• The Canon Rumors Forum has officially been shut down as of July 10, 2026.

    All data will be deleted on September 16, 2026.

    the ad free experience will return by July 17, 2026.

Film is still hard to beat

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
I

itsnotmeyouknow

Mar 21, 2012
243
0
6,606
#1
While my Pentax 645D is in Tokyo being repaired, I gave my 645 lenses a workout in Korea with a few different kinds of film. I don't believe that digital is YET able to completely replicate the effect.

Got some film developed and scanned at 15mp in Seoul for the princely sum of £4 each film (about $6). These are from a trip to an island about 80km from Seoul except one from Seoul itself

Pentax 645N FA 45 - 85 at 45mm and f/16 1/60 Kodak Ektra 100


what-a-lot-of-statues!-Ektra by singingsnapper, on Flickr

Pentax 645N FA 45-85 at 50mm f/11 1/160 Fuji Reala 100


Buddha-with-ice-cream-Reala by singingsnapper, on Flickr

and the one from the streets of Seoul

Pentax 645N FA 45 - 55 at 45mm 1/160 f/11 Kodak Ektra 100


Looking-down-the-road-in-Gangnam by singingsnapper, on Flickr
 
#2
Nice!

I love film as well, and would agree that it is hard to replicate the look of film effectively, and probably wont be able to for some time. I use a few rolls of film in my Rolleiflex every know and then and often like they way they look over my digital stuff, it just looks so much cooler, and has more character.

Andy
 
Upvote 0
#4
You assume that digital is striving to be like film? Why would you assume that?

The feel is nothing but nostalgia, and is as such useful for anything else than recreating a certain feeling.

Digital is its own... Otherwise you might take the step further and say that a Kodak film anno 2012 is not quite achieving what the old camera obscuras could achieve.

If you want the film look by all means go ahead, but film is not hard to beat... it's been beat years ago. Both in pixel count terms and qualitywise.
Besides digital is far more efficient to one's workflow and you have photoshop to help you make what ever look you want. Don't try to make digital into film or compare it to eachother... there's absolutely no point.
 
Upvote 0
#7
leGreve said:
You assume that digital is striving to be like film? Why would you assume that?

The feel is nothing but nostalgia, and is as such useful for anything else than recreating a certain feeling.

Digital is its own... Otherwise you might take the step further and say that a Kodak film anno 2012 is not quite achieving what the old camera obscuras could achieve.

If you want the film look by all means go ahead, but film is not hard to beat... it's been beat years ago. Both in pixel count terms and qualitywise.
Besides digital is far more efficient to one's workflow and you have photoshop to help you make what ever look you want. Don't try to make digital into film or compare it to eachother... there's absolutely no point.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. How much detail can be resolved on film depends on many things. Size of frame and type of film. For example, ilford Pan 50 can outresolve many Digital cameras in its 120 format. Shooting film also forces you to consider more before you shoot. I use many platforms, from 6 x 7 based film, 645 film and 35mm digital and MF digital. Film has more variation in its colour forms. If you use Velvia 50 it will be very different from other colour films. Velvia is very difficult to work with and I love the look of the Reala 100 which is much more forgiving. Ektra 100 is also excellent. Digital can seem one dimensional in comparison. With film you can give a very different look without it looking over processed.
 
Upvote 0
#9
.
I believe leGreve's incisive comments are dead-on. And you probably shouldn't take umbrage when your spade is called a spade.

If you did not intend to frame the whole thing comparatively and as a competition, you would have titled the thread something like "Sometimes I Like Flim Too." Believe it or not, everything in the world is not a win/lose proposition.

I like to read books. Sometimes I read them on an e-reader, sometimes on paper. Neither one "beats" the other.



itsnotmeyouknow said:
leGreve said:
You assume that digital is striving to be like film? Why would you assume that?

The feel is nothing but nostalgia, and is as such useful for anything else than recreating a certain feeling.

Digital is its own... Otherwise you might take the step further and say that a Kodak film anno 2012 is not quite achieving what the old camera obscuras could achieve.

If you want the film look by all means go ahead, but film is not hard to beat... it's been beat years ago. Both in pixel count terms and qualitywise.
Besides digital is far more efficient to one's workflow and you have photoshop to help you make what ever look you want. Don't try to make digital into film or compare it to eachother... there's absolutely no point.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. How much detail can be resolved on film depends on many things. Size of frame and type of film. For example, ilford Pan 50 can outresolve many Digital cameras in its 120 format. Shooting film also forces you to consider more before you shoot. I use many platforms, from 6 x 7 based film, 645 film and 35mm digital and MF digital. Film has more variation in its colour forms. If you use Velvia 50 it will be very different from other colour films. Velvia is very difficult to work with and I love the look of the Reala 100 which is much more forgiving. Ektra 100 is also excellent. Digital can seem one dimensional in comparison. With film you can give a very different look without it looking over processed.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
#10
I gave up film long ago because of the cost - never going back. I can buy a new lens in what it would cost in film and development to shoot a vacation, never mind the time and hassle factor.

Your images are nice, and they're just being transmitted over the web, but I don't see anything special that can't be done in digital. If anything what I notice is that film blobby/softie look, I'm glad I don't have to take shots like that anymore.
 
Upvote 0
#11
(Disclaimer: never used film myself)

It seems to me that different types of film often are made to achieve a specific look, be it high contrast, tinted colors etc. Digital raw files may often look a bit bland, but they are a good starting point for post-production.

May it be that film lovers are sometimes comparing film to unprocessed digital files?

I cannot see anything in the OPs pictures that is not easily achieved in PP with digital files. E.g. tint the grey balance towards red to achieve the warm asphalt.
 
