Using film if you're going to photoshop anyway

[samwilliams]

I was watching a photoshoot the other week and the photographer was only using film. Although I understand that film has a certain look to it, I'm fairly sure that this photographer was expecting to do some magic computery stuff to the photos afterwards anyway.

Wouldn't that lose the intended benefit of shooting on film in the first place, or am I just being stupid?

[Simpo Two]

You can shoot slide film, then scan it and 'shop it to buggery just the same

[samwilliams]

Simpo Two said:

You can shoot slide film, then scan it and 'shop it to buggery just the same

But doesn't that lose the "feel" of the film that would have been the whole reason for using it in the first place? If not, couldn't that be replicated in PS regardless, completely negating the reason for using film in the first place?

(just read that back and it comes across quite argumentative - it's not, I'm just quite curious and don't know the answer!)

[SamHH]

I suppose it depends whether you think film has a unique 'feel' to it or not. If you're a person that does, then the simple answers are probably no it doesn't lose its characteristics by being scanned onto a computer and no you can't replicate those characteristics with a computer.

[Major Bloodnok]

Nope. If, that is, you restrict yourself to the sorts of things you might do in the darkroom, anyway - dodge/burn, contrast/brightness/levels and so on. Of course, if you go loony about it, then yes, you are negating the point of shooting on film. Also, you're not going to see much difference if all you do is view the pictures on a monitor. But get them printed properly and I still maintain that there's a certain something about film, even if it has been through photoshop (I'm talking medium/large format, not so much 35mm).

[GetCarter]

Thing is: 99% of people wouldn't know a decent photo if it plastered itself onto their retinas, let alone whether it was taken with film or a sensor. Once you get into the minutiae of velvia v gold there's only a couple of thousand people who give a fk.

I was looking at a PS plug in a few weeks ago that can reproduce any film type you can name. I spent 30 minutes looking at the results and thought.... I could do any of those in about 10 clicks.

IMHO - composition/atmosphere/feel/emotion. Not PP or PS or arty film grain! (But then I woz brung up in saaf arra, so I no nuffink).

[Dogsey]

GetCarter said:

... I was looking at a PS plug in a few weeks ago that can reproduce any film type you can name. I spent 30 minutes looking at the results and thought.... I could do any of those in about 10 clicks ...

Have you looked at Exposure (currently v3) by Alien Skin? I use v2 and it can do most film types within a couple of clicks.

[samwilliams]

Fair enough. Well, thanks for enlightening me (I think!). I should get to see the finished photos in November, so it'll be quite interesting to see how they turn out.

Regardless, it was really interesting watching them work. Although I'm a bit undecided on the guy's usual style (http://fremantle.inmycommunity.com.au/_uploads/images/myblogs/female_body_builders10.jpg), he clearly knew what he was doing!

Edited by samwilliams on Friday 16th July 10:26

[Simpo Two]

Dogsey said:

Have you looked at Exposure (currently v3) by Alien Skin? I use v2 and it can do most film types within a couple of clicks.

To misquote JFK: 'We choose to use film and do the other things not because it is easy, but because it is hard!'

[Olivero]

The dynamic range of medium format film is much, much better than any 35mm digital and still better than medium format digital. I have used most cameras and film still has the edge quality wise. On the other hand, digital 35mm is more than good enough for most jobs and quicker.

[GetCarter]

Olivero said:

The dynamic range of medium format film is much, much better than any 35mm digital and still better than medium format digital. I have used most cameras and film still has the edge quality wise. On the other hand, digital 35mm is more than good enough for most jobs and quicker.

I used medium format for 10 years and the results, as you say, are stunning. However, I gave up when the D1 came out in 2000 and nobody noticed the difference.

It's an MP3 thing. Utterly and completely hopeless - a pathetic shadow of an AIF, but I bet you all listen to them?

Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 15th July 18:40

[Dogsey]

Simpo Two said:

Dogsey said:

Have you looked at Exposure (currently v3) by Alien Skin? I use v2 and it can do most film types within a couple of clicks.

To misquote JFK: 'We choose to use film and do the other things not because it is easy, but because it is hard!'

To misquote the conspiriacy theorists: "But you could have done it the easy way and made it look like you did it the hard way!"

[gary71]

GetCarter said:

It's an MP3 thing. Utterly and completely hopeless - a pathetic shadow of an AIF, but I bet you all listen to them?

