Digital or film look? Which one you prefer and why?

[phrehdd]

Fair enough, but film of any size looks grainier than digital, since film is essentially composed of "one bit" particles, whereas film has 14-bit pixels that are that much smoother in terms of tonality. Film is "built" of grain, whereas digital has noise superimposed over it, at least aesthetically. I haven't used tech pan so "difficult to shoot" is just what I was warned against when choosing TMAX instead. If I'm wrong there I'm wrong.

It's still black and white and no longer being made, though. And still (perceptually) grainier than digital.

I think we have a very different perspective on the nature of film itself then film compared to digital. Each comes with its own world of pros and issues. Grain characteristics and film sensitivity curves can add to an image as easily as you want to insist it detracts.

 

[Policar]

I think we have a very different perspective on the nature of film itself then film compared to digital.

I'm not even sure what this sentence means. Yes, film has more technical flaws that add "character." With black and white grain can look cool, but big color enlargements look really muddy and generally this look is undesirable. I wouldn't enlarge 135 much bigger than 8X12 or 8x10 larger than 80x100 (assuming a normal viewing distance; billboards don't qualify) unless I wanted an intentionally grainy look, which few people do. I can enlarge FF digital larger than 8x12 without getting an intentionally grainy look and add grain if I want.

So yes, if you want a "bad" but organic look, then you can get it by making huge enlargements from film and it will be a look that you can't get with digital without added work in post. I'm not dismissing this entirely; there's a reason lensbabies and Holgas and instagram are popular. But arguing that technically bad is artistically good just reinforces the fact that technically film does not compare with digital until you move to larger formats like 8x10, which, incidentally, had long been used for the kind of work now done primarily with FF digital and MFDBs.

 

[compuwar]

Velvia 50 has been discontinued in sizes larger than 120, though....

Yeah, but it looks like RVP100 is available in 4x5 and 8x10 and its RMS is 8.

Paul

 

[Policar]

Yeah, but it looks like RVP100 is available in 4x5 and 8x10 and its RMS is 8.

Paul

It also has ugly magenta pollution when shooting last light, primarily from the red curve being overly sensitive to IR. Not as nice a film as 50.

That said, I have a pack in the freezer in 4x5. It's still pretty good stuff.

 

[compuwar]

It also has ugly magenta pollution when shooting last light, primarily from the red curve being overly sensitive to IR. Not as nice a film as 50.

That said, I have a pack in the freezer in 4x5. It's still pretty good stuff.

IR filter? I gave up ,my 4x5s not long after I went digital- would still ultimately like a BetterLight scanning back, but will probably make do with an automatic pano head at some point instead. I'm starting to think for most of what I shot 4x5 I'm better off focus stacking with Zerene Stacker.

Paul

 

[Macshroomer]

Fwiw, I shoot 4x5 and only use digital for snapshots. For hobbyists who really enjoy the process, I think film is the coolest and all virtually all serious "fine art" photography is 8x10 or rarely 4x5. But I can't recommend it to a professional unless his or her entire sales pitch is "shot on film" or he is chasing the elusive fine art market.

I don't use a sales pitch in using black and white in 120 and 4x5 for customers of my darkroom based prints, they just happen to speak for themselves and do increasingly well in terms of sales as the world continues to drown in digital fauxtography sickeningly called "Fine Art".

I would never use a film emulation software plug in, what is the point when you can have the real thing? By the way, for the first time in 4 years, Freestyle's sales for film and darkroom related materials is up....a lot!

 

[Policar]

I don't use a sales pitch in using black and white in 120 and 4x5 for customers of my darkroom based prints, they just happen to speak for themselves and do increasingly well in terms of sales as the world continues to drown in digital fauxtography sickeningly called "Fine Art".

I would never use a film emulation software plug in, what is the point when you can have the real thing? By the way, for the first time in 4 years, Freestyle's sales for film and darkroom related materials is up....a lot!