Upvote 0
#12
I think essentially film and digital are different mediums and I use both. I don't see the point in trying to make digital look like film or vice versa. The sad thing in photography these days is the obsession with over sharpening and pixel peeping. It's like auto tune in music. It might make it 'in tune' technically but you lose the whole point of it when you try and over analyse and look at too close a level. I think it also helps us to be less tolerant of other opinions as it makes us more tribal as everything is specs based
 
Upvote 0
#13
I use both film and digital, I like both for different reasons.

For someone with a good digital picture to start with and who is skilled in PP can make it look like any film stock.

Digital is great, I can blast off a 100 shots of my kids with no cost and pick the good ones out later. I can have the results now and easily share them with anyone. It's also great for pros who shot thousands and thousands of shots.

I like film because I enjoy the art/craft nature of it (by no means saying there is not art in using digital) I like slow methodic approach it makes me take. I like the surprise of not knowing what my images will be until I develop them. I also enjoy playing with old cameras.

Just as cameras still don't stop people from painting, I don't think digital will ever totally kill off film, there my just be far fewer film stocks available.
 
Upvote 0
#14
mws said:
I use both film and digital, I like both for different reasons.

For someone with a good digital picture to start with and who is skilled in PP can make it look like any film stock.

Digital is great, I can blast off a 100 shots of my kids with no cost and pick the good ones out later. I can have the results now and easily share them with anyone. It's also great for pros who shot thousands and thousands of shots.

I like film because I enjoy the art/craft nature of it (by no means saying there is not art in using digital) I like slow methodic approach it makes me take. I like the surprise of not knowing what my images will be until I develop them. I also enjoy playing with old cameras.

Just as cameras still don't stop people from painting, I don't think digital will ever totally kill off film, there my just be far fewer film stocks available.
Click to expand...

I really appreciate the difference in methodical approach between film and digital. On a similar note, most of the music I listen too comes off vinyl records..
 
Upvote 0
#16
Yup... film is still my favorite

5356464560_f46a54d63a_b.jpg


But with medium format cameras like this...

fuji-680-2.jpg
 
Upvote 0
#17
@Kamera Obscura

No it's a digital scan of an analogue image, much like that of a cameras jpeg / raw, a digital sampling of an anlogue source (the primary photoelectronic process is an analogue one)

The only real differences in terms of the file are the effect that film grain has on detail, versus the effect that square regular pixels have on detail (no moire) the superior dynamic range on most properly scanned film images, true 16bit sample depth (rather than upsampled 14bit) and the fact that if you scan a slide of 35mm film at, say the 40MP that my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 manages, that you have 40mp of green, 40mp of red and 40mp of blue detail being scanned, rather than a vastly upsampled bayer image with all its guess work.

So it's not film. But if it matters, done properly it's better - mostly for quality reasons - than the images from your DSLR.

Of course, for most users, me included, the immediacy of digital is far more user friendly, less expensive in consumable costs, and less hassle. When I shoot speedway motorbikes I'm glad my card holds 2'000 images, and that I can shoot 8fps with some abandon.

Maybe some day DSLRs will catch up with film for quality, for most real world users, DSLRs are better, but they aren't quite there yet, and it's not all about pixels....

I haven't sold my EOS 3 yet for a few reasons (resale value, chromagenic mono film, the ECF AF)
 
Upvote 0
#19
paul13walnut5 said:
@Kamera Obscura

No it's a digital scan of an analogue image, much like that of a cameras jpeg / raw, a digital sampling of an anlogue source (the primary photoelectronic process is an analogue one)

The only real differences in terms of the file are the effect that film grain has on detail, versus the effect that square regular pixels have on detail (no moire) the superior dynamic range on most properly scanned film images, true 16bit sample depth (rather than upsampled 14bit) and the fact that if you scan a slide of 35mm film at, say the 40MP that my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 manages, that you have 40mp of green, 40mp of red and 40mp of blue detail being scanned, rather than a vastly upsampled bayer image with all its guess work.

So it's not film. But if it matters, done properly it's better - mostly for quality reasons - than the images from your DSLR.

Of course, for most users, me included, the immediacy of digital is far more user friendly, less expensive in consumable costs, and less hassle. When I shoot speedway motorbikes I'm glad my card holds 2'000 images, and that I can shoot 8fps with some abandon.

Maybe some day DSLRs will catch up with film for quality, for most real world users, DSLRs are better, but they aren't quite there yet, and it's not all about pixels....

I haven't sold my EOS 3 yet for a few reasons (resale value, chromagenic mono film, the ECF AF)
Click to expand...

Great post. I did very little with the images in post, I just used a very small amount of USM with a small radius. For me the saturation and colour of film is something that shines straight from the scan without any need to change the saturation level at all. The green sign wasn't actually as deep and dark as that and my 5Dmk III recorded it more accurately colourwise. But I don't always want simply a record of what I see. Sometimes I want to capture something. Sometimes, but not necessarily always, film is the one way of capturing something. Different types of film will record it differently. Kodak Ektra will record very differently to Portra. And that's before you edit it in post.

If you look at it as consumables, when you buy a digital camera, you are paying for your film up front. Like film, generally the more you pay, the better quality "film" you get. I didn't intend to say that film was better than digital. Each has its advantages. For me, film captures something that I can't put my finger on. It could simoply that due to the cost of consumables I take more care with the analogue shots than the digital. This is something that has crept into my digital workflow too and I am seeing better results as a result. I often ask myself if the shot I am about to take would I still press the shutter if that frame was to cost me money.
 
Upvote 0
#20
I most definitely don't want to get into a film-vs-digital debate, but when I lay my eyes on a 4x5 slide I see something very "right". What that something is I don't know, not sure I even care, but I like it. Sure I like my mk3 a whole hell of a lot too.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu