Good news for photographers who yearn for film like images

[student]

I think that would not be too difficult. Just need to buy a Frontier machine and feed it with B&W paper and chemicals.

How does that work?

And how much would that cost?

And how much space should it occupy?

 

[lsisaxon]

How does that work?

And how much would that cost?

And how much space should it occupy?

Exactly what I meant.. The technology is there but it is still out of reach to hobbyists like us..

 

[student]

Exactly what I meant.. The technology is there but it is still out of reach to hobbyists like us..

So, for practical reasons, this becomes a moot point, isn't it?

Why should I go for the IMITATION?

Why should I pay for much for this incredible technology when the humble film can and is already producing images that the digital is trying so hard to imitate? (Talking about B&W only)

 

[vince123123]

I suppose the IMITATION (if it were indeed so) would be a worthy alternative to be considered for people who may want the rare occasional film look but do not wish to expend the money to purchase a film SLR.

So, for practical reasons, this becomes a moot point, isn't it?

Why should I go for the IMITATION?

Why should I pay for much for this incredible technology when the humble film can and is already producing images that the digital is trying so hard to imitate? (Talking about B&W only)

 

[dslang]

I suppose the IMITATION (if it were indeed so) would be a worthy alternative to be considered for people who may want the rare occasional film look but do not wish to expend the money to purchase a film SLR.

perhaps you have not seen how cheap film SLRs are these days....

It's not an issue of money, but of time, effort, persistence, and patience.

 

[lsisaxon]

So, for practical reasons, this becomes a moot point, isn't it?

Why should I go for the IMITATION?

Why should I pay for much for this incredible technology when the humble film can and is already producing images that the digital is trying so hard to imitate? (Talking about B&W only)

Well.. There exist wannabes. Maybe it's because they get to see the picture appear almost immediately after it is shot rather than slowly appearing in the darkroom... Seriously, I don't know why people have to take so much pains to make digital look like film. If it calls for film, just use film. Just have to be a master of the various media, not the other way round. I would still be comfortable if someone ask me to go into a darkroom to do colour printing, even though I have not done it for about 5 years now, I would still be comfortable with it anytime, even though I predominantly shoot digital now.

Like you mentioned, even if someone can come up with a no-brainer plugin that can exactly mimic how the film grain behaves, the output media will still be a significant deciding factor.

Let's not even talk about digital vs film, even printing B&W on colour paper would give very different results. I have tried that but it is still quite different from what I would like to see in a B&W print.

 

[student]

Well.. There exist wannabes. Maybe it's because they get to see the picture appear almost immediately after it is shot rather than slowly appearing in the darkroom... Seriously, I don't know why people have to take so much pains to make digital look like film. If it calls for film, just use film. Just have to be a master of the various media, not the other way round. I would still be comfortable if someone ask me to go into a darkroom to do colour printing, even though I have not done it for about 5 years now, I would still be comfortable with it anytime, even though I predominantly shoot digital now.

Like you mentioned, even if someone can come up with a no-brainer plugin that can exactly mimic how the film grain behaves, the output media will still be a significant deciding factor.

Therefore it is not Film or Digital.

It is Film or Digital when the situation or esthetics call for it.

It is not "Good News for Photographers who yearn for film like images". They are different media for different reasons.

 

[lsisaxon]

perhaps you have not seen how cheap film SLRs are these days....

It's not an issue of money, but of time, effort, persistence, and patience.

I agree with that. Going in the darkroom to print a B&W takes much less time than sitting in front of the PC/Mac trying to get the image to look like a B&W image. A copy of Photoshop CS2 can buy me a B&W enlarger and still leave enough for me to buy paper and chemicals.

 

[vince123123]

Yes, but if one only needs to do 1 film-like picture a year, no matter how cheap or few hundreds it is, it is not economical to get one.

perhaps you have not seen how cheap film SLRs are these days....

It's not an issue of money, but of time, effort, persistence, and patience.

 

[lsisaxon]

Yes, but if one only needs to do 1 film-like picture a year, no matter how cheap or few hundreds it is, it is not economical to get one.

What I feel is that if someone has started with film and shot digital, I think he/she would still keep at least one of the film bodies. Otherwise, he probably hasn't shot film before, and if that's the case, I can only make the remark that he will want to try to get what he think is a film-like image. He can never get a film-like image if he has never dabbled in film seriously before. In that case, it is no different than to make it look like an oil painting or a stained glass or any of those built in artistic effects.

You can get only so close visually but it's still going to be far from the real thing.

 

[vince123123]

Probably, there are also people who may have sold off their film SLRs to fund their DSLRs.

Perhaps to some, "close visually" is good enough. Its just like the occcasional layman who has a flatbed scanner and who usually scans magazine pages and the like - once in a while he may need a scan of a negative film - granted that the cheapie flatbed may not give as good a result as a dedicated film scanner, but thats good enough for the occasional and non-critical use.

