaging, condenser-type) enlargers we had in the excellent darkroom he had created,and leaving the diffusion enlargers to rot. *Did I say this guy loved high-contrast images??? 
*
Okay, anywayyyyyy, I never did really buy into his love of extreme contrast. I recall one C&C, about the fifth one we had. He said, "You really do like working in this lovely gray-tones palette. You really do excel at that! And I like the way your choice of this light gray matte board makes your images look better than the white matte board I told you to buy." He then remarked on how I had been using the large banks of windows on the north side of the art labs as my main light source for my portraits. I felt pretty damned good about MY preference to go with my vision...long-scale images, shown on gray matte boards, not that god-awful white stuff he hyped so much. I think there is a lot of room for different well-done approaches to B&W photography. The key is the well-done part.

The take-away from this long reminiscing is that in B&W photography, viewing images against a WHITE field, as we do here on the TPF forum pages, makes photos with lots of gray tones look very muddy and ugly...the white "steals from" all images that have a lot of gray tones. Lower-contrast (ie, flat,muddy,etc) images look like utter rubbish when seen against white fields. And when the white is backside-illuminated, as it is on a computer monitor, the damage is even more extreme than it is when the image is printed. To those of us who have spent literally weeks and months planning, lighting, and shooting B&W film images, then painstakingly hand-processing the film, contact proofing the negatives, then hand-selecting each image, then printing it in a darkroom using the best tools and the best methods and the best photographic paper, and then mounting the prints on a heat seal press, then displaying series of prints in front of a class of 25 people for group C&C and then brutally honest professor C&C, in front of the entire group, half-hearted attempts to portray a 10-second pass of a digital software "effects" filter over a camera-developed Canon digital file as being "film-like" doesn't sit too well. Having 20+ years of B&W film obsession and tens of thousands of B&W exposures and devotion to the craft of B&W photography has made me a little bit less-than-accepting of "imitation" film effects.


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 3, 2012)

Fair enough.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 3, 2012)

Remember this thread?

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...3-do-these-look-like-they-were-shot-film.html


People said: "then shoot with film!"   "It needs to be grainier!" etc.


Now derrel is saying the grains look horrible.  ****... I should have stick with digital and make it look like film.  Because the thing is.. I shot the darn thing with film and apparently still look bad.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 3, 2012)

Schwetty let me speak frankly, okay? Are you so arrogant as to think that your very first roll of film would NOT look "bad"? Because, I can tell you from years' worth of film shooting experience, it takes a heck of a lot more than *ONE SINGLE ROLL* of chain-store-processed film to get past the "bad" stage. Were you expecting to be able to move from "bad" to accolades after *ONE SINGLE ROLL* of film?

Your understanding of how film works, how to shoot it, how to expose it, and how to process and then "present" the images still requires some WORK. Please, do not expect me to praise substandard technical quality B&W film photos just because the shots are of your adorable daughters. I spend a lot of time and effort and thought on my posts here at TPF and try to help all kinds of people with all kinds of problems, but the idea that one's *very FIRST-EVER *efforts are beyond reproach is not the kind of attitude I expect from the people who I try to offer help to. Please try and understand.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 3, 2012)

but they are STILL shot with film.  Sigh.  I am not going to be a film shooter.  I am done.. maybe finish this next roll and one other roll.  It didnt do anything to me.

So you are basically saying you cant tell if something is shot with film by a noob?  But you can tell if it is shot by someone who has experience with film?  This makes no sense at all.

I wasnt expecting praises for my 1st roll obviously.  I was just testing it out.


----------



## slackercruster (Aug 3, 2012)

What is VSCO?

They all look like film pretty much. But a few are a little flat. More dark gray and white not black and white. 

If some are dig, you must have put some PP grain on them.

Some have what looks like dust or spots in them. Did you put those in or are those the film ones?


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 3, 2012)

I really would advise you try developing the negatives yourself. Then you will feel the difference in the process, and you will realise how you can influence the outcome by the choice of film and developer, and dilutions ... It is a great fun field to explore.

