Digital imaging has made tremendous improvements since the days of the 2 or 3mp cameras. It has all but eliminated film at all levels, from the casual snapshooter to the working professional photographer.
How ironic is it that at least two companies now offer software to simulate the look of film?
The alienskin.com site offers EXPOSURE: the closest thing to film since film.
At dxo.com you'll find FilmPack v1.2: Rediscover the magic of film in digital photography.
Since I'm still using film I'm saving money by not needing to buy this software.
2007-12-04 02:43:01 · 9 answers · asked by EDWIN 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
I still shoot film, mostly in black and white, because I have found it difficult to replicate the "look" of great B&W film with a quality process, in digital. It is possible though, but I don't put much weight into specialty niche programs, especially those that cost me money when I've already got photoshop. I can't imagine those programs doing things that can't already be done in photoshop given you know how [which I don't most of the time, so I shoot B&W film to get what I want]. I wouldn't neccessarily say film is better, but unless you've got the right camera, dynamic range will limit textures between midtones, highlights, and shadows. The cool thing is, according to Ken Rockwell, dynamic range has been significantly improved with the new nikon D300, in a couple of years [at most] other manufacturers will offer the same improvements in technology which will further eliminate the need or want to use film. But, I suspect that the nostalgic nature of some photographers will always provide enough demand for film so that it will never really go away. That's my opinion, anyway. As far as saving any money goes, when I shoot black and white film, I usually send it out to be cross processed into reversal slides, which isn't cheap, but I like what I get from it. I will never buy software that can "mimmick" the look of film, instead I'll just shoot film, spend 30 bucks and wait 2 weeks to get my slides and hi res scans back. Works for me...
2007-12-04 04:40:22 · answer #1 · answered by Joe Schmo Photo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well if you are talking irony since the digital revolution in photography there has been a resurgent interest in antiquated photographic processes from tintypes to dagguereotypes, processes that havent been popular for 150 years. http://www.alternativephotography.com/
Personally I shoot both digital and film, and I don't feel one is superior over the other. For instance yesterday morning I did some catalog fashion shots with a nikon d200, but later that evening I used my linhof technikardran 4x5 to shoot a new dentist office. In terms of digital being able to replace my 4x5, it hasn't. Sure I can get a 900megapixel scanning back from a company like Annagram http://www.anagramm.com/ but digital technologies for large format have not been that flexible, and there are too many drawbacks, so if I am shooting 4x5 or 8x10, its still with film even if digital backs are available.
2007-12-05 09:57:18 · answer #2 · answered by wackywallwalker 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not ironic.
In small format, film still beats the snot out of digital in microcontrast accuracy.
Translation: uh...how come all the faces look like they're from a video game?
If this software can bring back the detail, it can also raise the dead...
2007-12-05 00:54:50 · answer #3 · answered by V2K1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some Holga users try to get light leaks as an effect, some people "toss" their cameras for an effect, some put Polaroid boarders around their images....it's all effects, not the norm.
I downloaded this free program http://www.optikvervelabs.com/ and many of it's effects are film style, so I saved processing money, film money AND software money as well!
2007-12-04 11:09:29 · answer #4 · answered by Perki88 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
yes you are but look at all the other possibilities you are missing... on the other hand, most working pros shoot both, Medium to large format film cams are still huge in the fashion industry, only now, most guys are also using a digital back on them for instant feedback.. but they are still shooting film!!!
Hey, you love what you love, if its film, so be it.. no one can tell you what you like, need or want but you!
2007-12-04 15:54:26 · answer #5 · answered by craig z 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What both are trying to do in their purest form is to accurately represent what we see, so it's not so much that digital is trying to emulate film but reality and as yet has not come as close to doing this as film. But it's catching up.
2007-12-04 13:09:49 · answer #6 · answered by Dawg 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
film looks like film, digi looks like digi
its about the look
film: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2083704294&size=l
a
2007-12-04 16:28:58 · answer #7 · answered by Antoni 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the rebel xti is too expensive for me so i am sticking to my eos1000 using iso100..so far so good ...pretty cheap at WM too...
2007-12-04 11:16:43 · answer #8 · answered by gta 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
ummmm.. O.k.... I will just hold onto my little 35mm camera then.
2007-12-04 10:51:44 · answer #9 · answered by angel 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