Does this look like film?

InsuredDisaster

Trying to go for a film look here.

Spotted this little guy hanging out next to some garbage cans, scrounging for food I guess.

r3t1awr3yd

I JUST tried to get a pic to look filmish (literally 10 minutes ago).
I always feel like film needs at least a little bit of noise to be convincing. Hopefully someone chimes in with some film-like methods

bdcolen

Me, I'd concentrate less on making an image look film-like than making it look meaningful-like. Film is one capture medium; digital is another. No matter how you screw around with a digital image it never will have the depth that a film image has, and therefore will never look like film. Certainly you can imitate the color, "grain," contrast of film, but if you really want a film-like image, shoot film. Otherwise, concentrate on what and why you're photographing, and how best to capture it whatever medium you're using.

damonff

bdcolen wrote: »

Me, I'd concentrate less on making an image look film-like than making it look meaningful-like. Film is one capture medium; digital is another. No matter how you screw around with a digital image it never will have the depth that a film image has, and therefore will never look like film. Certainly you can imitate the color, "grain," contrast of film, but if you really want a film-like image, shoot film. Otherwise, concentrate on what and why you're photographing, and how best to capture it whatever medium you're using.

Me too!

Nyarthlopic

I agree with what BD says above. The most important part is what you are trying to capture and how to best capture it. Knowing how to best utilize your camera is only a small part of the equation; it only makes the capture easier. The actual capture is the part that counts most. Like he said, make it look meaningful.

That said, you are both going for an effect and asked if you are achieving it. Here's my $0.02...

InsuredDisaster - I don't really see anything that screams film or digital there. To me, the colors are a little too bright. When I looked at the picture, I said "Wow, that's a bright one. Hey, Pikachu is out of a job, too!" If it was me, I'd try to tone down the bright colors a hair so the first thing someone says involves Pikachu instead of reaching for their sunglasses. Again, this is me.

r3t1awr3yd - From a noise perspective, this is a hair closer to a film look. The noise also looks faked; added in post (which I'm guessing it was). There is no substitute for "real" noise in a picture.

Take what I say with a grain of salt: I am very new at this whole photography thing. You can fit everything I know into a tri-fold pamphlet titled "Newbie." I wish I could offer the two of you advice to help achieve the look you are going for. Alas, post-processing is not one of my strong points. In fact, it's one of my weakest points. Good luck to the both of you!

InsuredDisaster

bdcolen wrote: »

Me, I'd concentrate less on making an image look film-like than making it look meaningful-like. Film is one capture medium; digital is another. No matter how you screw around with a digital image it never will have the depth that a film image has, and therefore will never look like film. Certainly you can imitate the color, "grain," contrast of film, but if you really want a film-like image, shoot film. Otherwise, concentrate on what and why you're photographing, and how best to capture it whatever medium you're using.

Wondering if you are saying my image has no meaning. My question to you then, what is a stuffed animal in nearly perfect condition doing in the trash? A breakup? Poison spill? A bad memory?

r3t1awr3yd

Does an athlete waste their time practicing? Probably right? Just running around wasting energy. There's no contest when he practices so it's probably a waste of time too. Yeah...


Oh, think of this thread as practice.

Art Scott

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

Does an athlete waste their time practicing? Probably right? Just running around wasting energy. There's no contest when he practices so it's probably a waste of time too. Yeah...


Oh, think of this thread as practice.

I do not think this is at all what BD alludes too........you can try to emulate film all you want but it will never look exactly like, oh lets say Velvia....I am still upset that I cannot get a native 50iso and the exact look of Fuji 50 out of my Nikons ....that was my staple......I have even tried all the plug ins...it just does not happen...so as BD suggests, when I need that look....I open the freezer and grab a roll of film and go shoot............. film........if you concentrate on getting meaningful shoots then that is practice and it does help make one a better photog....just like practice helps make an athlete better..............

sara505

InsuredDisaster wrote: »

Wondering if you are saying my image has no meaning. My question to you then, what is a stuffed animal in nearly perfect condition doing in the trash? A breakup? Poison spill? A bad memory?

