What is a "film look" ????

[tonylim]

I have heard people talking about "film look" photo in the digital era but never given must thoughts about what is "film look". I've found this discussion in DP review is very interesting which I lik to share:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=25282277&page=1

 

[Dream Merchant]

The grass is alway greener syndrome. Or, you only appreciate something when you don't have it anymore! LOLZ!

 

[2.8photography]

there really is a great diff bet film and digital. of course, i use totally digital nowadays cos i just find it so much easier (and dun have a lens for my dad's film slr)

there's just a more '3D' feel to the pic, and it looks nice and rustic, even if scanned in. of course many argue that film captures the 'actual' image, while digital is just a 'representation' of the actual image with RGB. im not too sure if theres much difference there

of course the most significant would be black and white film. thats real black and white (or greyscale, rather), compared to converting a pic in photoshop or any other software

 

[vince123123]

If people want to reduce a process to its lowest parts, nothing would make any sense. If pple say that digital is a representation of the actual image with RGB, then film is merely a representation of the actual image with halide crystals.

there really is a great diff bet film and digital. of course, i use totally digital nowadays cos i just find it so much easier (and dun have a lens for my dad's film slr)

there's just a more '3D' feel to the pic, and it looks nice and rustic, even if scanned in. of course many argue that film captures the 'actual' image, while digital is just a 'representation' of the actual image with RGB. im not too sure if theres much difference there

of course the most significant would be black and white film. thats real black and white (or greyscale, rather), compared to converting a pic in photoshop or any other software

 

[Anjinnete Ross]

I believe a better way to see if there is a difference between film and digital is to look at the prints. Not the images on the computer screen.

Not a question of "which is better", but what is the difference, and if the "difference" matters if there is indeed a "difference".

 

[2.8photography]

If people want to reduce a process to its lowest parts, nothing would make any sense. If pple say that digital is a representation of the actual image with RGB, then film is merely a representation of the actual image with halide crystals.

haha yeah. totally agree

thats wat some pros say (wont mention who) though. film is basically a chemical reaction thingy when the film is exposed to light (some parts) so dun see wats so 'actual' abt thats

 

[LittleWolf]

there really is a great diff bet film and digital. of course, i use totally digital nowadays cos i just find it so much easier

The "so much easier" is IMHO the greatest difference between film and solid-state electronic sensors. Now, film certainly has some peculiar characteristics of its own. These characteristics fall mostly into the category "artefact". But many years of being conditioned to what film looks like may mean that something else, even if it were objectively better, may look "wrong" (unless you add some of the artefacts back).

But expectations change. Digital images have been more the norm than the exception in many areas. Looking back at some "great" pictures in older issues of e.g. National Geographic, they don't look so great anymore to me than they once did - often very grainy, unnatural colour reproduction, etc.

of course the most significant would be black and white film. thats real black and white (or greyscale, rather), compared to converting a pic in photoshop or any other software

I don't see how either one is any more "real" than the other. I suspect that some oldtimers say "real" when they mean "traditional", as in a digital image is not a "real" photo. At this point it boils down to whether you define photography via a specific process (silver bromide gelatin) or not. The underlying process has changed many times in the history of photography; to a Daguerrotype or Kalotype fan, 20th century film images may not be the "real" thing either.

 

[Ah Pao]

For one thing, (negative) film still has greater dynamic range compared to digital sensors, although I think it's less of an issue today. Digital sensors are probably closer to reversal film in terms of dynamic range and color gradation. That probably explains the so-called "3D" look of film since you have virtually no 'color banding' problems.

Even then, when you compare slide film to digital, the real difference is when you project it onto a big screen - slides wins hands down in color reproduction and resolution. I always feel a sense of 'shiokness' when I look at my slides through the loupe...but alas, getting lazier to shoot in slide nowadays. All stored in the freezer...

 

[lsisaxon]

If people want to reduce a process to its lowest parts, nothing would make any sense. If pple say that digital is a representation of the actual image with RGB, then film is merely a representation of the actual image with halide crystals.

Worse... when you shoot negatives, it's a double process.. It's a representation of a representation of the actual image. Each has it's own non-linear response curve. At least for digital, the dynamic response can be mapped and calibrated. What can be a better representation of the real thing?

25 years back, people were arguing about the same thing.. vinyls vs CDs.

 

[Yatlapball]

:bsmilie: You are really funny :bsmilie:

Ah Pao: When you're talking about projecting onto the big screen, the main problem here is that digital projectors aren't up to the mark right?

 

[lsisaxon]

:bsmilie: You are really funny :bsmilie:

Ah Pao: When you're talking about projecting onto the big screen, the main problem here is that digital projectors aren't up to the mark right?

Use 9 or 16 XGA projectors to form the entire high resolution image. ;p

 

[Ah Pao]

Worse... when you shoot negatives, it's a double process.. It's a representation of a representation of the actual image. Each has it's own non-linear response curve. At least for digital, the dynamic response can be mapped and calibrated. What can be a better representation of the real thing?

25 years back, people were arguing about the same thing.. vinyls vs CDs.

Haha, sometimes a totally accurate representation may not be what we want. What we remember with our mind's eye may not be what the camera has recorded. However, with digital, the control of adjustment has been moved from the lab tech to the photographer. There's less ambiguity involved.

There's a multitude of factors affecting the final output, so unless you're learning photography as hard science instead of an art, just learn to accept its strengths and shortcomings - and enjoy it! Each medium has its own merits.

Ah Pao: When you're talking about projecting onto the big screen, the main problem here is that digital projectors aren't up to the mark right?

Yeap...unfortunately digital projectors still have obvious pixels that can be seen. Perhaps the 2K/4K digital projectors used in cinemas can help?