And it is by far less complicated than it sounds!

You could try a panchromatic film, to get something really different. Or try IR.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 3, 2012)

Alex, I am not disagreeing with you at all.  Maybe I will, maybe I wont really get into film.  What I dont get is how much people think how stupid it is to process digital files to look like grainy film.  They also claim they can tell the difference on the computer screen which is apparently false.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...3-do-these-look-like-they-were-shot-film.html




Alex_B said:


> I really would advise you try developing the negatives yourself. Then you will feel the difference in the process, and you will realise how you can influence the outcome by the choice of film and developer, and dilutions ... It is a great fun field to explore.
> 
> And it is by far less complicated than it sounds!
> 
> You could try a panchromatic film, to get something really different. Or try IR.


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 3, 2012)

I have both digital and film cameras.  I just love film.  I like the cameras more, I like the shutter sound more,  I like the look more.

I am bad at both though.  I gotta a lot of room for improvement.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Alex, I am not disagreeing with you at all.  Maybe I will, maybe I wont really get into film.  What I dont get is how much people think how stupid it is to process digital files to look like grainy film.  They also claim they can tell the difference on the computer screen which is apparently false.
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...3-do-these-look-like-they-were-shot-film.html



Your stubborn refusal or inability to LISTEN and UNDERSTAND what multiple people have been telling you is annoying to me. NO, we can NOT tell the difference between HORRIBLE, low-rez images shot of film from those that have had a clownish "pattern" filter slapped over them. Your images in that thread were ALL so poor that their origins were not clear...put another way, the post you keep referring to had BAD digital images treated with software to look "like film", and some low-rez images from your first-ever roll of film--and ALL of the images looked equally bad. And experienced film shooters have tried to explain to you some of the finer points, but you continue to respond like an @@@. Even when we TRY and tell you things in the most polite manner. You CONTINUE, repeatedly, to refer back to another thread, and repeatedly fail to understand that BAD DIGITAL looks equally as BAD AS FILM that has been bungled by a beginner...why would anybody even try to differentiate between horrible this and horrible that? Your other post, the one you keep begging us to go back and visit was an example that was basically a useless exercise in you trying to prove some kind of "point"...


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Aug 3, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> The first and second photos have such a STRONG, distracting pattern on them...they look absolutely horrible, no matter what the process was. Same problem with shots 3,5,6,7,8, and 9...all those images also have a very obvious "pattern" to them when viewed at the maximum TPF viewing size on an Apple 30 inch Cinema Display monitor...they all look terrible. Low-resolution. And patterned. So, not quite sure if those are film or digital in origin, but I surely would never want to have my photos look like that on the web or in print.



Donkey's a$$ of the day award goes to.....

There really should be available banning for excessive rude, unnecessary and argumentative posts.

Completely uncalled for.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 3, 2012)

no derrel.. what you are telling me my shots with film look horrible (which I am not disagreeing) and that you cant tell the difference which one is shot with film.  Gah..  look at your self in the mirror.  Who is the stubborn one?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 3, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, but on my Cinema Display 30-inch monitor, the photos listed showed a VERY strong pattern effect that obscured the underlying images quite badly. Almost the way a screen-printed newspaper image is broken down into many fine dots, the VSCO software that was used applied a very coarse sort of "pattern" to the images in an effort to simulate film. My point was that the images ALL looked very bad. Low in resolution and low in acutance--so much so that there was no way to really determine the origins of the images. I'm sorry if plain-spoken, honest image review comments made while evaluating images critically on a big, professional-level computer monitor might differ from the visual impressions of quality made by those of somebody viewing on a laptop or a lower-resolution screen. I have SEEN MANY fine examples of high-resolution, bitingly sharp images Schwettylens has made with his two Canon 35mm/1.4-L and 135mm f/2 L-series Canon prime lenses, and I own the 135/2 L myself and I KNOW how BITINGLY crisp and SHARP its images are...and I KNOW he CAN make really sharp,crisp,clear images. But what he offered up was a sort of Instagram-like melange...WHY MIGHT THAT BE?