Sorry, but none of the above came through in your image. What comes through in the image is badly rendered colors on an inanimate object.
Now that you've explained it, I do see the trash cans, but the deeper questions do not come through. Not for me, anyway.

damonff

Last summer I made several attempts to make my digital shots look like film. I tried many software combinations and filters for many weeks. In the end (against BD's advice - sorry BD!), I sold my digital gear and bought film gear. On a humorous note, I sold my Canon 5D II and 85mm 1.2 L II and bought what I thought was a film equivalent, the Nikon F6. 2 weeks ago I pulled out my old Minolta X700 (from 1983) and got this result:



Now, of course I love all of the great strengths and attributes of the F6. But when you break it all down, it's about your eye and the film, mostly your eye.

InsuredDisaster

sara505 wrote: »

Sorry, but none of the above came through in your image. What comes through in the image is badly rendered colors on an inanimate object.
Now that you've explained it, I do see the trash cans, but the deeper questions do not come through. Not for me, anyway.

Fair enough. The Chinese wonder why it is in the trash as well but they throw away far less "good stuff" than Americans do so perhaps that is part of the reason?

I need to go back and check the colors since people are saying they are too bright. First my monitor must be recalibrated though.
Thank you for your comments.

Damonff, you have some nice shots in the Holga forum you posted of the boy.

damonff

InsuredDisaster wrote: »

Fair enough. The Chinese wonder why it is in the trash as well but they throw away far less "good stuff" than Americans do so perhaps that is part of the reason?

I need to go back and check the colors since people are saying they are too bright. First my monitor must be recalibrated though.
Thank you for your comments.

Damonff, you have some nice shots in the Holga forum you posted of the boy.

Thanks - he's my son and primary model.

InsuredDisaster

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

I JUST tried to get a pic to look filmish (literally 10 minutes ago).
I always feel like film needs at least a little bit of noise to be convincing. Hopefully someone chimes in with some film-like methods

I actually don't think that film needs noise, especially the lower ISO stuff. Manufacturers have been trying to get rid of noise.

Perhaps if your shot was also black and white, it might help, but the noise on your photo looks a bit too high to me.

Anyway, as far as the meaningfullness of the photo I posted, I feel it had meaning for me at the time, and it still does. It makes me think.
Perhaps some in this forum find that people and only people have meaning which might explain the "inanimate object" comment (hey, stuffed animals have feelings too you know! ) Not everyone gets everyone elses "art" defintion. But anyway, I don't really care about that since that's not why I posted this photo.

My original question was "does it look like film?"

Nobody has said "yes", which leads me to the next question, What does film look like? ("Look at some film" would be a crap answer, so don't bother posting if that's yours."

To be honest, the reason I posted this is because once I got my D700, I started noticing that many photos straight out of camera had a "film" look about them. To me, I'm wondering if it is a depth of focus issue that triggers the "this looks like film" response in me. Colors have an important part as well. Perhaps the latest sensors have a greatly improved dynamic range over the earlier DSLRS (I think this is true.)

What about you? I'm sure that you've all seen a photo posted here and without being told, immediately felt it had been shot with film.

damonff

InsuredDisaster wrote: »

I actually don't think that film needs noise, especially the lower ISO stuff. Manufacturers have been trying to get rid of noise.

Perhaps if your shot was also black and white, it might help, but the noise on your photo looks a bit too high to me.

Anyway, as far as the meaningfullness of the photo I posted, I feel it had meaning for me at the time, and it still does. It makes me think.
Perhaps some in this forum find that people and only people have meaning which might explain the "inanimate object" comment (hey, stuffed animals have feelings too you know! ) Not everyone gets everyone elses "art" defintion. But anyway, I don't really care about that since that's not why I posted this photo.

My original question was "does it look like film?"

Nobody has said "yes", which leads me to the next question, What does film look like? ("Look at some film" would be a crap answer, so don't bother posting if that's yours."

To be honest, the reason I posted this is because once I got my D700, I started noticing that many photos straight out of camera had a "film" look about them. To me, I'm wondering if it is a depth of focus issue that triggers the "this looks like film" response in me. Colors have an important part as well. Perhaps the latest sensors have a greatly improved dynamic range over the earlier DSLRS (I think this is true.)

