Yes, digital doesn't have to end in a sterile sharp product. The baby photo was digital then edited. It was a mild amount of physical characteristics of a painting. However, notice how many folks say they like the sharp realistic look of an image and without editing. It's why modern lenses have sprouted 10 or 15 extra elements. Digital grain is like adding a fog over the entire image. In film it smoothly transitions from highlights to shadows. Subtle, but another subtle distinction. The random shape of actual film grain from grains of silver is softer and less harsh. The colors of portra especially the skin tones which are amazing, would take an hour a photo to reproduce. The guys on F Stopper tried and even used one of their sponsors plug ins and gave up. Also, when I shoot a back lit shot with portra and expose for the subject, film gives lots of detail ln the sky/background, that would be blown out digitally. I am always looking for that 10% that improves my images over normal. I scan my film negatives but with a 46 mp d850 with a zeiss 100 makro planar so I have the resolution of the digital capture with the characteristics of film. The best of both worlds. You are right, folks using scanners, including labs come in at lower resolutions. I can easily make 24x36 prints off those scans but that is not my target size. The tonal transitions over huge a 67, 60 x60 mm vs 24x36, 4 times as large or 6x6 negative are amazing. My entire 67 kit with 3 lenses and 3 backs is less than a grand. A larger crop sensor Hassie digital, 50 grand. It is scary for many folks to take away the training wheels lcd and have confidence in their exposure, compostion etc. Then there is the medium format "look" from shooting a longer lens closer. From 7 feet for a head and shoulders digitally I might shoot a 135 digitally, with MF a 250 mm. The older 5 element lenses have micro contrast that is lost with low energy light sucked up or reflected by up to 22 pieces of glass in digital lenses. Which is why more than half of my digital lenses are older 90's glass, much manual focus. When they coat, they only coat a couple elements and light still has to pass through all that glass. With film I get gorgeous natural grain, highlight detail, stunning skin tones and I love the pastel palette of portra and the quality of a real medium format negative not a tiny "crop" digital sensor. I have a premier Portra plug in, close but no cigar. My business model is the highest possible quality and not just good enough. But I am doing this as a business and unless an amateur is trying to achieve super high quality, it doesn't matter. Now if I need instant feedback or availability, and 3 hours for develop and scan isn't fast enough or if I am using a vari nd where it's hard to determine and keep a specific number of stops blocked, although with 35 mm I just screw on a 2 or 3 stop nd and know exactly what I am getting, or if I need ttl, then I use digital. It's horses for courses. Again, I like choices and in this day and age, if you want to sell, you have to produce something that can't be produced by uncle harry with his cell phone. Your use of lighting separates your work from the herd as well. Including the "pros" who like the anti photoshop people, act like they are purists bragging about using only available light but virtually every one doesn't have a clue how to use or what lighting does and they know it.
I don't shoot film, even MF, just for the resolution. With 46 mp digital, it has all I need. For me, it's about the look of film. Here is a 645 Ilford 3200 image from my rb67 and note the difference in grain from a digital attempt to look like it. More grain would give that photo of an old car a feel of that era for me. In 67 format, the grain would still be there but smaller in proportion to the image. If I wanted more grain, dropping to 35mm gives me grain that echoes the grains of sand in the beach shot, appropriate. Generally over powers for my taste in 35mm so push hp5 400 to 1600. The color shot is the classic look of portra, plenty of detail in the shadows in full sun, yet detail in the clouds and sky and the soft, pastel color palette. The red ford is blocked up with little detail in the shadows and is still loosing detail in the windshield and hood. Plus the red is not true to portra color palette. Like I said, close but no cigar. The guys from F stoppers ridiculed a wedding photographer for spending 20 grand on film in a year and were going to show her how she wasted all that money, and 20 minutes later using one of the two major plugins, they threw up their hands. Watch the attitude at the beginning and the admission at the end. I haven't watched this in ages and she settled on the same film choices. He doesn't realize Portra is a low saturation, low contrast film with gorgeous skin tones. It's called portra for a reason. Note he keeps saying film is low res and talks about sharpness constantly. An example of the folks who think everything has to be sharp and non sharp is a defect. I don't buy wine on alcohol content and I don't judge photos only on sharpness. This is the sharpness fixation that started in 2000 as digital took hold and led to lenses being designed to satisfy that demand. Sharpness is line any other photo quality, it has appropriate useage and other things may be more appropriate for other images.
The Illford profile on the old car is one of 10 slightly different profiles for 3200, a one click conversion with no further edits. I prefer this version, as a good cross between digital and film, but generally fine tune it based on the image. Same is true on the Portra except I've created about 20 different versions. Color grading by eye is an excersise in futility, no two sets of eyes are the same. In actual editing I get more detailed (by the numbers) with color grading, many times stealing the palette from other images and adjusting mine to match the highlights/midtones/shadows, then using HSB settings to fine tune, especially on skin. I think the other point he made in the video, that he was only using LR. The most recent versions of LR are awesome, but PS still remains the go to for heavy lifting (especially in color grading).
Mais oui. And when folks are missing shots turning that ball cap around, a beret just crushes back. Wearing one is like using an "art lens" you automatically produce art. Here, Close Encounters of the Yosemite Kind. Hundred of folks drawn from all over the world for the firefall in late February to this huge solid rock. In the movie Dreyfus was at the dinner table and used all the mashed potatoes to sculpt Devils Tower. Setting up 3 lights then pouring out 3 lbs of mashed potatoes had folks looking on wondering what the hell I was doing. When I drizzled the ketchup down the face emulating the fire fall a dozen wanted their photos taken with it It gave us something fun to do while waiting for the firefall.
Ansel Adams, once a pianist in Yosemite, described it musically as the negative being the score and the print the performance. He wrote a whole book on each.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/35/35932-28690c4fc247cf491230e47fc70ebeb5.jpg?1619737235)