You shoot wedding photos on 4x5?

 

[MacCruiskeen]

I would never use a film emulation software plug in, what is the point when you can have the real thing? By the way, for the first time in 4 years, Freestyle's sales for film and darkroom related materials is up....a lot!

Well, it's not like they have a lot of competition any more. Pretty much everything I use comes from either B&H or Freestyle (and there's a Calumet store a few blocks away, so that tells you something! Calumet's in-store stock is usually kind of sad). Freestyle has some stuff that B&H doesn't have, like the Adox papers.

 

[Macshroomer]

You shoot wedding photos on 4x5?

No. I have a friend who does some of his formals with a Littman though. Basically I shoot advertising and fine art and some editorial.

 

[Edge100]

I'm not even sure what this sentence means. Yes, film has more technical flaws that add "character." With black and white grain can look cool, but big color enlargements look really muddy and generally this look is undesirable. I wouldn't enlarge 135 much bigger than 8X12 or 8x10 larger than 80x100 (assuming a normal viewing distance; billboards don't qualify) unless I wanted an intentionally grainy look, which few people do. I can enlarge FF digital larger than 8x12 without getting an intentionally grainy look and add grain if I want.

So yes, if you want a "bad" but organic look, then you can get it by making huge enlargements from film and it will be a look that you can't get with digital without added work in post. I'm not dismissing this entirely; there's a reason lensbabies and Holgas and instagram are popular. But arguing that technically bad is artistically good just reinforces the fact that technically film does not compare with digital until you move to larger formats like 8x10, which, incidentally, had long been used for the kind of work now done primarily with FF digital and MFDBs.

It's not really fair to compare FF digital to 135 film in terms of pure objective image quality, despite the fact that the sensor/film is the same size.

A Mamiya 7 and 43/4.5 will outresolve virtually any lens you can mount to a D800E, for half the price. And you get the lovely colours of slide film, the beautiful tonality of silver halide B&W, or the massive DR of colour negative film.

Alternatively, there are film systems for which there is either no digital equivalent or for which the cost of entry in digital is exorbitant (consider the cost of a Leica M Monochrom or M240 vs. an M6, for example).

Finally, there's the simple fact that many people simply prefer film and film cameras. I'd take my 500c/m, MP, or Mamiya 7 over any digital camera I've ever come across.

 

[Policar]

It's not really fair to compare FF digital to 135 film in terms of pure objective image quality, despite the fact that the sensor/film is the same size.

A Mamiya 7 and 43/4.5 will outresolve virtually any lens you can mount to a D800E, for half the price. And you get the lovely colours of slide film, the beautiful tonality of silver halide B&W, or the massive DR of colour negative film.

Alternatively, there are film systems for which there is either no digital equivalent or for which the cost of entry in digital is exorbitant (consider the cost of a Leica M Monochrom or M240 vs. an M6, for example).

Finally, there's the simple fact that many people simply prefer film and film cameras. I'd take my 500c/m, MP, or Mamiya 7 over any digital camera I've ever come across.

There's some truth to your first two points, but the third is all that really matters and I agree. I would love a Mamiya 7. From a business perspective I think film is a harder sell unless it's specifically what you're selling is all.

 

[sim667]

Film emulators? Serious?

If you want a film look, just shoot on film.

 

[Edge100]

There's some truth to your first two points, but the third is all that really matters and I agree. I would love a Mamiya 7. From a business perspective I think film is a harder sell unless it's specifically what you're selling is all.

Absolutely; if you're shooting film for clients, you really have to make the cases that film is giving some kind of benefit that cannot be had with digital.

In the case of art photography, this is relatively straight-forward. For wedding and portrait photography, it's more difficult, but certainly there are many people working strictly on film, and they are producing uniquely excellent work.

For commercial photography, it's a tougher sell. Certainly there are aesthetic reasons, but given the relatively low cost of high MP FF 135 format cameras, it's hard to make the case that a MF film system is still the best, most cost-effective way of making large, highly detailed prints.