What about you? I'm sure that you've all seen a photo posted here and without being told, immediately felt it had been shot with film.

"Look at some film" is a legitimate response. The only way I can tell the difference is because I have shot and studied both. It may be a crap answer, but it is actually the only one. Go check out some film forums at flickr. They are a great learning tool.

bdcolen

InsuredDisaster wrote: »

Wondering if you are saying my image has no meaning. My question to you then, what is a stuffed animal in nearly perfect condition doing in the trash? A breakup? Poison spill? A bad memory?

Nope. I wasn't saying your image has no meaning. You're absolutely right that the new toy, discarded, raises those sorts of intriguing questions. I will say, though, that the color and the way it was exposed fried my brain in such a way that I didn't stop to think about the elements in the photograph. But the point I was trying to make is what is important is the subject, not whether it does or doesn't look like film. If you want images that look like film, by all means shoot film.

bdcolen

damonff wrote: »

"Look at some film" is a legitimate response. The only way I can tell the difference is because I have shot and studied both. It may be a crap answer, but it is actually the only one. Go check out some film forums at flickr. They are a great learning tool.

Ditto. But also, as I noted earlier, a black and white film image literally has visual depth to it, because of the film emulsion. The D700 is a wonderful camera, but it's still a digital camera and produces digital images. It's not so much that they 'look digital,' as it is that they don't look like film. I can look on a computer screen at the digital scans of my old Tri-X images, and they look like what they are - images shot on Tri-X.

InsuredDisaster

bdcolen wrote: »

Nope. I wasn't saying your image has no meaning. You're absolutely right that the new toy, discarded, raises those sorts of intriguing questions. I will say, though, that the color and the way it was exposed fried my brain in such a way that I didn't stop to think about the elements in the photograph. But the point I was trying to make is what is important is the subject, not whether it does or doesn't look like film. If you want images that look like film, by all means shoot film.

Pardon my reaction.



But I think film and the look IS as important as the subject at times. Think about if you are trying to recreate a certain look, or make people think of something. For example, if you are a shooting a WWII reenactment, then having something look like it is shot on film would make a big difference to reenactors and other enthusiasts.

Not saying that this shot would be much difference if shot in film or digital but still, the film look on some shots has immediately brought more comments and praise than the shot itself on these forums, so I think I'm not alone in thinking that a film look, or even different post processing techniques (even cross processing film) can make a big difference.

I'm going to have it printed and see what it looks like on paper vs my monitor before I explain the colors. Maybe my monitor is way off but I remember the color being extremely bright compared to the rest of the scene.

bdcolen

InsuredDisaster wrote: »

Pardon my reaction.



But I think film and the look IS as important as the subject at times. Think about if you are trying to recreate a certain look, or make people think of something. For example, if you are a shooting a WWII reenactment, then having something look like it is shot on film would make a big difference to reenactors and other enthusiasts.

Those of us who are obsessed with photography often lose sight (sorry) of the fact that most people can't tell a pixel from a Pixar, or film from flan. Those reenactors will love good images of them if you draw them on mud, shoot them on ancient Kodax XXX stock you find somewhere, or shoot them with a 1D MarkXXX. You may amuse yourself by shooting a Civil War reenactment with one of Mathew Brady's cameras, but you'll still be producing a photograph of a reenactment.

BTW - I would argue that the image below of discarded images, shot with a digital with less jarring colors, is more likely to evoke the WTF! you suggest you were going for with the big yellow whatsit with the film look. But may that's just because it's my image.

InsuredDisaster

I think it is all a matter of personal taste. Personally, I find the overall muted colors of yours to be somewhat distracting, as everything falls within a much narrower gamut, and the background is very busy. While the scene dictates the colors, I would have opened up the lens a lot ot try to OOF the background.

What I do like about your image is the dog that looks real. However, the viewpoint is a bit "static" for my tastes. This is a non moving scene, unless the garbage men were actually pushing you out of the way, I think you could have done more than snap the picture as you walked by. I understand that when shooting humans, you don't want them noticing you and changing their behavior, but here I would have tried varying my viewpoint. One thing I would have done is get down in the mud with the bear to shoot from its level. Another might have been to get behind the dog and shoot from its perspective.

