That "film look," are we creating a false memory?

[Vtec44]

.... very nice images. I like the muted tones. Do you recreate this for digital, I guess it would be reasonably practical in post, and even in camera?

I created my own LR presets to get close., then I tweak some of the individual colors. to get it even closer. Matching is easier when lighting is good and even.

 

[AlanKlein]

When I shoot Velvia 50, I don't try to match the chrome's colors lighting and contrast when I adjust the scanned image. Rather i adjust to my taste. Neither I nor the viewers care I used Velvia. As long as the results satisfies me on my calebrated monitor, that's what counts. After all, a film palette was designed by some guy's vision who worked for the film manufacturer 50 years ago. So what I do is what you do with digital RAW issues.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

A person may have fun trying to digitally create a certain "film look" based on a group of photos, but I do not think that even film can capture all the variation one sees in film photography.

Often I find digital images too perfect. They remind me of the old super bright, deep color movie posters of the "Technicolor" era. Sunsets, waterfalls, icebergs and even caves are crisp and clear, devoid of the natural dirt smudges, water stains, matted vegetation etc.

Sounds like an interesting pastime project.

 

[dxqcanada]

LR vintage PP !!!
Hmm, my B&W film images look much better.


vintage by Dennis, on Flickr

 

[Tropicalmemories]

"dxqcanada, post: 3931377, member: 36391"]LR vintage PP !!!
Hmm, my B&W film images look much better.

- Very Nice Edwardian look - works well when the subjects are so appropriate.

This is just a mobile phone snap edited on the same phone to try to give it a '30's Hollywood look. Perhaps the digital watch needs to be cloned out

[/QUOTE]

 

[dxqcanada]

I've posted this image before ....but I thought I should show it ... film photography ain't vintage just because it is old tech.
Agfa 400 B&W negative film 4x5 format (scan of print) ... correction, this was 120 format, scanned with Minolta Scan Multi II.
I'm not even sure why I am adding more to this topic.


My dad by Dennis, on Flickr

 

[JonFZ300]

We need to separate the idea of film and "prints"...prints were, often times, poor to average, and there are hundreds of millions of old,faded,bad-condition printed pictures all over the world. High-end,skilled work and regular-person work, done on film--the two are and were very different things.

To me, this is the bottom line. To me, the "film look" that is all the rage is just trying to replicate the look of old prints that sat in a shoebox for 30 years fading and getting scratched. I shot a lot of Velvia and Provia back in the day. I had a projector and a large screen that I would use to view them and none of the shots had "that film look." I think the "film look" of today is really "the old, faded, beat-up print look." For example, here's a scan of a print and a scan of a slide. This is an extreme example, to be sure, but can you tell which is which? lol

 

[Peeb]

We need to separate the idea of film and "prints"...prints were, often times, poor to average, and there are hundreds of millions of old,faded,bad-condition printed pictures all over the world. High-end,skilled work and regular-person work, done on film--the two are and were very different things.

To me, this is the bottom line. To me, the "film look" that is all the rage is just trying to replicate the look of old prints that sat in a shoebox for 30 years fading and getting scratched. I shot a lot of Velvia and Provia back in the day. I had a projector and a large screen that I would use to view them and none of the shots had "that film look." I think the "film look" of today is really "the old, faded, beat-up print look." For example, here's a scan of a print and a scan of a slide. This is an extreme example, to be sure, but can you tell which is which? lol

I would guess the top one (arch rock) is the slide.
Maybe ektachrome?

 

[AlanKlein]

They both look like film.

 

[Derrel]

My guess is that the arch is from a print,and that the flowers were recorded on slide film....so much for guesses...

 

[JonFZ300]

You're correct. The arch is a scan of a print and the pansies is a slide. I agree that they both look like film but the print has what I'm thinking of as the "film look."

 

[AlanKlein]

IF they both look likfe film, what do you mean only one has the "film look"?

 

[SoulfulRecover]

I see quite a few people shoot film through the various FaceBook forums I am on and even those who are friends, who seem to think the more dust and hair on the scans, the more it makes it relevant as an artistic means. Bugs the hell out of me. I keep wanting to tell them to clean up their images. The filters and editing on digital images are trying to emulate the faux nostalgia feel of dated and poorly kept film prints. Film when properly printed or scanned, will have correct colors like digital. Various films will shoot a bit more warm or cool than others but it was adjusted for in post. I don't know. I doesn't really bother me, just makes me roll my eyes a little bit.

 

[limr]

IF they both look likfe film, what do you mean only one has the "film look"?

His point was that the alleged "film look" that people talk about now is not what film images really look like, but rather imitates the look of old faded prints. The pictures he posted was an illustration. The image of the arch was a scanned print. It looks like it has faded and has some color shift, and it fits the perception of what people these days think "looks like film." Meanwhile, the image of the flowers was shot of slide film, yet doesn't have that "film look" that is now created by a dozen or more software filters that people apply to make it look like their digital images were shot on film.

In other words, people now don't have a realistic idea of what film really looked like. Yes, they are both film images, and yes, we know that the vibrant images of the flowers are what film really looks like and the faded one is what a print looks like, but only the faded one is what people think of when they think of film. Thus, the ironic quotation marks around "film look" - because they really mean "faded print look."

To me, the "film look" that is all the rage is just trying to replicate the look of old prints that sat in a shoebox for 30 years fading and getting scratched...I think the "film look" of today is really "the old, faded, beat-up print look." For example, here's a scan of a print and a scan of a slide.

 

[dxqcanada]

Hmmm, I wonder what a 40 year old inkjet print looks like ?