The images he posted look very unclear, very patterned, and just NOT suitable for ANY kind of serious "film or digital" comparison done with honest intent. And that my man, is the key. Fair and honest intent. The original images offered do not meet the standards of images that could be used in a fair,and honest, comparison or evaluation of either film or digital. Sorry to burst your bubble, but my comments were 1) honest and 2) fair. This is the grown-up world. To people viewing on laptops, the pics MIGHT have looked "like film". This is the second post Schwetty has done with the VSCO film simulation software: I will say it plain and simple jamesbjenkins: the VSCO film simulation looks are clownish and coarse,and look like garbage compared to Nik Silver Effects Pro, or any number of other DECENT software applications that try and simulate film. My comments are really an indictment of the software Schwetty used for his "comparison" post samples. He asked for comments. As an experienced film and digital shooter, I gave my comments. His comparison samples do not meet the criteria for a fair and honest evaluation of either film OR of digital origin determination.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 3, 2012)

My conclusion is... VSCO does a decent job emulating film look for web view.  For print... I am not sure but I am 99.9% sure my clients wouldn't know the difference.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 3, 2012)

your not going to get it right on your first film, what is the point of shooting digital and making it look like film


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 3, 2012)

gsgary said:


> your not going to get it right on your first film, what is the point of shooting digital and making it look like film



To get film look and cheaper?  That would be my guess.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 3, 2012)

Digital will never look like film, i have a bulk film loader if i didnt have a film camera i could buy one tomorrow for £20 and it will never need upgrading how much have you spent on digital


----------



## Derrel (Aug 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> My conclusion is... VSCO does a decent job emulating film look for web view.  For print... I am not sure but I am 99.9% sure my clients wouldn't know the difference.



So, you have shot exactly ONE ROLL of film, processed by a chain store, and now you tell us that VSCO does a decent job of emulating film. Sorry, but NO, it does a HORRIBLE job of emulating film. If you want to see what "fake film" looks like, then buy Nik Software's Silver Efex Pro 2. And then *see what GOOD film emulation looks like*. We saw your post last year on VSCO, and at that time, a year ago, I tried to describe why the shots you posted then looked absolutely NOTHING like film....as did Switch1FX,and other experienced film shooters. Your response then was similar to what it has been here in this thread. If you want to bring up a question among people with actual, vast experience, you must be prepared to be exposed to answers that are based on experience spanning decades. Not a single roll of film...

So, your customers would not know the difference? Perhaps not. But this is TPF, and you are dealing with people like me, and gsgary, and Terri, with probably 140 years' of collective film experience among the three of us--and repeatedly insisting on making us believe how "good" your VSCO film emulation software is??? Sorry, but it's showing very poorly in your examples.

The World's Leading Black and White Software


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 3, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > My conclusion is... VSCO does a decent job emulating film look for web view.  For print... I am not sure but I am 99.9% sure my clients wouldn't know the difference.
> ...



I think we can all appreciate the advice from experienced photographers, both film and digital, and especially those with experience in both. but really...whats with all "900 years experience" thing with people lately? I get it. we all do. there are people here with a vast wealth of knowledge and experience cultivated from many many years in the business. but people will either listen and benefit from that experience or they wont. bragging about how many years you've been doing something as a way of measuring skill or quality just sounds pretentious. you can lead a horse to water...


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 3, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > My conclusion is... VSCO does a decent job emulating film look for web view.  For print... I am not sure but I am 99.9% sure my clients wouldn't know the difference.
> ...



Okay, then* I TOOK YOUR ADVICE* and shot with film and compare them with THE FREAKING SAME VSCO filter i used a year ago!  Now you are blaming my film look bad.  Sigh.. whatever dude.

Seriously man... whatever I do, you complain.  I shot my first wedding, you complained (understandable).  My wedding stuff gets a ton better, you still complain.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 3, 2012)

Schweetylens,

Your VSCO software produces AWFUL results. Compare it against Nik SIlver Efex Pro 2. 

