Forum Topics Started
- Started By
- Last Post
- Calibrite ColorChecker Studio problem
- Stephane Bosman
7 months, 4 weeks ago
by Stephane Bosman
Forum Replies Created
AuthorTopic: Members Read 0 Times
Film, I Just Don’t Get Iton: September 18, 2023 at 7:12 am
Regarding the price of film:
In 1975 a 36 exp. rolls of Ektaghrome cost $4.25. Adjusted for inflation, that is $24.25.
My supplier in Belgium offers the 36 exp. roll of Ektachrome E100 for 26.10€, but that includes a sales tax of 21%.
So, we pay today roughly the same price as 50 years ago for Ektachrome. Besides, thanks to digital, using film is a choice and will rarely be done in comparable volumes.Re: Film, I Just Don’t Get ItReply #1 on: September 18, 2023 at 7:03 am
Define fake? You talking AI or do you only think film based images are real photographs?
Digital photography is photography, no doubt in my mind. I find generative AI utterly uninteresting and denoise AI a great achievement.
On the other hand, making digital look like film is, by definition, faking film.
It is all a matter of intent.
If one wants to use the most efficient and flexible process that gives the best technical quality, no question that is digital.
I don’t know anyone who misses printing in the darkroom. I am sure there are, but they must be rare and I am not one of them.
For me film and digital printing are not mutually exclusive. Actually Kodak Ektar 100, Portra 160 and 400 were made for scanning. When Kodak released them, the digital revolution was done.
I use like 90% digital and 10% film. I have been using Lightroom since the first public beta, Photoshop since 2003. At the time there was no question for me to use a digital camera, it was either too expensive or markedly inferior to what I used then. I have read and re-read Jeff’s wonderful books, among others. Lots of respect there!
Are there objective, rational advantages to using film? None that I can think of.
The seduction comes more from the cameras than the film itself. When one takes photos only for pleasure, like I do, efficiency and ease can take a second seat and one can enjoy the old ways. Of simply the view in a 6×7 viewfinder, or the sound, or the process, or whatever. Besides, I like developing my B&W films. I like to discover the pictures when I hang them to dry.
Indeed, I don’t know how to make digital look like B&W film in PhotoShop, with or without Silver Efex. Probably a lack of skills, more probably a lack of interest in doing so. Why use one process to try to imitate another? B&W digital is beautiful in its own way. I don’t know how to make digital look like Portra either. There are presets, profiles, I’ve tried some, no cigar. Besides, knowing it is an imitation kills the pleasure for me.
And the negative is something material, an object I actually created. It is not virtual. And that is probably what the youth find attractive about it. They were born in a world where everything is digital, immaterial. Maybe they aspire to actual objects they can touch.
Re: Film, I Just Don’t Get ItReply #2 on: September 16, 2023 at 2:29 am
- This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Stephane Bosman.
those that say film has a different look than digital are note skilled enough in their post processing skills to know how to make digital look like film. Sorry to say, it’s really easy when you know how.
Maybe it could be said that some lack the competence to see the difference between a fake and the real thing?Re: Film, I Just Don’t Get ItReply #3 on: September 15, 2023 at 9:58 am
why do all the photo shops and a lot of professional photographers struggle to make money?
I find that digital tends to make money for far fewer, much larger companies than analog did.Re: Film, I Just Don’t Get ItReply #4 on: September 15, 2023 at 2:50 am
Well, Kevin, all your arguments in favour of digital are true but, sorry to say it like that, irrelevant. Using many film cameras is a whole different experience which might be enough of a reason for some.
Then the rendering is different and that is a very valid reason, even if technically inferior.
A piano is a better instrument than a harpsichord, but the harpsichord has its own harmonies that remain a valid reason to use one, and Bach pieces for harpsichord are still better played on one.
Vinyl is resurgent too, while by all measures it is technically inferior to CD. And lossless digital streaming is the equal of CD. So, why is vinyl still relevant? For a number of reasons that some will find valid and others not. But the fact is digital did not kill vinyl, and in my opinion never will.
To bring a more pictorial analogy: is oil paint better than water colours? Or vice versa? Is photography better than painting? Is video better than cinema?
Maybe digital is more realistic and film more impressionist?