Please, take me out of this misery...

[480sparky38 37]

Very little. And the film look could easily be replicated in post.

What I'd like to know is the camera that took the film shot.

 

[Tony S]

I really think you need to spend more time taking pictures and working on your post processing to get the look you are after..... any film type can be replicated in an image editor, there are lots of tutorials out there that even tell you how to make digital images look like specific film types.



How about trying a digital Velvia...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/DV/index.html

And found this program to ge the film look referenced by Derrel in a post late last year... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/dxo_film_pack.shtml


Of course your other option is to just shoot film.

 

[MReid]

Film look, less contrast, less sharp, seems to have more of a 3d (richer, more depth) look.
From digital: reduce contrast, very slight gaussian blur, add smidge of glow effect or tiny bit of fog, add just a smidge of large grained noise, less black point.
....or just click a button on the numerous effects programs designed to look like film

Yes film does look different.

 

[Mot]

It might be fun to test you! If it's so different we should be able to post photos we've taken on either film or processed to look like film and you should be able to tell us which one it is with ease. I'm not disagreeing with you that film has a 'look', I do disagree that it's not possible in post. There are several photographers that I was convinced shot on 120 but found they shot with a 5DII and were skilled processers.

​

How or what were these shot on? They still have the EXIF data so guess before you check, don't ruin it for others! In terms if film I use several brands in several film bodies and lenses, nothing specific. To scan film I usually use a Hasselblad X1, it's a serious-amateur/professional scanner. Digitally I use a 20D and a 5D with several lenses. Everything passes through Lightroom 3 and occasionally Photoshop.

 

[bhop]

I think the issue you're having is caused by a combo of points 4 and 5

 

[MReid]

The left one looks like film, the one on the right may or may not be.

...but as we have been discussing lots of ways to make digital look like film.

 

[KmH]

ok... so I found a side-by-side comparison

Can you guys see it now?

The 2 are not shot at the same angle to the Sun, don't have the same exposure, and are also essentially invalid for demonstrating your premise.

You are seeking an answer to a question that has no one correct answer.

 

[Compaq]

Maybe... and this is a pretty big maybe........ maaaybe, it's the fact that you know it's film that makes you like it better?

 

[BlairWright]

They are different and that gives you 2 choices, life is grand...

Personally, I like the artistic freedom that digital gives you. Digital goes way beyond what film ever did in terms of processing.

 

[Crollo]

The color grading of the images you posted are different. The film is 'incorrect' and is way too warm and IMO really bad looking, but the digital has correct white balance and toning so it looks 'different' but not worse. Digital images are also very very clean and smooth, but film is very grainy and rough looking.

In my opinion, the color grading we apply to 'cinematic' ("Filmic") shots are absolutely horrible. I do not want to see blue blacks, green midtones or yellow people... Please don't think that this style of grading is 'cool' or 'awesome' because it's repulsive. The direct film to digital images are both properly graded and therefore the difference between the two is very very minimal.

 

[OscarWilde]

Maybe its the subject matter? You do realize that 90%+ of the emotion and mood you feel from a photograph comes from what your looking at. Look at your example of Paris vs the Hospital Bed.

Hospital Bed: Mother and her baby. Soft lighting. Pose expresses movement and candidness. Composition is great. Brings out nostalgic feelings because of the new life and the warm quality of the lighting. Its EXTREMELY narrative; even the DoF makes it seem timeless and as if a real "moment" was captured.

Your picture in Paris: Is (composition-wise) unbalanced, you have a big solid dark heavy building and you are attempting to balance it with sky. and not any where NEAR enough to balance that. Its dark, it is gloomy (underexposed) and it is completely still. No narration at all.

So what would you expect? You could have taken the hospital bed photo with a digital camera... you could have taken it with a cell phone, or a pinhole camera and it wouldn't have made a difference. Because its the mood expressed by the timing and the subject NOT the medium.

As an artist (I paint) I can say that what you are really trying to do is make watercolor look like oil paint. Can you have warm and embracing pictures painted with watercolor? Yes. Can you have warm and embracing pictures painted with oil paints? Yes. Will they look the same? No. Because they aren't the same.

The point is the emotion. And THAT is the difference you are seeing. The photographers above all captured DIFFERENT moods in the different pictures. And as a result the medium is IRRELEVANT.

Hope this helps; its the easiest way I can think of to understand it!

 

[bhop]

I already commented once, but re-reading this thread, I'm just gonna throw this out there..

You're not going to get the answer you want.

Film and digital both can look nice, but they do look different. It's one of the reasons I still shoot mostly film for my personal photos. It's less convenient than digital, but for me it's worth the extra hassle/cost for my photos to look how I want them to look, which is like film.

 

[galapagos1859]

Maybe its the subject matter? You do realize that 90%+ of the emotion and mood you feel from a photograph comes from what your looking at. Look at your example of Paris vs the Hospital Bed.

Hospital Bed: Mother and her baby. Soft lighting. Pose expresses movement and candidness. Composition is great. Brings out nostalgic feelings because of the new life and the warm quality of the lighting. Its EXTREMELY narrative; even the DoF makes it seem timeless and as if a real "moment" was captured.

Your picture in Paris: Is (composition-wise) unbalanced, you have a big solid dark heavy building and you are attempting to balance it with sky. and not any where NEAR enough to balance that. Its dark, it is gloomy (underexposed) and it is completely still. No narration at all.

So what would you expect? You could have taken the hospital bed photo with a digital camera... you could have taken it with a cell phone, or a pinhole camera and it wouldn't have made a difference. Because its the mood expressed by the timing and the subject NOT the medium.

As an artist (I paint) I can say that what you are really trying to do is make watercolor look like oil paint. Can you have warm and embracing pictures painted with watercolor? Yes. Can you have warm and embracing pictures painted with oil paints? Yes. Will they look the same? No. Because they aren't the same.

The point is the emotion. And THAT is the difference you are seeing. The photographers above all captured DIFFERENT moods in the different pictures. And as a result the medium is IRRELEVANT.

Hope this helps; its the easiest way I can think of to understand it!

It helped. =)

I still don't think the medium is 'irrelevant' though, but you made a good point about the emotions involved.

About the hospital picture. Would you believe me if I told you it took me a while to decipher what was going on there?
The 'look' of that picture caught my attention before I realized its composition or its emotions.

Btw, your comparison between oil paint and water color was perfect. It really helped adding some perspective here.

Thanks

 

[galapagos1859]

I already commented once, but re-reading this thread, I'm just gonna throw this out there..

You're not going to get the answer you want.

Film and digital both can look nice, but they do look different. It's one of the reasons I still shoot mostly film for my personal photos. It's less convenient than digital, but for me it's worth the extra hassle/cost for my photos to look how I want them to look, which is like film.

Yeah, you're right...

Let me ask you something about your film photos. Do you develop them yourself? What's the most difficult challenge when shooting film?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Film looks different because it's not neutral, it's not 1's or 0's.

Digital can only represent 255 different variations of Red, Green, or Blue.

Film has random grain

Digital is generally clean, and devoid of grain or noise.

Film is designed to give specific color pallets without major manipulation

Digital is designed to be neutral for manipulation.





If you want that "3D film look", than for christs sake just shoot film.