For pro landscape work, well...you can't get a 4x5 or 8x10 digital back, and while TS lenses help with issue of camera/back movements, you're more or less restricted to 135 FF with these. The absence of RVP50 in 4x5 and 8x10 is a more serious issue, though.

 

[compuwar]

For pro landscape work, well...you can't get a 4x5 or 8x10 digital back

BetterLight? For static subjects like landscapes, digital scanning 4x5 backs work well. Look at the BL shots of Crater Lake here and click to zoom.

More images http://www.betterlight.com/mcphoto.html and http://www.betterlight.com/fullRes_zoomifyLIST.html

Paul

 

[Edge100]

BetterLight? For static subjects like landscapes, digital scanning 4x5 backs work well. Look at the BL shots of Crater Lake here and click to zoom.

More images http://www.betterlight.com/mcphoto.html and http://www.betterlight.com/fullRes_zoomifyLIST.html

Paul

True. Certain a very, very niche product though. And useless for anything that moves.

 

[compuwar]

True. Certain a very, very niche product though. And useless for anything that moves.

Yes, but for what it does (landscapes, high-end product, architecture, reproduction) it does it very well. The chance to shoot some of those wonderful Schneider lenses with movements- well, as someone who once lived near the Schneider factory in Bad Kreuznach, I'm salivating heavily. If I sold more landscapes, I'd be spending my time trying to work out which 4x5 camera to buy to go with one. To quote the Duke Ellington "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing!"

Paul

 

[snberk103]

Just read this thread... what a great debate.

While I was trained and still work as a commercial photographer, digitally, my recent experience has been heavily in the Fine Art side of things. In my area, and in my experience, there is very definitely a difference in Film vs Digital.

While there are exceptions, generally speaking people who are looking for "Art" - especially collectors - prefer photographs that have the artists fingerprints all over it (metaphorically speaking). So this means film and/or wet developing of the print. Personally speaking I just bought a cyanotype print this past weekend, and a few months ago a Fuji FP100 print (Fuji's peel apart product) because these are, by their very nature, unique and limited. People buying 'art' want something that distinguishes their often expensive purchase from a poster.

Unfortunately, digitally produced photographic 'art' is now competing with posters in the market place whether we like it or not. What has been true for a number of years now is that mechanically produced mass volume printing on a good printing press can equal the quality, for the fraction of the cost, of 'one off' prints produced by a photographer. Combine this cost advantage with photographers (some of whom are very good photographers) who are happy to license their images to poster printers - and you have buyers who have a hard time justifying spending good money on photographic fine art when they can buy something that - to their eyes - is just as good for a fraction of the price. For the most part these purchasers of photographic art are looking for something to decorate with, and the photographers selling their images to these buyers are selling decoration for the most part ... IMHO, of course.

There are, of course, digital photographers, who are exceptions to the above scenario. They work conceptually, or in themes. They work hard to build a body of work that is unique to them, and to build an awareness in the marketplace about their unique vision. For these photographers it is the content of their images that distinguishes the images from the mass market, not the media they use. The challenge for them is that someone will start mimicking their 'look and vision', and start to sell these new images as posters. But that is a different discussion, I suppose.

Anyway, just my 2¢ contribution to a very interesting discussion.

 

[7enderbender]

i can't imagine wanting to emulate film for a customer base that was born after digital cameras hit the market. Unless you are shooting at a retirement center, your customers did not grow up with expecting film looks. Retro is a very narrow market.

I disagree with that. Clients love that stuff when done right. My problem is that "retro" and the "film look" are often not really that. Having used film until only a few years ago - and seriously thinking about going back to medium format film for portraits - I'm starting to really dislike the overuse of what is presented to people as a "retro" when in fact most films and professional cameras going back a few decades provide quality that is pretty much on par with what high end digital cameras only started to achieve pretty recently.