Just me though. Thanks for sharing your image. Do you have any other from this scene?

sara505

InsuredDisaster wrote: »

I think it is all a matter of personal taste. Personally, I find the overall muted colors of yours to be somewhat distracting, as everything falls within a much narrower gamut, and the background is very busy. While the scene dictates the colors, I would have opened up the lens a lot ot try to OOF the background.

What I do like about your image is the dog that looks real. However, the viewpoint is a bit "static" for my tastes. This is a non moving scene, unless the garbage men were actually pushing you out of the way, I think you could have done more than snap the picture as you walked by. I understand that when shooting humans, you don't want them noticing you and changing their behavior, but here I would have tried varying my viewpoint. One thing I would have done is get down in the mud with the bear to shoot from its level. Another might have been to get behind the dog and shoot from its perspective.

Just me though. Thanks for sharing your image. Do you have any other from this scene?

You mean, the dog isn't real??

InsuredDisaster

Well maybe it is. I thought so at first, but the white of the paws and face (perhaps just hot highlights?) made me think it was something like the velvet you see on toys. I can understand now why BD might not have wanted to get right in the dog's face! Haha.

bdcolen

sara505 wrote: »

You mean, the dog isn't real??

Nope. . And that's precisely why I shot it as I did.

To respond to "Insured," the vantage point was intentional, as was the depth of field, etc. Getting 'down in the mud with the bear would have made it more apparent that the dog isn't real, and made it a very different image. I was not going for dramatic effect - I was going for a combination of WTF as the viewer realizes the dog isn't real - or fails to do so - and 'why has this stuff been tossed?' (The trash cans belong to a facility for homeless elderly women, and my guess is that a resident died, and those were hers. :cry) As to the "muted colors," I'd hate to see what constitute "bright colors" by that definition.:D

lizzard_nyc

bdcolen wrote: »

Nope. . And that's precisely why I shot it as I did.

To respond to "Insured," the vantage point was intentional, as was the depth of field, etc. Getting 'down in the mud with the bear would have made it more apparent that the dog isn't real, and made it a very different image. I was not going for dramatic effect - I was going for a combination of WTF as the viewer realizes the dog isn't real - or fails to do so - and 'why has this stuff been tossed?' (The trash cans belong to a facility for homeless elderly women, and my guess is that a resident died, and those were hers. :cry) As to the "muted colors," I'd hate to see what constitute "bright colors" by that definition.:D

And all this time I thought he was real.

InsuredDisaster

Thanks for the backstory. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a few written words help immensely. I'm dense like that.

Richard

He looked real by comparison to the others.

InsuredDisaster

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

And all this time I thought he was real.

Part of my disbelief was that I felt a dog would have a great deal of difficulty getting on top of the cans. (I'm sure someone will tell me otherwise, but I've had some experience with St Bernards, and there was no way the one I saw could jump that high to just sit there.)

When Sara shook my assumption that the dog was a toy, I started to think the image was amazing just because there was a dog doing the impossible!

lizzard_nyc

InsuredDisaster wrote: »

Part of my disbelief was that I felt a dog would have a great deal of difficulty getting on top of the cans. (I'm sure someone will tell me otherwise, but I've had some experience with St Bernards, and there was no way the one I saw could jump that high to just sit there.)

When Sara shook my assumption that the dog was a toy, I started to think the image was amazing just because there was a dog doing the impossible!

You are right, and the thought did cross my mind after I analyzed it. THen I wondered is there something behind the fence that allows the dog to climb up there easily to sun himself etc.
But on first glance my initial gut reaction was that the dog was real which made this shot so weird and funny. So the shot works.

Even after analyzing further I couldn't say with 100% certainty if it was real or not, which again makes it work.

InsuredDisaster

Well folks, I finally as able to check the accuracy of the prints vs the image on the computer. The image on the screen (all the ones I look at, calibrated and otherwise) is a bit brighter and more exposed looking than the print. I do not consider this a problem on my end. The Ektar 100 was scanned poorly on the shop's end . I'll see if this is because they are applying some sort of "correction" or if they are not not scanning them properly.

Thank you for your comments.