My first roll of film.

[gsgary]

Must be a generation gap.

I think these examples look horrible...but then again, Ansel didn't have that much noise/grain, so perhaps it's not a generation gap and it's just poor photography.

And most digital shots look plastic with no feeling

 

[cgipson1]

Film grain is evenly distributed throughout an image.

No it isn't. Far from it. The behaviour of silver-image film (image made by light passing between distinct, opaque grain clumps) is different from dye-image film (image made by light passing between but mostly though transparent dye clouds), but both have their own graininess characteristics from shadows to highlights because of the way the image is formed (and each layer of colour film has its own graininess characteristic). This is obvious to those of us who are familiar with film images, and it is also obvious if you look at a density vs granularity graph.

Sometimes I wonder how it would feel to know that a subject that you have spent a lifetime, obviously mastering, is now obsolete.

When I entered the work force, I spent many hours debating upon my path, and decided upon one that could not be outsourced and that technology could not overcome. I often wonder what it looks like from the other side of the looking glass.

I won't argue with your point. Honestly, it was over my head and there are very few times that happens to me.

But whatever it is that you are talking about is so far removed from modern photography that an understanding of it in anything beyond a 'feel' is completely irrelevent.

In this case, Tyler's 'feel' that it is a certain way is just as valid as your facts that it is not.

Kerb... I seldom bother to reply to your posts.

I believe that discounting a lifetimes worth of knowledge and expertise is very rude. Helen is always helpful, and she is very knowledgeable. Just because it is in an area you consider obsolete, does not lessen it's value (much of which also tranfers over to digital photography, believe it or not).

I am not flaming.. and not trying to be rude.. but in this instance, you are out of line! I think an apology would be appropriate!

(Yes.. I know you will probably report this.. as you do anything you don't like!)

 

[Kerbouchard]

No it isn't. Far from it. The behaviour of silver-image film (image made by light passing between distinct, opaque grain clumps) is different from dye-image film (image made by light passing between but mostly though transparent dye clouds), but both have their own graininess characteristics from shadows to highlights because of the way the image is formed (and each layer of colour film has its own graininess characteristic). This is obvious to those of us who are familiar with film images, and it is also obvious if you look at a density vs granularity graph.

Sometimes I wonder how it would feel to know that a subject that you have spent a lifetime, obviously mastering, is now obsolete.

When I entered the work force, I spent many hours debating upon my path, and decided upon one that could not be outsourced and that technology could not overcome. I often wonder what it looks like from the other side of the looking glass.

I won't argue with your point. Honestly, it was over my head and there are very few times that happens to me.

But whatever it is that you are talking about is so far removed from modern photography that an understanding of it in anything beyond a 'feel' is completely irrelevent.

In this case, Tyler's 'feel' that it is a certain way is just as valid as your facts that it is not.

Kerb... I seldom bother to reply to your posts.

I believe that discounting a lifetimes worth of knowledge and expertise is very rude. Helen is always helpful, and she is very knowledgeable. Just because it is in an area you consider obsolete, does not lessen it's value (much of which also tranfers over to digital photography, believe it or not).

I am not flaming.. and not trying to be rude.. but in this instance, you are out of line! I think an apology would be appropriate!

(Yes.. I know you will probably report this.. as you do anything you don't like!)

Why would I report this? Honestly, it was just a question. I acknowledge her expertise in this matter. I said so in my post. She has obviously mastered her field. And that is not a term I use loosely.

I just asked a question.

P.S. And get off your report crusade. The only things I report are those that are against the rules. From there, the moderators get to choose whether or not to act on it. And honestly, in most cases, they do not. You shouldn't be worried about the 'report' feature of this forum. Very seldom does anything come of it.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Well, I have another roll of film and I will also do some digital with VSCO edit. I will then invite you film experts to determine which is which. VSCO does a good job emulating film look on digital files. It should be a good challenge!

 

[laynea24]

I really really like 5 and 11! I'm anxious to see how my first roll turns out.

 

[Derrel]

Well, I have another roll of film and I will also do some digital with VSCO edit. I will then invite you film experts to determine which is which. VSCO does a good job emulating film look on digital files. It should be a good challenge!

I remember the first appearance of your early VSCO film simulation/emulation/imitation efforts. Not a single one of the shots looked anything at all like any B&W film that I ever shot...it's not just a matter of dumping some fake grain on an image...that is NOT what it takes to make an image appear as if it was shot on film. Saying that the VSCO software does a pretty good job of emulating film, as o hey tyler did, is not accurate. The way digital abruptly just "clips" in the overexposed highlight regions, as well as its pretty remarkably POOR rendering of 3-dimensional texture on human figures, faces and landscape and other real-world objects, makes digital images look very "flat" and dimension-free. The loss of dimensionality in digital images is one of the most severe losses, and yet, it's not even appreciated by people who are not familiar with what film images really look(ed) like.

