• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Getting tired of

fahim mohammed

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
the plastic look! Looking thru some old files came across ' film '. Brought a smile to my face and
a warmth to my heart.

p290645233.jpg

Thanks for looking.
 
fahim mohammed

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Asher, I feel that a lot of my digital captures have a plastic look. cannot describe it, feels they lack something. maybe I am getting nostalgic. They seem to be so like 'Barbie'; clean, surgically clean.

I am tending to favor something like so:

p483137863.jpg

imperfect. with all its faults, it has soul, conveys feeling, atmosphere...

Asher Kelman said:
Fahim,

I'm not sure I understand the comment, but I like the picture. Warms my heart too!

Asher
Click to expand...
 
J

John Angulat

pro member
I want to understand, but I'll leave that between me and my mind to sort out...

Such a fine image! I feel as if I'm walking with them.
Very well done and I appreciate you sharing this with us.

Wait!...You've posted another while I'm responding, along with an explanation!
There's nothing now to sort out.
It's what I thought you meant, and I agree!
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Fahim,

Now I understand. Look at Stuart's picture of a canal with an old family B&W picture of fishing with his grandmother. That amazes me becasue it's so dimensional and we'd call it just an old faded and forgotten memento family picture, except it has so much real life in it. It seems to be happening right now. Explain that! Is it the B&W and the casual informality with the grain and such, or what?

Asher
 
fahim mohammed

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Thanks Mike. For once, I was at a loss for the appropriate words to say! made a quick get away. Was afraid to get into trouble..they might know someone high up!

Regards.

Mike Shimwell said:
I understand Fahim, not that I can explain it. Another nice picture. Did you talk with them?

Mike
Click to expand...
 
Z

Zaahir Essa

New member
Yeah, I know what you mean. That smoothed look of digital does not look right at all...and the small viewfinders are quite terrible too :)
 
Doug Kerr

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
I'm quite aware of what Fahim "complains" about.

It this it is important that we become able to characterize what quantifiable technical properties of typical digital photographs lead to this quite common perception.

That way, if we prefer the "film" look, we can take steps to attain it.

If we're just stuck with "I don't know what it is, but I don't always like it", then we are stuck with "it".
 
B

Bart_van_der_Wolf

pro member
Doug_Kerr said:
I'm quite aware of what Fahim "complains" about.

It this it is important that we become able to characterize what quantifiable technical properties of typical digital photographs lead to this quite common perception.

That way, if we prefer the "film" look, we can take steps to attain it.

If we're just stuck with "I don't know what it is, but I don't always like it", then we are stuck with "it".
Click to expand...

Hi Doug,

Good points. We often hear about mystical properties of film (=not plastic looking), or of medium format (= 3D looking), etc. without getting to the bottom of it (even if it hurts to find that we're fooling ourselves because in a double blind test we can't pick which is which). Thus we're stuck with "it".

The general conclusions I have come to after many years of research is:
1. Overzealous noise reduction (even reducing photon shot noise) will create a plastic look. I rarely reduce noise, and even then I leave a good deal of luminance noise in the result.
2. 3D-looks have to do with sensor array dimensions, thus allowing shallower DOF and better MTF contrast at lower frequencies. The MTF part can, up to a point, be addressed in postprocessing, but the tools are often cumbersome to use. Realistic DOF is harder to achieve after the fact. The S-curve of the film response can be achieved in postprocessing quite easily, so tonality differences are probably limited to MTF response.

Cheers,
Bart
 
Last edited:
M

Michael K. Carberry

New member
Art always has an imperfection.Now with digital we can make it "perfect".And IMO it loses the human touch with that.My fellings only.I believe I understand Fahim.I like vinyl as well.
 
M

Mike Shimwell

New member
Bart_van_der_Wolf said:
Hi Doug,

Good points. We often hear about mystical properties of film (=not plastic looking), or of medium format (= 3D looking), etc. without getting to the bottom of it (even if it hurts to find that we're fooling ourselves because in a double blind test we can't pick which is which). Thus we're stuck with "it".

The general conclusions I have come to after many years of research is:
1. Overzealous noise reduction (even reducing photon shot noise) will create a plastic look. I rarely reduce noise, and even then I leave a good deal of luminance noise in the result.
2. 3D-looks have to do with sensor array dimensions, thus allowing shallower DOF and better MTF contrast at lower frequencies. The MTF part can, up to a point, be addressed in postprocessing, but the tools are often cumbersome to use. Realistic DOF is harder to achieve after the fact. The S-curve of the film response can be achieved in postprocessing quite easily, so tonality differences are probably limited to MTF response.

Cheers,
Bart
Click to expand...


Bart

I agree, although I'm not sure why you would seek to emulate film rather than just use it. There are some complexities to film response curves that are not easy to replicate too.

Having said that, I agree that excessive noise reduction is often the reason for digital images looking unnatural - I too almost never use any luminance noise reduction and just minimal chroma nr. The slight texture resulting gives, to my eyes at least, a much preferable print.

Having said that, the 1Ds3 at high iso (even though noisier per pixel than the 5D) is still remarkable really. I have a medium iso print of my youngest on a railway track on a dim autimn day that (at only 10.5 by 7 inches) has amazing visual appeal, ,just from the way the picture is rendered.