You posted this topic in the *Film Discussion and Q & A forum*. You are in over your head. Your 24- or 36-exposure roll of film's worth of experience means you have almost ZERO basis to evaluate how VSCO software "imitates" film. I said it one year ago here on TPF, and in a tgelephone converasartion with you one year ago--the software you are using is poor. It creates a very bad look that does not look at ALL like film. So, a year later, you shoot ONE ROLL of film. Then you come to the *Film Discussion and Q & A forum, *and you launch into a post in a subject which you have what? 36 exposure clicks' worth of experience in????

Your.Current.Software.Is.Awful.   Get.Better.Software.    Gain.More.Experience.    With.Film. And.With.Better.Film.Emulation.Software.

Why don't you start smart-mouthing to Terri? She knocked your images and supported my point of view earlier in this thread,and suggested that my points were valid, but that I might have better-stated them...so, I did a follow-up post and gave you some very VALUABLE advice,and a very reasoned explanation of why she, and I,and gsgary, are reacting to your post in a FILM-oriented sub-section on a photography forum. Why are you not mouthing off to HER???

And what is this "you took MY advice" BS??? You shot ONE ROLL OF FILM. My God. ONE Roll of film????? I never gave you any advice like, _Shoot a single roll of film, then try and see how good film can be_,or anything even remotely like that. Dude...you're really missing the point here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*GET SOME DECENT SOFTWARE if you want to try and FAKE film's various looks. 

I believe this forum has a guideline about not trying to create film veresus digital controversies, and your original post seems like little more than troll bait, designed to do precisely that. Troll bait.*


----------



## terri (Aug 3, 2012)

> you can lead a horse to water...​


Bingo.    

Schwetty, it's okay if you don't want to put a bunch of effort into learning how to shoot film.     For those who are accustomed to the digital workflow, film can be a head-scratcher - a time-consuming head-scratcher.     It just may not be worth it to you to invest your time and money trying to get good B&W negatives (from which good B&W prints will spring).     All I'm saying is, you have to go through several rolls and look at it yourself before you decide if it's good for you.    You wouldn't base any other choices on one single outcome, I don't think, so why would you with film?

I haven't seen the other thread that's getting referenced here, so can't comment.    

Derrel, I wish you wouldn't get so exasperated with a film beginner and let it show so blatantly.    He's feeling his way and asking for input - we were all there, once.   In this digital age he DOES have other choices, and those were different choices than you faced when you were in school.    So he is coming at it with a different mindset and is aware of his options.    

It's all good.    Let's be nice and laid back about this discussion, okay?    Different strokes, and all that.....if we were all the same it would be a boring old world.          Peace out.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 3, 2012)

Terri..  I am really not trying to be difficult. Film look is very nostalgic.  I dont have experience with it so I have no idea what "true" film is supposed to look like on the screen if it was scanned.  I am trying to imitate the film look with VSCO a few months ago.  The consensus was, they dont look anything like film.  A few people suggested that I should shoot try film.

Ok, so I bought the Ilford HP5 400, which is one of the presets that VSCO has.  Shot with it, developed it (yes of course I get comments about.. why dont you develop it your self??), paid for the high resolution scan.  Then I compared it with VSCO, processed some of my digital files with a single click with VSCO.  I adjusted the exposure a little bit.  With my eyes (the samples I put on page 1), they look fairly similar.

Then Derrel said the photos from the film look horrible.  I should master film first.  I wish I master film photography but I dont.  I know it will take a long time to truly understand film.  I have no intention at this moment to explore it further other than paying someone to develop it for me.  

This is what an experienced film wedding photographers told me what he liked about the old days shooting weddings.  He shot the weddings, drop off the film at the labs, done.  No need to process anything in front of the camera.  He did not process his own film.

You do understand that this is a big step for me just trying to see comparison of film and vsco?  When I just used digital file and processed with VSCO, people shut me down and said it is not even close.  VSCO is horrible (i am not associated with this company btw), blah blah.  SO I got my self a film camera, bought the film that VSCO has on one of the filters.. what is the result?  People still shut me down.  Can't even have a good conversation and blamed the processing and my exposure on the film all wrong.  Do you know how frustrating that is?