No way! MP3 shalt never pass through my ears

[Simpo Two]

Olivero said:

The dynamic range of medium format film is much, much better than any 35mm digital

I would certainly like more DR, and currently have to 'make do' by shooting RAW, double processing and compositing. It's amazing what can be done with a bit of effort.

But how is DR related to format size?

[LongQ]

Simpo Two said:

Olivero said:

The dynamic range of medium format film is much, much better than any 35mm digital

I would certainly like more DR, and currently have to 'make do' by shooting RAW, double processing and compositing. It's amazing what can be done with a bit of effort.

But how is DR related to format size?

Bigger pixels.

[Simpo Two]

LongQ said:

Simpo Two said:

Olivero said:

The dynamic range of medium format film is much, much better than any 35mm digital

I would certainly like more DR, and currently have to 'make do' by shooting RAW, double processing and compositing. It's amazing what can be done with a bit of effort.

But how is DR related to format size?

Bigger pixels.

MF sensors have more pixels than '35mm' sensors so I'm not sure if the pixels are any bigger than, say, a D3. But even if they are, I associate pixel size with light sensitivity, not DR (but stand to be corrected)

[LongQ]

Simpo Two said:

LongQ said:

Simpo Two said:

Olivero said:

The dynamic range of medium format film is much, much better than any 35mm digital

I would certainly like more DR, and currently have to 'make do' by shooting RAW, double processing and compositing. It's amazing what can be done with a bit of effort.

But how is DR related to format size?

Bigger pixels.

MF sensors have more pixels than '35mm' sensors so I'm not sure if the pixels are any bigger than, say, a D3. But even if they are, I associate pixel size with light sensitivity, not DR (but stand to be corrected)

No, no - I meant that film has bigger pixels .....

I have mentioned this before about 18 months ago but I'll raise it again incase there is further interest now. There is a camera around that offers 26 stops of DR. Of course it requires special software to fully experience the results. And printing the full range is even more difficult than printing the DR range currently on offer.

[stigmundfreud]

GetCarter said:

Thing is: 99% of people wouldn't know a decent photo if it plastered itself onto their retinas, let alone whether it was taken with film or a sensor. Once you get into the minutiae of velvia v gold there's only a couple of thousand people who give a fk.

I was looking at a PS plug in a few weeks ago that can reproduce any film type you can name. I spent 30 minutes looking at the results and thought.... I could do any of those in about 10 clicks.

IMHO - composition/atmosphere/feel/emotion. Not PP or PS or arty film grain! (But then I woz brung up in saaf arra, so I no nuffink).

disagree somewhat. You cannot replicate the tones/nuances of film. You can tell the difference between hp5 pushed to 1600 then over developed for 10 minutes then mixed with various filters in the lab? Film does have its very own characteristic, ps can recreate certain looks but there is a feel to film. HDR does not a slide film make Would I be able to spot a film shot next to digital on screen probably not unless it was obviously displaying film artifacts (not some crappy PS layer)

[GetCarter]

stigmundfreud said:

GetCarter said:

Thing is: 99% of people wouldn't know a decent photo if it plastered itself onto their retinas, let alone whether it was taken with film or a sensor. Once you get into the minutiae of velvia v gold there's only a couple of thousand people who give a fk.

I was looking at a PS plug in a few weeks ago that can reproduce any film type you can name. I spent 30 minutes looking at the results and thought.... I could do any of those in about 10 clicks.

IMHO - composition/atmosphere/feel/emotion. Not PP or PS or arty film grain! (But then I woz brung up in saaf arra, so I no nuffink).

disagree somewhat. You cannot replicate the tones/nuances of film. You can tell the difference between hp5 pushed to 1600 then over developed for 10 minutes then mixed with various filters in the lab? Film does have its very own characteristic, ps can recreate certain looks but there is a feel to film. HDR does not a slide film make Would I be able to spot a film shot next to digital on screen probably not unless it was obviously displaying film artifacts (not some crappy PS layer)

Sorry, didn't make myself clear, I meant that the software was desidned to replicate film, but I didn't think it could do anything more than regular PS - stuff I could do in 10 clicks.

I think most of the time one can see a difference from film, and probably most people in this forum would see the difference, but out there in 'point and shoot' land, 99% only notice if you cut someones head off! (It's the same in music - but that's another soap box)