Getting that film look

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Scott W, Dec 19, 2005.

  1. Scott W

    Bill Funk Guest

    Maybe it's not all about the bottom dollar.
    Digital has many other advantages, that only begin with the digital
    darkroom.
     
    Bill Funk, Jan 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Scott W

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I'll think digital's great. The idea that I can shoot three pictures,
    download them, and make prints from them...all in a few minutes...is a
    fantastic benefit. No more waiting to use the whole role and no more
    waiting for processing to come back.

    The question addressed, though, was about the cost to Average Joe.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Scott W

    Bill Funk Guest

    As I tried to say, the cost isn't all about dollars.
    Dollars spent is a liability. Benefits are an asset.
    It's up to the user to do the balance sheet.
    I really think the average person is capable of doing the 'math'
    involved, even if it isn't thought about in the analogy of a balance
    sheet.
    As you say, the ability to see (and do whatever with) the pics *NOW*
    is a great benefit. There's no thinking of either waiting for the roll
    to be finished, or wasting the roll for just those few shots. And, of
    course, the ability to send the photos in email in a timely fashion is
    another benefit.
    No dollars involved, but they go on the balance sheet anyway.
     
    Bill Funk, Jan 21, 2006
  4. Scott W

    no_name Guest

    Physical dollars, no. Or not many. OTOH, what you're describing is
    "opportunity cost", which is measured in dollars, since that's the
    easiest way to do it.

    It's the idea I buy a digital camera, what opportunities, at what value,
    do I give up to buy that camera? What would it cost me to follow those
    other paths.

    You've identified a couple that real cost considerations for the
    "average phototgrapher", who should really be the average picture-taker.
    Photographer is a step up from there. It implies a certain intrest in
    the process of image creation, and a certain care for the intrinsic
    value of the image, rather than just the latest pictures of the baby to
    send to Aunt Martha.

    In one of my photojournalism courses, the instructor made the statement,
    "The average family has a camera around the house. The film in that
    camera will have a different christmas tree on each end."

    And that's because, for the average picture-taker, it IS perceived as a
    waste to process half a roll of film.

    I'm moving beyond dedicated amaeture; trying to become a "professional"
    photograper (i.e. do it for a living) and I still find myself doing
    something similar; making additional shots to complete a roll rather
    than process a partial roll for an assignment.

    So it makes sense that the "Mass Market" is going digital. For them,
    that's where the value is.

    OTOH, I disagree with those who proclaim "film is dead" and castigate
    those of us who still shoot film. In fact the whole of this thread
    proclaims that film is not dead, otherwise why would so many words be
    spent on the subject of "Getting that film look"?

    The easiest, least expensive way to do it is still to shoot film.

    And think about it ... Who shoots film trying to "get that digital look"?
     
    no_name, Jan 22, 2006
  5. OTOH, the folks who object to being told that film is dead are largely
    shooting 35mm film, and for those of us who like 11x14s and larger, 35mm's
    always been dead...
    Prior to the cell phone camera, the "real people" who I saw photos from were
    getting vastly better pictures from 3MP P&S digitals than they had ever
    gotten from "film". P&S cameras, consumer color film, and drugstore
    (machine) prints invariably resulted in hideously bad photos. But put a Fuji
    or Kodak dcam in the hands of anyone with half a brain, and they chimp a bit
    and figure out how to actually get reasonable flash images.

    Since everyone has a cell phone camera now, that's all they're using, and
    the images they are getting are the worst images in the history of
    photography.
    I certainly do: I shoot medium format and limit enlargements to 7x or so.
    It's the only way to make film look as good as digital.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 22, 2006
  6. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Since I was the one to put the subject on this thread I will speak to
    this. There seems to be a few photographers that have gotten use to
    the high contrast high saturation prints that they get using some
    films. They complain but the look of digital photos. Since contrast
    and saturation can be controlled this seems like it should not be a
    barrier to using a digital camera. What I am coming to realize is that
    in fact they are most are not as interested in how the prints look as
    much as finding reasons why shooting film is better then digital.

    As for getting film to look like digital this is a goal that I have
    when scanning. If one looks at the transfer curves for slide film it
    should not be a surprise that it is much easier to get a digital image
    to look like film then to go the other way.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 22, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.