David talks about the difference between Film and Digital. He discusses the problem with digital images all looking the same and how to add some character back into the image. Full course available for purchase and download on creativeLIVE:
16 Comments
I think the original picture looked better. But I'm not a photographer so what do I know
Dude looks like a certified serial killer, or a mass murderer at least!!! Creepy eyes……
Shoot film or digital, but for all you people raving about how film slows you down: if what it takes to slow you down is an outdated camera, then how much emphasis are you putting on actually taking good pictures?
Well I have my own approach and don't take sides. It is obvious that post production is a huge part of digital photography and the editing power is incredible. Technically there is just one last hurdle for digital (everybody knows this): blown/clipped highlights. Detail is gone and it looks terrible. But this will be resolved soon with increased dynamic range. Digital rules in low light situations.
'That' film look is about what happens when light hits the emulsion and what happens during processing. It's very organic looking, resolution and highlights just roll of gently – no unpleasant artifacts. Modern high res scanners can get all the depth and detail (yep: gain is also detail) out of film. I personally love film (especially Super 16mm for short motion picture films – it's just gorgeous and endlessly re-watchable), but it is slow, cumbersome, not exactly cheap – and there are limitations. One needs to be very skilled and experienced to get great results with film. I am willing to learn and work around problems, because I want to. I find it fun and exciting. But that's me.
This IMHO shouldn't be a discussion at all. Nobody should look down on anyone with a different opinion than our own.
What a joke, "One of the really horrible thing about digital cameras is that they produce images that look the same… what you get is very faithful renditions of the scene, but with no character".
This is the perfect example of puritan stupidity. He believes that crap stuck to celluloid, dust, impurities, scratches and grain, give "character" to your image. What absolute horseshit. This is up there with modern art. You have to be a certain kind of idiot to hate precision and mock the concept of "faithful renditions". What is my camera suppose to do other than to accurately capture what is in front of me? Why don't I just smudge shit on my lens, maybe then it'll have some "character".
The title of this video doesn't really match the content. It seems to be more about how to retouch digital images to his preferred color palette. I agree with his intent though. The out of camera jpgs generally attempt to reproduce color as it looks in real life, which can appear dull and boring. The great thing about film, is that it's made to give a view of reality that's more pleasing to the eye in both colors and texture. There's a lot of good film emulators available that can provide an approximate look and feel to digital images… I like using Nik Color/Silver Efex, which is now free. Fujifilm digital cameras have very good in-camera film simulations that achieve the general look of their popular film stocks.
*I think more people are realizing that ALL photographs are merely an illusion of reality. When you start to brake away from trying to replicate reality, you give your images the freedom to look their best.
I started film and I think I'm ready to go back, digital has always had a dead feel to the images and I hate editing on computer, I would much rather be in the dark room. Also when you shoot film you spend much more time thinking of how to nail the shot, you take more brackets and you end up starting off with a better image most of the time. Plus you cannot beat the satisfaction of producing a B&w print developing the whole thing yourself, you feel like the images are really a part of you and you can always go grab your achieved work and take a look without worrying about some pos hard drive failing and loosing everything you work for.
i hate pp thats why i shool film. i hate dslr,s. they are too big and bulky. digital photography gives me a headache
What i DISLIKE about digital is [a] two scans per frame and the jaggys HD or not. [b] too real…lacks the movie look with no 'grain' which adds to the escape from reality movies gave the viewer….always. digital pictures and movies do have a place, but NOT for principal photography; only afterwards, I believe.
Get the Phase one 645D ,and you will see , the different,..
Definitely. Dynamic range is one area were high end digi cams are starting to catch up to film. Phase one actually released a new digital back that comes pretty close if not beats medium format film. In cinema, the REDS definitely do beat film in terms of dynamic range. But, those are pretty inaccessible to me haha, and even if they were, i have to say i do love the film process. That was my first exposure to photography, as a kid getting a tour of a darkroom. I've been hooked ever since.
cont… a few specifics that come to mind are the dynamic range, especially in medium format film, or even large format, the optical qualities, DOF on my 67 camera is amazingly thin, and even more so on large format, grain vs noise is no comparison, highlights are gorgeous on color negative film, ect.
Again, if digital is the look you want, go for it. I hate to come off as a snob who thinks his way is better, but i am trying to say they are definitely different and its no so simple to emulate.
yeeah, i wouldnt say the same potential results. I mean if your artistic vision is more condusive to the look of digital than go for it, but if its condusive to the look of film then your probably better off shooting film. Its very rare for me to see digital photogs good at emulating film. Motion picture on the other hand is a different story, those guys are good. Also it helps that digital motion picture also has a pretty high dynamic range similiar to film. Filters just dont cut it though.
Digital is for newbies and amateurs that seem to not see any difference between film and digital video stills
It would be better if we could understand him
The thing is with Portra for portraits, is that it's awesome.