I still have another roll of color film.  I will do the same test again.  I wish people would just take the test and give me the answer instead of just keep blaming something else.  Ill even invite you guys in colorado to come over and look at 8x12 prints if you want.


----------



## Fred Berg (Aug 3, 2012)

Schwetty, to get to know film is like being in a marriage. First you fall in love and the passion is strong and pulsating through every atom in your being. You know this is it and you want to be together, always. Then, at some point, you find yourself getting into a routine (a rut sometimes) and you slowly get to know the object of your earlier desires, really get to know about the faults as well as the good things. At times you catch yourself wondering what it was that attracted you in the first place, but you know that walking away isn't an option because you've invested too much of your heart and soul. You work at it and it becomes more and more rewarding as you learn and discover things that you never imagined could be so. You realise that you want to grow old together and be together, always.

You can't try something like this and decide after one or two rolls that it isn't for you. You already knew it wasn't for you before starting if this is how you feel about it. Your heart isn't in it and there's no shame in that. If digital is your thing, stick with it.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 3, 2012)

Fred Berg said:


> Schwetty, to get to know film is like being in a marriage. First you fall in love and the passion is strong and pulsating through every atom in your being. You know this is it and you want to be together, always. Then, at some point, you find yourself getting into a routine (a rut sometimes) and you slowly get to know the object of your earlier desires, really get to know about the faults as well as the good things. At times you catch yourself wondering what it was that attracted you in the first place, but you know that walking away isn't an option because you've invested too much of your heart and soul. You work at it and it becomes more and more rewarding as you learn and discover things that you never imagined could be so. You realise that you want to grow old together and be together, always.
> 
> You can't try something like this and decide after one or two rolls that it isn't for you. You already knew it wasn't for you before starting if this is how you feel about it. Your heart isn't in it and there's no shame in that. If digital is your thing, stick with it.



Fred, obviously I am in love with film since I am trying to imitate film with my digital files.  The whole reason I do this is to mimic film with my digital files.  Maybe you missed that part.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 3, 2012)

I go out to the pub every Friday and Saturday night so can everyone not post until i get back


----------



## terri (Aug 3, 2012)

> Terri.. I am really not trying to be difficult.


I didn't think you were.      Not even for a second, so don't sweat it....k?   I honestly appreciate that you are wanting to give it a try because you like the look of film.   I just think screwing around with the software while working with film is sort of...contraindicated.    

But, it doesn't matter.   Fred said it best: if you want to make a commitment to it, then shoot more.   If not, stick with what you know.   That's cool, too.   I can't even speak to this software that you've mentioned, I'm just analog through and through.       For me, it simplifies things....but for you, seems like film is complicating things.    Again: different strokes, right?

If I may....one more tidbit: if you want to shoot more film, I'd stick with the HP 400 and shoot the crap out of it and learn how to look at your negs.   Don't worry about processing, especially if you are happy with your lab (clean negs, etc.)    But don't get all caught up with comparing a questionable piece of software with actual negatives.   It's kind of wasted effort.   If you like your scanned negs, then you'll be happier when you shoot film.   Keep it simple.    Ignore all naysayers: this is YOUR journey.   Don't hesitate to post more results and ask lots of questions, if you shoot more.   You'll find lots of support here.


----------



## Fred Berg (Aug 4, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > Schwetty, to get to know film is like being in a marriage. First you fall in love and the passion is strong and pulsating through every atom in your being. You know this is it and you want to be together, always. Then, at some point, you find yourself getting into a routine (a rut sometimes) and you slowly get to know the object of your earlier desires, really get to know about the faults as well as the good things. At times you catch yourself wondering what it was that attracted you in the first place, but you know that walking away isn't an option because you've invested too much of your heart and soul. You work at it and it becomes more and more rewarding as you learn and discover things that you never imagined could be so. You realise that you want to grow old together and be together, always.
> ...