Sensor size is, as you say, important. I can't afford a medium format digital system and it wouldn't work for much of what I do, but I suspect they are very good.

MIke
 
B

Bart_van_der_Wolf

pro member
Mike Shimwell said:
Hard to tell when it's small, but I'd guess digital. nice conversion if it is:)
Click to expand...

I agree. In fact, there is nothing mythical about film that cannot be reproduced in a digital capture.

Just shoot a grayscale/stepwedge and print it on you usual grade of paper. Now make a linear gamma scan, and you have determined the particular output tonemapping with highlight roll-off that will give you the same result from your digital Raw file.

The digital Raw file has the added benefit of having the possibility to apply any conceivable color filter in postprocessing.

Cheers,
Bart
 
M

Mike Shimwell

New member
Bart_van_der_Wolf said:
I agree. In fact, there is nothing mythical about film that cannot be reproduced in a digital capture.

Just shoot a grayscale/stepwedge and print it on you usual grade of paper. Now make a linear gamma scan, and you have determined the particular output tonemapping with highlight roll-off that will give you the same result from your digital Raw file.

The digital Raw file has the added benefit of having the possibility to apply any conceivable color filter in postprocessing.

Cheers,
Bart
Click to expand...


Yes, the highlight roll off is very important if you want to match the look of black and white film. The response to highlights and 'soft clipping' is a part of film's appeal.

As you say, applying 'colour filtration' in post is a nice benefit, but you also need to emulate the underlying response curve (or at least the combined curve). This means that you probably want a bit more than just a grayscale step wedge to accurately emulate black and white film, but the principle is sound. There can also be a real issue in getting the same dynamic range from digital as from black and white film, but not to the extent often suggested in my (humble) experience.

Grain, of course, can be simulated in different ways with differing success.

35mm digital still cannot resolve as much as slow black and white film, but the reality of shooting iso 6 to 20 microfilm and developing in specialist developers before enlarging through a suitably high quality optical enlarger means that this isn't a common approach.

So not suggesting anything magical, just I like to use film sometimes.

Mike


So, digital or film?
Path on a walk.jpg​
 
R

Ron Morse

New member
Fahim, I know what you mean and agree with you. Some times film is just refreshing.

I hope I keep liking it, I just bought 60 rolls of film and put in the refrigerator.

So Mike, please, is it film or digital?
 
R

Ron Morse

New member
Bart_van_der_Wolf said:
Hi Doug,

Good points. We often hear about mystical properties of film (=not plastic looking), or of medium format (= 3D looking), etc. without getting to the bottom of it (even if it hurts to find that we're fooling ourselves because in a double blind test we can't pick which is which). Thus we're stuck with "it".

The general conclusions I have come to after many years of research is:
1. Overzealous noise reduction (even reducing photon shot noise) will create a plastic look. I rarely reduce noise, and even then I leave a good deal of luminance noise in the result.
2. 3D-looks have to do with sensor array dimensions, thus allowing shallower DOF and better MTF contrast at lower frequencies. The MTF part can, up to a point, be addressed in postprocessing, but the tools are often cumbersome to use. Realistic DOF is harder to achieve after the fact. The S-curve of the film response can be achieved in postprocessing quite easily, so tonality differences are probably limited to MTF response.

Cheers,
Bart
Click to expand...

Bart, why is it that of my M/F lenses that I really enjoy, some of them very often produce the 3D effect and other ones that are also very nice lenses don't? As an example my Zeiss 50mm 1.7 planar often gives the 3D effect.
 
M

Mike Shimwell

New member
Ron Morse said:
Fahim, I know what you mean and agree with you. Some times film is just refreshing.

I hope I keep liking it, I just bought 60 rolls of film and put in the refrigerator.

So Mike, please, is it film or digital?
Click to expand...


Hi Ron

That one's digital - 5D and a bit of care in Lightroom. Not to emulate film at all, just to get the tonality I wanted. It just happens to be quite filmic in look:)

Mike
 
B

Bart_van_der_Wolf

pro member
Ron Morse said:
Bart, why is it that of my M/F lenses that I really enjoy, some of them very often produce the 3D effect and other ones that are also very nice lenses don't? As an example my Zeiss 50mm 1.7 planar often gives the 3D effect.
Click to expand...

Hi Ron,

I don't know. I'd have to analyse the MTF before I could tell, because I suspect it to be the reason.

Here is a rather detailed explanation by Zeiss, and part 2 also has many image examples, some of which may have that '3D look'.

Cheers,
Bart
 
W

Wendy Thurman

New member
fahim mohammed said:
Asher, I feel that a lot of my digital captures have a plastic look. cannot describe it, feels they lack something. maybe I am getting nostalgic. They seem to be so like 'Barbie'; clean, surgically clean.

I am tending to favor something like so:

p483137863.jpg

imperfect. with all its faults, it has soul, conveys feeling, atmosphere...
Click to expand...

I certainly understand what you are saying, Fahim. I'm getting exactly the results I had hoped for using the big Nikon on the underwater work but for street and people photography, I too prefer the "atmosphere" of a film image. Now that the holiday is over, it's back to the Leica.

Wendy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top