The gear in all reality is still pretty much the same. Most lens designs are decades old and haven't changed. Cameras are just boxes to let light in. Film has been replaced by sensors. You will not see much of a difference when used in the same way.

I actually recently did that. Did a portrait session with the same light and settings shooting my Canon 5DII with my 50 1.2L and my Canon AE1p with a 1970s 50 1.4 loaded with Velvia and Tri X (all B&W).

Results on prints from good labs (real wet prints for the film, not scanned) looked pretty much the same. And certainly no cheesy faux retro effect there (unless you count B&W as such).

Key is not to overdo any of it. If you can make a good picture it doesn't matter how. And if people like it it does't matter why they like it or if they understand what's going on. I think being selective with light and shadow, sharpness, color and contrast works with any generation. And usually that's the kind of stuff people can't get from their iPhones and P&S cameras. Physics kind of get in the way. Which is not to say that you can't make good pictures with those.

 

[acearchie]

Still love film myself though mostly for very different reasons than why my generation loves it!

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Well, you can always give NIK's film (Analog Effects) plugins a try if that's what you want.
http://www.google.com/nikcollection/

 

[Macshroomer]

Yes, but for what it does (landscapes, high-end product, architecture, reproduction) it does it very well. The chance to shoot some of those wonderful Schneider lenses with movements- well, as someone who once lived near the Schneider factory in Bad Kreuznach, I'm salivating heavily. If I sold more landscapes, I'd be spending my time trying to work out which 4x5 camera to buy to go with one.

But.....the thing is that you don't have to spend that kind of crazy money, just pickup some good 4x5 color neg or Velvia 100 with those great lenses and paint that film with earth shattering good imagery that contains a fresh perspective and fantastic light. The photos on the Betterlight site are *WOW* bad, no wrap of light, super boring compositions, dead on arrival.

It does not matter if it is film, digital or liquid emulsion, the work has to be shockingly great to make the kind of impact you are talking about to justify such an exorbitant tool. I think this is where a good many film and high end digital users fail, they think that just because it is shot on said great hardware, it is better. The same goes for spending mucho money on a 4x5 back, that does *nothing* for a lackluster concept executed with mediocrity.

I have worked full time in photography for over 23 years, got to do some amazing things because it too. But since using digital for about 20 of those years, I figure I can either continue to do so or add even more social and artistic value to my future work by doing as much of it on film and in a darkroom as possible ( see post above by snberk103) and man does that feel good.

So far, my hunch is right on the money, literally and figuratively.

Great thread folks, glad to see it balanced and fair.

 

[steveash]

Just read this thread... what a great debate.

While I was trained and still work as a commercial photographer, digitally, my recent experience has been heavily in the Fine Art side of things. In my area, and in my experience, there is very definitely a difference in Film vs Digital.

While there are exceptions, generally speaking people who are looking for "Art" - especially collectors - prefer photographs that have the artists fingerprints all over it (metaphorically speaking). So this means film and/or wet developing of the print. Personally speaking I just bought a cyanotype print this past weekend, and a few months ago a Fuji FP100 print (Fuji's peel apart product) because these are, by their very nature, unique and limited. People buying 'art' want something that distinguishes their often expensive purchase from a poster.

Unfortunately, digitally produced photographic 'art' is now competing with posters in the market place whether we like it or not. What has been true for a number of years now is that mechanically produced mass volume printing on a good printing press can equal the quality, for the fraction of the cost, of 'one off' prints produced by a photographer. Combine this cost advantage with photographers (some of whom are very good photographers) who are happy to license their images to poster printers - and you have buyers who have a hard time justifying spending good money on photographic fine art when they can buy something that - to their eyes - is just as good for a fraction of the price. For the most part these purchasers of photographic art are looking for something to decorate with, and the photographers selling their images to these buyers are selling decoration for the most part ... IMHO, of course.