_Imitate_ and _mimic _aren't terms readily associated with *love*, though, are they? Maybe you missed that part.


----------



## Chris R (Aug 4, 2012)

I never understood why people try to mimic film when they could just save a lot of time and money shooting actual film.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 4, 2012)

page 4.. still nobody is guessing...


----------



## Chris R (Aug 4, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> page 4.. still nobody is guessing...



Do I win a prize if I guess correctly?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 4, 2012)

Sure. $5 PayPal


----------



## Arpeggio9 (Aug 4, 2012)

4,5,6,7,10 Film


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 4, 2012)

Chris R said:
			
		

> I never understood why people try to mimic film when they could just save a lot of time and money shooting actual film.



How do you save time and money shooting film when it takes more time and money every time you shoot film? I hope you understand the lack of sense this makes.


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 4, 2012)

I don't understand why people compare the cost of film vs digital.  They both cost money.  Decide which one you like and do it.  Or if you are fortunate enough do both.

Its simple.


----------



## Chris R (Aug 4, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Chris R said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm saying you save time and money by shooting film _if_ your goal is to achieve the look of film... Lets say you shoot weddings and you enjoy "the look" of film and always attempt to make your photos appear as though they were shot analog... As a digital shooter you need to: shoot, transfer, load all your images into software + plugins, and potentially spend countless hours post processing all of your photos just to "look" like film. As a analog shooter you need to: shoot, drop off at the lab, and a few days later you have your "film look."

I'll still go ahead and say that my 35mm film shooting is way cheaper than digital. I say this because 35mm cameras are dirt cheap and I can "pay as I shoot" with them. With a DSLR you need to fork out all your money up front... My 35mm camera investment was under $200 and I spend about $150 a year on film/processing... That means I could shoot film for over a decade and still not have spent as much money as I would have buying a full frame DSLR body.


----------



## Chris R (Aug 4, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Sure. $5 PayPal



1, 5, 9, 10 film.

Actually, I'm going to take sides and say it's simply impossible to tell. Anyone that claims they can tell the difference when both are in a digital format is lying. There are just way too many variables and the digital has a clear advantage as it's in it's "native" world.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 4, 2012)

Chris R said:
			
		

> I'm saying you save time and money by shooting film if your goal is to achieve the look of film... Lets say you shoot weddings and you enjoy "the look" of film and always attempt to make your photos appear as though they were shot analog... As a digital shooter you need to: shoot, transfer, load all your images into software + plugins, and potentially spend countless hours post processing all of your photos just to "look" like film. As a analog shooter you need to: shoot, drop off at the lab, and a few days later you have your "film look."



I can shoot digital and have film emulation done the same day, and for no additional cost other than the price of the software. You shoot 15 rolls of film, plus processing fees, and the software has paid for itself. How is that not faster and less expensive?



> I'll still go ahead and say that my 35mm film shooting is way cheaper than digital. I say this because 35mm cameras are dirt cheap and I can "pay as I shoot" with them. With a DSLR you need to fork out all your money up front... My 35mm camera investment was under $200 and I spend about $150 a year on film/processing... That means I could shoot film for over a decade and still not have spent as much money as I would have buying a full frame DSLR body.



Not really, you could easily have paid for a used canon 5D and a 50/1.4 for 6 years of just film cost. 4 years it you factor in equipment. My 5D is 6 years old and still going strong.


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 4, 2012)

Once again...who cares?

Those who like shooting film don't do it primarily because its cheaper.

They do it because they like it.

Why are you trying to justify the cost of your equipment?


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 4, 2012)

JAC526 said:
			
		

> Once again...who cares?
> 
> Those who like shooting film don't do it primarily because its cheaper.
> 
> ...



Why do you dislike discussion?


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 4, 2012)

I don't like discussion that has no point.

You paid money for your gear that happens to be digital.  Someone else paid money for their gear that happens to be film.

What is the point?  And who does photography for the sole purpose of being cheap?

The discussion makes no sense to me.