It's kind of like people who can not tell the difference between motion pictures shot on film, and those shot on video. The look is different. Same with digital images whenever there is a bright light source in the frame, or when there are lots of very bright, airy highlights; digital images, for the most part, look like crap in those situations, whereas film images have a much better range of tones and renderings in the highlights. Slapping on a crude grain pattern overlay does NOT make a digital image look like film to a person who actually KNOWS what film looks like.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Well, I have another roll of film and I will also do some digital with VSCO edit. I will then invite you film experts to determine which is which. VSCO does a good job emulating film look on digital files. It should be a good challenge!

I remember the first appearance of your early VSCO film simulation/emulation/imitation efforts. Not a single one of the shots looked anything at all like any B&W film that I ever shot...it's not just a matter of dumping some fake grain on an image...that is NOT what it takes to make an image appear as if it was shot on film. Saying that the VSCO software does a pretty good job of emulating film, as o hey tyler did, is not accurate. The way digital abruptly just "clips" in the overexposed highlight regions, as well as its pretty remarkably POOR rendering of 3-dimensional texture on human figures, faces and landscape and other real-world objects, makes digital images look very "flat" and dimension-free. The loss of dimensionality in digital images is one of the most severe losses, and yet, it's not even appreciated by people who are not familiar with what film images really look(ed) like.

It's kind of like people who can not tell the difference between motion pictures shot on film, and those shot on video. The look is different. Same with digital images whenever there is a bright light source in the frame, or when there are lots of very bright, airy highlights; digital images, for the most part, look like crap in those situations, whereas film images have a much better range of tones and renderings in the highlights. Slapping on a crude grain pattern overlay does NOT make a digital image look like film to a person who actually KNOWS what film looks like.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/293162-film-digital.html

 

[o hey tyler]

I remember the first appearance of your early VSCO film simulation/emulation/imitation efforts. Not a single one of the shots looked anything at all like any B&W film that I ever shot...it's not just a matter of dumping some fake grain on an image...that is NOT what it takes to make an image appear as if it was shot on film. Saying that the VSCO software does a pretty good job of emulating film, as o hey tyler did, is not accurate. The way digital abruptly just "clips" in the overexposed highlight regions, as well as its pretty remarkably POOR rendering of 3-dimensional texture on human figures, face, and landscape another real-world objects, makes digital images look very "flat" and dimension-free. The loss of dimensionality in digital images is one of the most severe losses, and yet, it's not even appreciated by people who are not familiar with what film images really looked like...

You seem to not understand what an opinion is, do you? I PERSONALLY think it does a good job, but time and time again you have issues with people having a fricken opinion. Just like you jumped down Schwettys throat because of an OPINION that he holds about the necessity of a hand held light meter (which I myself do not agree with him). Additionally, when I stated that your C&C is subjective, and I took from it what I wanted to, and disregarded the rest, you seemed to have an issue with it. Sorry Derrel, I know you've been behind a camera for X number of years, but your C&C is not gospel, and I wont shoot strictly according to your standards because you've held a camera for longer than I have. I won't do that for A-N-Y-O-N-E, not just you. That doesn't mean that I don't respect and value the opinions given to me, and put some of them into practice.

My clients seem to like it and have requested a filmy looking vintage styling, and so they got it. They were very happy with the end result. I can thank VSCO for that.

Your opinion is no different than mine, and they sure as shat aren't facts. Neither of them. Just stay calm, and let other people think freely without demanding that your personal views be accepted by all. It's really not tough.

Opinions =/= Facts. Try to understand that for once, please & thanks. Have a great day!

 

[Derrel]

I'll repost here my reply to your FIlm or Digital thread, with the lo-rez images that look like they came from a 1980's screen-printed newspaper..

"The first and second photos have such a STRONG, distracting pattern on them...they look absolutely horrible, no matter what the process was. Same problem with shots 3,5,6,7,8, and 9...all those images also have a very obvious "pattern" to them when viewed at the maximum TPF viewing size on an Apple 30 inch Cinema Display monitor...they all look terrible. Low-resolution. And patterned. So, not quite sure if those are film or digital in origin, but I surely would never want to have my photos look like that on the web or in print."

Not quite sure what you were trying to prove with that thread...the images look so bad that it's hard to want to emulate whatever method they were made with--film OR digital. It looks like either God-awful film work, or absolutely horrible digital imaging...the images are technically poor: coarse, patterned, and just...bad...the "pictures" are kind of cute, but the image capture and reproduction process or process used look very poor by modern standards...

 

[o hey tyler]

Yes! More opinions stated as fact!

Nice job Derrel, you really showed Robin what was up by being able to tell which were film and which were digital. Great work. A+. 10/10 would read again.

 

[Helen B]

Film grain is evenly distributed throughout an image.

No it isn't. Far from it. The behaviour of silver-image film (image made by light passing between distinct, opaque grain clumps) is different from dye-image film (image made by light passing between but mostly though transparent dye clouds), but both have their own graininess characteristics from shadows to highlights because of the way the image is formed (and each layer of colour film has its own graininess characteristic). This is obvious to those of us who are familiar with film images, and it is also obvious if you look at a density vs granularity graph.