There are, of course, digital photographers, who are exceptions to the above scenario. They work conceptually, or in themes. They work hard to build a body of work that is unique to them, and to build an awareness in the marketplace about their unique vision. For these photographers it is the content of their images that distinguishes the images from the mass market, not the media they use. The challenge for them is that someone will start mimicking their 'look and vision', and start to sell these new images as posters. But that is a different discussion, I suppose.

Anyway, just my 2¢ contribution to a very interesting discussion.

While I agree with every word of this I do feel that in fine art the customer is buying the 'what' and perhaps the 'why' but rarely the 'how'. If it is art the media and technique are not the focus.

Going back to the original question. While there is plenty of aversion to film emulation among photographers (particularly those who use film itself) the end customer may be quite different. The OP is running a business and his/her choices should be based on market demand. I would suggest asking potential customers their preferences rather than other photographers. Also bare in mind that if you intend to use this as your business style be aware how quickly trends change. You may well want to change again in a couple of years so don't get too tied into it.

 

[snberk103]

While I agree with every word of this…

Thank You

… I do feel that in fine art the customer is buying the 'what' and perhaps the 'why' but rarely the 'how'. If it is art the media and technique are not the focus.
....

Depends if they are a buyer or a collector. A collector cares very much about the 'how' because that influences how well it will keep it's value. Non-archival media are a not worth as much. Most collectors won't spend a lot of money on something that won't be sellable in a few years (the exception being conceptual art, of course) and if there are thousands of the image then it's not worth as much since it hard to be 'rare' when every Tom, Jane, and Sally has a copy of the piece. Even worse is when the art is smaller enough that it is nearly life-sized when reproduced in a book. Then the buyer gets a book for $30 and cuts out the image. Then that image is not collectable at all.

 

[steveash]

Depends if they are a buyer or a collector. A collector cares very much about the 'how' because that influences how well it will keep it's value. Non-archival media are a not worth as much. Most collectors won't spend a lot of money on something that won't be sellable in a few years (the exception being conceptual art, of course) and if there are thousands of the image then it's not worth as much since it hard to be 'rare' when every Tom, Jane, and Sally has a copy of the piece. Even worse is when the art is smaller enough that it is nearly life-sized when reproduced in a book. Then the buyer gets a book for $30 and cuts out the image. Then that image is not collectable at all.

That's true but you can make c-type prints from digital images. Wouldn't they last just as long as a print from film? I'm actually very interested as I have started to exhibit my own work this year. I use digital medium format and make large c-type prints in small limited editions which I have conservation framed. I have so far exhibited in galleries as the only photographer among paintings and sculptures which is a breath of fresh air. So far as a new name, I have attracted interest but only sold a small amount however I value my work and price it accordingly so don't expect it to fly off the wall. I'd be very interested in better ways of printing and preserving photographs, particularly from a digital source.

Sorry that this is drifting away from the original post but it is an interesting area.

 

[Macshroomer]

The OP is running a business and his/her choices should be based on market demand. I would suggest asking potential customers their preferences rather than other photographers. Also bare in mind that if you intend to use this as your business style be aware how quickly trends change. You may well want to change again in a couple of years so don't get too tied into it.

This is true, but to a point....

Art buyers, art directors, editors and curators are just like you and me, the like to be wowed and they like to see independent thinkers. In some ways, if you have to ask your customer what they want, then you are simply not what they are looking for in the first place. For example, some photographers sell work or get hired based on what they can do for the client and how they fit into the overall team driven perspective, I have two clients that I have had for over 10 years that are like that, we are a family, we know what needs to get done and no one is a prima-donna about it.

But then there are photographers who's work sells or they get commissioned simply because of who they are as an artist, they have staying power, they have a distinct identity that is beholden to no one....they are often one of the most if not the most successful in their genre.

The perceptions you cite about market demand and trends are perhaps the number one reason I am getting out of commercial work and doing strictly fine art...I don't want to show people what they want to see, I want to show them what they have never seen before.