----------



## bhop (Aug 4, 2012)

FWIW, I like shooting film *just because*.. I realize it costs me more in the long run, but it's worth it to me.  I just spent around $60 on film today that sure won't last a year...  It's easier for me because once I develop and scan my film (myself), it already looks how I want it to look.  It's more enjoyable to have a book full of negatives than a hard drive full of thumbnails.  Plus I like the feel in my hand of old manual cameras.  Nobody makes a manual digital camera except Leica, and I can't afford an M9.  There are probably more reasons, but those are enough.

Some people like digital more, nothing wrong with that either.. who cares really, how an image is made if it's a good image?

and as far as the original images.. I can't tell..


----------



## Chris R (Aug 4, 2012)

what I'm trying to say if that if you're a photographer that likes the look of film, there is no point to not shoot film. There are always exceptions here but generally speaking to achieve a digital photo that has a film-like appearance you need a camera, computer, software, time. To achieve the authentic appearance of film you simply need a film camera and a lab (or do it yourself with minimal investment/time).  

Basically what I'm saying is why "fake the funk" when you can get the real deal so easily/cheaply?


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 5, 2012)

Chris R said:
			
		

> Basically what I'm saying is why "fake the funk" when you can get the real deal so easily/cheaply?



Because its not as easy or fast and is more costly in the long run to shoot film as I have pointed out?


----------



## amolitor (Aug 5, 2012)

I'm not sure I even believe in "the look of film", whatever that would even be. Film and digital certainly FAIL in distinctive ways, but when the failure modes don't figure, there's just not enough different to tell.

Yes, yes, I know, the tonal curve, the toe, the mid-tones, blah blah blah. The variations between films (wide) and the variations in the way you handle a digital file (insanely wide) overlap more than they differ.

I shoot film because I have a darkroom, I know how to use it, and I enjoy getting my fingers wet.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 5, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Because its not as easy or fast and is more costly in the long run to shoot film as I have pointed out?



I can have a roll of 35mm ready to scan in less than 30 minutes of getting home, my M4 will never need upgrading because it is out of date nor will my C330 i can see myself going total film in the next year


----------



## gsgary (Aug 5, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Because its not as easy or fast and is more costly in the long run to shoot film as I have pointed out?



Get a bulk loader and it can be less than £2 a roll if you have friends that keep giving you  film that is a bit out of date it costs next to nothing, i'm becoming disillusioned with throw away digital in the end you have nothing physical


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 5, 2012)

gsgary said:
			
		

> I can have a roll of 35mm ready to scan in less than 30 minutes of getting home, my M4 will never need upgrading because it is out of date nor will my C330 i can see myself going total film in the next year



It takes you a minute per exposure to get your film ready to scan, where it takes 3 minutes for all  the shots with digital. There is nothing faster about film.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 5, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> It takes you a minute per exposure to get your film ready to scan, where it takes 3 minutes for all  the shots with digital. There is nothing faster about film.



Is that because you throw 80% away shooting the same thing 10 times


----------



## gsgary (Aug 5, 2012)

cmddasds0 said:
			
		

> m looking to see if I can trade the following with anyone. I have some Nikon stuff in which I would like to trade for Canon gear. Here is my stuff I would like to try n trade if possible. I can only do all. I can part this out but I have to cover each item. Here is the list.
> Trade Nikon D5100 + 18-55 kit for Canon T3i + 18-55 kit
> Trade Nikon 35 f1.8 and a Nikon 50 f1.8 D for Canon 50 f1.4



WTF has this got to do with film or digital


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 5, 2012)

gsgary said:
			
		

> Is that because you throw 80% away shooting the same thing 10 times



No it's because you don't have to wait and jack off in a dark room. What don't you get about it? You could shoot a roll of 32 images, and I could shoot 300 on digital and still have them as workable files faster than you can. 

You've shot digital, don't be intentionally ignorant.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 5, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> No it's because you don't have to wait and jack off in a dark room. What don't you get about it? You could shoot a roll of 32 images, and I could shoot 300 on digital and still have them as workable files faster than you can.
> 
> You've shot digital, don't be intentionally ignorant.



who cares it is not as rewarding


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 5, 2012)

gsgary said:
			
		

> wbo cares it is not as rewarding



In your opinion. 

So you can't argue that film costs more in the long run, and takes more time. So the summation of your argument is "who cares [opinion]." 

So in that case, which photos are digital and which are film that Schwetty posted?


----------



## amolitor (Aug 5, 2012)

Arguing about what's cheaper or easier is just plain stupid. There's corner cases in both directions, but at the end of the day it's a time consuming and expensive hobby. Who cares if my per image shot is 50 cents less than yours? I'm using a $3000 DSLR (actually, I am not, but let's pretend). Who cares if I can get my files printed, on average, in 22 minutes less than you can print your film, we're both spending between 1 and 12 hours trying to get the image right, aren't we?

Trying to rationalize your choices with price or simplicity is dumb. The variability in the process either way completely dwarfs any savings one way or the other, so it's just endless bickering.

If it's a hobby, who gives a crap?

If it's a profession, well, god help you.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 5, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



SOMEONE please figure this out..or Schwetty needs to just tell us. I am curious now as to which is film and which is digital.  they all look like film to me, but ive never shot film so...I do not want to imply ANY working knowledge on this subject, or as to what good film, bad film, or a digital attempt should really look like. im just saying they all look filmy to me.


----------



## Arpeggio9 (Aug 5, 2012)

There is more to film than adding grain structure and changing tonality of a digital sensor file via software. Film emulsion has an actual depth to it. It's 3D... It's a very thin layer of depth, but when enlarged via print or scan to 2D, it makes a difference with how various elements in the photo relate to each-other and how they fit in. If I am not mistaken, digital sensor is more or less flat compared to film emulsion. Besides that, film is smooth instead of pixelised. Digi sensors with more pixels make that less noticeable, but it's still not smooth and random like film emulsion is... Overall, they are 2 very different mediums in regards to how each interprets the light and one is closer to how we perceive the light because it's slightly 3D.

Film is an emulation of how our eyes see the light and it falls short because it eliminates a whole lot of depth, but it's convenient in a way that it captures the moment so we can see it in the future. Digital is an emulation of film and it falls short because it eliminates that extra dimension that film has, but it's very versatile and convenient in 2D because that's all it has.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 5, 2012)

Except the Foveon sensors, which ARE 3D! They're probably even better than film, because they're thicker.


----------



## Arpeggio9 (Aug 5, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Except the Foveon sensors, which ARE 3D! They're probably even better than film, because they're thicker.



I meant 3D as in thickness of emulsion. Foveon is 3 separate color sensors. Negative color film has 3 layers of emulsion. 

Anyways, here is a flickr Foveon sensor group, so judge for your self.


----------



## terri (Aug 5, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll step in here (again) and spoil your fun by reminding you of TPF's guidelines about turning discussions into film v. digital debates:

_* No digital vs. traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated. _


You are continuing to push the discussion into an area that has nothing to do with what the OP is talking about.    Please stop.

We can all agree that "photography" is a hobby that costs the user, regardless of whether that user chases every digital upgrade, software program, printer, ink cartridges, inkjet paper, or film and processing costs - none of it is free.     The end result has to make the photographer happy, and he has to feel whatever he is spending his money on is worth it to him.    No one has to justify their choices to anyone else, which is why these debates aren't allowed.    They are meaningless.

Thanks....carry on.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 5, 2012)

terri said:
			
		

> I'll step in here (again) and spoil your fun by reminding you of TPF's guidelines about turning discussions into film v. digital debates:
> 
> * No digital vs. traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated.
> 
> ...



I am trying to steer the thread back in the right direction, hence the last sentence in my post. I would really like to know Gary's guesses on what Schwetty originally posted.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 5, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1,2,5,9


----------



## skyy38 (Dec 29, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > JAC526 said:
> ...



Tell me what you think of this:

Old Growth 1904 524 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------