Sometimes I wonder how it would feel to know that a subject that you have spent a lifetime, obviously mastering, is now obsolete.

It's not a big deal. I'm old enough and experienced enough in a number of fields to have seen some of the things I put a lot of effort into mastering to the best of my ability become truly and completely obsolete (film is not yet in that category, of course). I have found that it doesn't matter, because a human's capacity to learn and move on is effectively infinite. Learning new stuff keeps the flame alive.

When I entered the work force, I spent many hours debating upon my path, and decided upon one that could not be outsourced and that technology could not overcome. I often wonder what it looks like from the other side of the looking glass.

Thank goodness that we are all different. I have never thought about 'entering the work force' - I just looked for jobs in things I was good at that I stood a good chance of getting, knowing that change was part of life. So far I've done a bunch of weird things I could never have planned.

I won't argue with your point. Honestly, it was over my head and there are very few times that happens to me.

But whatever it is that you are talking about is so far removed from modern photography that an understanding of it in anything beyond a 'feel' is completely irrelevent.

Well, I'm sure that there's a lot of stuff I could talk to you about that is completely over your head and irrelevant to you, but I'm not sure of the point you are making. Should everything on this forum be relevant to you?

In this case, Tyler's 'feel' that it is a certain way is just as valid as your facts that it is not.

Absolutely, why let observable facts get in the way of vague, uninformed notions?

 

[Robin Usagani]

According to derrel, the images i took are way off on the exposure. Am I blind? Do I blame the film? Do I blame the lab who scanned and developed it? I should have used a different film? Do I blame my noob skill? I cant seem to make derrel agree on anything. I dont know anymore.

 

[Derrel]

I remember the first appearance of your early VSCO film simulation/emulation/imitation efforts. Not a single one of the shots looked anything at all like any B&W film that I ever shot...it's not just a matter of dumping some fake grain on an image...that is NOT what it takes to make an image appear as if it was shot on film. Saying that the VSCO software does a pretty good job of emulating film, as o hey tyler did, is not accurate. The way digital abruptly just "clips" in the overexposed highlight regions, as well as its pretty remarkably POOR rendering of 3-dimensional texture on human figures, face, and landscape another real-world objects, makes digital images look very "flat" and dimension-free. The loss of dimensionality in digital images is one of the most severe losses, and yet, it's not even appreciated by people who are not familiar with what film images really looked like...

You seem to not understand what an opinion is, do you? I PERSONALLY think it does a good job, but time and time again you have issues with people having a fricken opinion. Just like you jumped down Schwettys throat because of an OPINION that he holds about the necessity of a hand held light meter (which I myself do not agree with him). Additionally, when I stated that your C&C is subjective, and I took from it what I wanted to, and disregarded the rest, you seemed to have an issue with it. Sorry Derrel, I know you've been behind a camera for X number of years, but your C&C is not gospel, and I wont shoot strictly according to your standards because you've held a camera for longer than I have. I won't do that for A-N-Y-O-N-E, not just you. That doesn't mean that I don't respect and value the opinions given to me, and put some of them into practice.

My clients seem to like it and have requested a filmy looking vintage styling, and so they got it. They were very happy with the end result. I can thank VSCO for that.

Your opinion is no different than mine, and they sure as shat aren't facts. Neither of them. Just stay calm, and let other people think freely without demanding that your personal views be accepted by all. It's really not tough.

Opinions =/= Facts. Try to understand that for once, please & thanks. Have a great day!

"Your" opinion on how film really looks doesn't carry much weight with me tyler....you are simply too young to know...you do not have the experience with film. Perhaps you can tell ME, a man over twice your age, which 1980's rock bands were the BEST IN CONCERT? Go ahead kid...knock yourself out...So---was Foreigner as good in concert as Journey? How good was AC-DC with Bonn Scott? How much did Van Halen lose when it became Van-Hagar, with Sammy Hagar as lead vocalist? What exactly WAS a Blondie concert like? How were the shows that the YOUNG Bruce Springsteen put on. you know, back befoe you were born, and when I was in college in the front row? I'd LOVE TO HEAR your "opinion" on how that music sounded,live, back then. And, how good really, was ZZ Top in the 19890's. I await your "opinion". Oh, wait...you were not even born then....and so, your uninformed opinion must carry lotsa' weight, huh??

We all KNOW that the digital recordings on CD-ROM are EXACTLY THE SAME as the live music. Same argument you are making o hey tyler...that VSCO looks exactly like film. I am sure HelenB is getting a good laugh at this too. And Buckster.

Smoke another bowl of that good weed, dude--it helps make sure everything all looks the same.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Maybe I should have used a hand held meter and put it on kid's forehead just before I took the shot? I shouldnt trust my in camera metering?

 

[Robin Usagani]

I always welcome Helen's opinion. She knows what she is talking about AND she listens and not just bash people. People keep telling me to shoot with film (including derrel), and sure enough.. drama again. Maybe I should haven't tried film. Nothing but drama here.