After all, those who shoot less film and more digital isn't going to be as critcal as a dedicated film user. The film user will be of a much higher level than the digital hobbyist when it comes to film and rightly so.

What I feel is that if someone has started with film and shot digital, I think he/she would still keep at least one of the film bodies. Otherwise, he probably hasn't shot film before, and if that's the case, I can only make the remark that he will want to try to get what he think is a film-like image. He can never get a film-like image if he has never dabbled in film seriously before. In that case, it is no different than to make it look like an oil painting or a stained glass or any of those built in artistic effects.

You can get only so close visually but it's still going to be far from the real thing.

 

[student]

those who shoot less film and more digital isn't going to be as critcal as a dedicated film user. The film user will be of a much higher level than the digital hobbyist when it comes to film and rightly so.

Oh!

Thank you!!!!

 

[lsisaxon]

After all, those who shoot less film and more digital isn't going to be as critcal as a dedicated film user. The film user will be of a much higher level than the digital hobbyist when it comes to film and rightly so.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for colour. There exist some people who still don't understand the merits of each of the system and shoots down the other just to satisfy their own investment..

 

[vince123123]

You're welcome - it is just an objective view on the matter.

Oh!

Thank you!!!!

Well then there are those people heh

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for colour. There exist some people who still don't understand the merits of each of the system and shoots down the other just to satisfy their own investment..

 

[LittleWolf]

The reason I can think of for the highlights to have a step response would be due to sensor overload and the charges spill over to the adjacent pixel.

The reason for the "steps" in the sun is that the relative R, G, and B intensities differ, so the respective colour channels clip at different brightless levels. This is an effect that software/firmware can/should take into account. E.g., the freeware raw converter I use has an option for this.

Edit: I should add that colour film suffers from almost the same problem. While there is no hard "clipping", the colours are still distorted in the toe/knee region.

 

[LittleWolf]

Seriously, I don't know why people have to take so much pains to make digital look like film.

Maybe it's because some people appear to look down on non-film photography? And similarly, people praise the deficiencies of film as "features"?

There's one advantage of film grain/excessive noise: it hides a lot of image flaws. (The same method is used e.g. in handphones: noise is added to mask some artefacts of speech compression.) You can try an experiment: Take a slightly blurry picture and add noise to it. Chances are, it will appear much sharper afterwards.

 

[tsdh]

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for colour. There exist some people who still don't understand the merits of each of the system and shoots down the other just to satisfy their own investment..

Color?
Isn't digital susceptible to color shift and color fringing?
The photo below shows color fringing (not chromatic aberration, the same lens never give such issue with film). On D70 with Nikon Capture, the fringing color tend to be purple if the surrounding area has blue component, and tend to be cyan if the surrounding area has more yellow or green. How do you think?

 

[tsdh]

Maybe it's because some people appear to look down on non-film photography? And similarly, people praise the deficiencies of film as "features"?

I don't think so. Human is not a machine, psychological effect of certain thing will affect the perception. This is also applicable to images we see.
Some people can appreciate an abstract painting, while others may be not. Grains in film, usually come into play in portraitures, where it gives artistic feeling rather than destroying the mood. How about grains in still-life photo, or in macro-photography? will it be praised as well?

 

[LittleWolf]

Color?
Isn't digital susceptible to color shift and color fringing?
The photo below shows color fringing (not chromatic aberration, the same lens never give such issue with film).

This is an interesting effect. From how it looks I don't think it's due to the sensor itself. It looks to me like reflections between the IR blocking/colour correction/low pass filter mounted in front of the sensor and a curved edge of the lens mount.

 

[Pablo]

How does that work?

And how much would that cost?

And how much space should it occupy?

Hi student,

As lsisaxon said"....
I think that would not be too difficult. Just need to buy a Frontier machine and feed it with B&W paper and chemicals. "

Is not quite true to a degree.

A frontier machine uses Fuji archival paper and is exposed to what ever the image you send it.

If you send it colour you get colour, if you send it grey scale you get grey scale etc.

The Frontier uses similar chemical process as does wet work.

The size to house one ?.... you will have to give up half of your lounge room.
The cost ? aproximately AUS $200,000

The result from one of these machines (if cared for) by this I mean well maintained in every way, is excellent.

The cost per print ? .... chicken feed, (ooooh this bit of info is not going to go down well with some photo labs :bsmilie: )

The Frontier uses RGB lasers to expose the paper before it goes to the development tanks if that is of interest.

Infact it is actually a red. blue, modulated IR to give green.

I run one of these mothers and they can give brilliant prints. But it is maintained and calibrated to spec.

I have never seen a platinum print (maybe when I get back to Singapore you will show me some), so I can't compare.
But given a good B&W image on a disc or card, if sent to the Frontier correctly, the result is rather good.

Cheers