burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I grew up with film from late 1959 to 2007. I quit using film in 2005, primarily because I'd just guided a major lab through the film-to-digital transition, and knew what I needed to know to do what I want to do with digital.

Fast forward to 2018... I started digitizing all my old film for a major project... a 45-minute video at my 45th class reunion (Davidson College, 1977). I started scouring YouTube to find out what others were doing, and came up with my solutions.

Meanwhile, I found some tremendous resources. Karin Majoka is one of them. She's a German film photographer who really knows her stuff. In this episode of her vlog/podcast, she discusses an iPhone app that simulates "The Film Look." (It is in English.)

I just watched it. If you give even a small damn about film, and own a late model iPhone, you should watch the video. It's... interesting.

I'll post the link below, so it doesn't get sent to the Tomb of Links and Resources.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Here is said link: https://youtu.be/EmdIMAF7QrQ

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The convenience of digital is very hard to beat. I have used film for most of my life and switched to digital around 2002. It has been a different world. I can do with digital what I never dreamed of using film.
One of the problem solved has been exposure. Using a histogram as a tool is a most accurate guide to exposure and if using a mirrorless camera we can see the changes we make to the exposure in the monitor.

Color film, which I like, could be a nightmare when it comes to printing. If the shot needs contrast we run out of luck. Monochrome photography shares better because we have papers with several grades of contrast to fit the scene. With digital we can apply contrast during editing to our images.
While a print is left with film to a technician's interpretation with digital we correct colors and edit the file to our liking. When the file is printed it will be an accurate reproduction of what we edited.

Shooting film could be expensive and although it is said there is a "film comeback" I do not see many photographers shooting film. None of the professional wedding photographers I know in the Miami area use film. I am sure still someone does but I am not aware of it.
With all the modern technologies modern digital cameras offer it is not easy deciding to shoot film again.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Extremely hard to tell sometimes, especially on a 2x3" image.
8x10 may be easier. More difficult the more an image is edited.
(If one scans a film print ( ie. to work on in an editor), it now becomes digital...)
But for the most part, it's a picture either way.
(Similar situation for, lets say, 15 v. 25 Mp prints.)

Festus Loc: North Dakota

Interesting video. However the IOS photo app she uses is quite expensive.

$9.99 per month or $79.99 per year.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Bill, you know this, but I mention for the general population. Taking pictures of film negatives aka scanning changes who we experience film now here in late January 2023. The pixel resolution of the resulting JPEG, and then any subsequent digital editing, makes 2023 'film' a hybrid result. Even the expensive high-resolution professional scans are only in the 17MP range, while native digital images are now nearly all from the universal 24MP camera, or higher. The rear camera of the iPhone 14 PRO delivers 45MP image files.

I watched only a bit of the video. Personally, as one who shot more film that digital in 2022, I don't see the interest (magic?) of processing digital files to look like film. Some might ask what is the magic of film if you're just going to scan and edit, delivery results at a lower pixel resolution than today's phones can deliver.

I'm not sure what attracts people to shooting film. Ideas like "film is real", "film has character", "film is organic" (from the video) just don't have traction for me. For my own film shooting, I know shooting film makes me shoot differently. I pick a subject and angle slower. I rarely shot two frames or a backup version, so that 1 shot is carefully composed, the background checked, the framing, leveling, etc. And, I edit the scans somewhat extensively, cleaning up dust in the scans as well as digitally removing distractions that got into the frame that I missed. And a lot of subtle adjustments to the contrast in B&W and the color saturation in color.

I also don't care that much for the film grain. It seems one person's grain is another person's underexposure. My exposures are nearly always 1-stop overexposed vs the film speed. In addition to filling every grain with light, I favor film stocks that have very fine grain, still not digital, but closer.

I wrote most of the above and then skipped ahead to the end of Karin's video to see if she had any summary thoughts after the examples. I don't develop my film, so there's a whole bunch of her "lifestyle" aspects of film that interest me in no way at all. I also don't shoot film with manual focus lenses nor the other 'tactile' aspects of her preferred camera.

So maybe for me, it's a different process giving different results. I have no desire to edit digital to look like film. That's just more time at the computer, even if there are film 'presets' to short cut the processing. If I want images that look like film, I just shoot film, not edit digital.

If you like the image, the look, the colors, the composition, etc, who cares if it was all digital or a hybrid from film?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Bingo!
Bottom line!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Conversion to digital imaging gave us more control over color and tone than we ever thought possible with film. The last frontier is dynamic range, but that seems to be giving way to the engineers' efforts as I type.

Converting film negatives to raw digital files has been a revelation for me. All the control and precision of digital imaging is there. We can get any color we want, whether "natural" or "moody." In 2003, it took tens of thousands (if not millions) of dollars (and support from Kodak technicians) to have the sort of control over film scans that we have with Lightroom Classic and the Negative Lab Pro plug-in.

Even copying prints allows subjectively better (different, anyway) interpretations of old images.

The expense of film is what will be its ultimate demise, as many film photographers are now lamenting. Karin's video is a leader's statement that what changes somehow remains the same, if only virtually. The film "comeback" of the last few years is waning, due in part to the pandemic and its dampening effect on everything. Film inventories seem low, and prices have risen dramatically since 2020. Only a small handful of film cameras are still being made, including the new Leica M6, which is priced in the stratosphere.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Your last sentence is basically my point, that the finished image (and what it "says") is more important than the tools that made it.

It's interesting that people often remark about the different approach they have to film photography — that "slow down and really look" effect. That can be done with a phone or a digital camera or a film camera if there is conscious effort to do so.

I don't think Karin is going to do much with her iPhone that she does with her Leica M6 or her medium format or 4x5 cameras. Her point is that for many, similar effects can be had on the go. If the images are online, it doesn't help much to use film.

The digital camera does offer the ability to create huge files from film negatives. A Fujifilm GFX-100 with a macro lens gets to 100MP. A Lumix GH6 and a macro can approximate that with its high resolution mode. But from 35mm film, all you're getting is a bigger, print-ready file, once you get beyond 16 to 25MP.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I can, and have fooled a photography friend of mine, make a digital photograph look like film. I can't go the other way, though. I do like using film. There are things I can do with film that I cannot replicate with digital. The reverse is also true.
--Bob

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

If one is going to compare film v. digital, the film shot should be printed on photo emulsion paper, without the benefit of a digital editor. THEN it may be easier to differentiate.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I don't know of any major labs that print chromogenic silver halide papers on optical equipment. Most pro labs stopped that around 2003 to 2007 or so. We would scan film and print digitally on Kodak or Fujifilm RC base papers. All those papers had been fully optimized for digital exposure by then. We printed on mini-labs using light valve technology or lasers.

Black-and-white is another story. Many small custom labs and hobbyists still do hand printing and development.

Volume scanning of films ended before 2010 or so. That was the last year Kodak supported any of its Bremson film scanners. Ours were removed in 2007, as we ripped out the film processors.

BTW, we had tens of millions invested in optical printers, paper processors, film processors, and other analog tools. We had to pay to have it all recycled. NO ONE wanted that stuff, or the 1100 gallon film chemical mixing and storage tanks. The transition for us was a 12-year ordeal.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

So a film shot is made digital before printing on photographic emulsion paper?

Interesting........
Very interesting.....

GeneinChi Loc: Chicago, IL

Please excuse my ignorance, but, if one is shooting film then digitizing it to edit so it looks like digital, why shoot film to start with? Unless all you have is a film camera!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States