The FILM LOOK in digital photography?

I've recently been scanning my older 35mm slides with the Nikon Z7 II, MC 50mm f/2.8 and ES-2 film adapter. This has got me really missing the look of color from various films. Is it possible to get this look, but also have the modern features such as better dynamic range that we get from digital photography? I have a project I'm working on to explore this idea.

This video is sponsored by Squarespace

On my channel you will find videos about photography, cinematography, post processing tutorials for Capture One, Lightroom and Photoshop, photo assignments that YOU can participate in, the Artist Series and more. The Artist Series is an ongoing set of videos I produce as documentaries on living photographers. I am extremely passionate about photography and video and my goal in making these videos is to share my passion and enthusiasm with you! Don’t forget to subscribe and make sure to hit the like button and share this video if you enjoyed it!

Ted Forbes
The Art of Photography
2830 S. Hulen, Studio 133
Fort Worth, TX 76109
US of A

[EdwardIglesias]

It's funny, you're not recreating the look, but your memory of the look. It's like the idealized memory of a lover.

[AdrianBacon]

Interesting video... I own and operate a film processing lab and agree 100% that digital camera scanning is the way to go. In my shop, we've gone to the time and expense of going the full custom Digital camera scanning route (including software) and average a throughput of 1 frame every 5 seconds at 30+ MP per frame from one single scanning station. It's pretty awesome. I also agree that film tends to have its own look, though, once it's digitized, that's totally malleable. I don't agree with digital having more DR than film though. Slide film, absolutely, but negative film, no, not really. Digital has a lot more under exposure latitude than negative film does, but negative film generally (depending on the emulsion) has oodles of what is generally referred to as over-exposure latitude compared to digital. Negative film generally puts the film base plus fog (it's black level) at ~5 stops less than what is generally considered a correctly exposed exposure card, but... that is pretty subjective, and it's only that because that's what works well for making analog prints onto paper. If you don't care about that and want to effectively put your black levels about where they would be if shooting it digitally (through giving more exposure to the film, starting at about +3 EV over box speed) then you'd discover that film keeps going quite a bit past the point where digital is clipping stuff out to highlights, etc. Again, this with negative film, slide film is a different story. I personally tend to view the box speed of negative film as the minimum amount of light you need to give and choose an exposure that will reflect how far down I want the blacks to go, and with digital, I view the ISO Setting as the maximum amount of light to give and choose an exposure that will reflect how much highlights I want to retain while still maintaining a reasonable amount of noise. Make sense?

[EliDaSpanishFly]

Yes, I'd like to see more about the process. I'm just getting into film myself after using digital for a long time. But I feel the same way, I'd like to replicate the film look through lightroom if i could because it would help me understand certain film simulations easier.

[noah_the_nerd]

I'm not experienced in film photography, only digital, so take this lightly.
I agree with everything you say about the colors and dynamic range, however I'd like to add to it.

I feel much of what people describe as 'the film look' is not endemic to the medium of film, rather, is synonymous with the methods of film vs digital photography.
For example, the lenses made today are much more advanced than the ones made for film. So digital photos are overall going to be sharper and more contrasty (among other things).
Film grain is considered a hallmark of the medium, and yet digital has it's own 'grain' (noise). However, we rarely see digital noise in our work because de-noising algorithms are always applied.
Though this is more pertinent for small cameras, modern digital cameras will 'sharpen' everything so hard lines are over-accentuated. Film doesn't have the ability to harden lines.

And thus, (alongside the many differences in color and dynamic range you described) digital photos are sharper, more contrasty, not grainy, and noticeably sharpened.
So if we want to make a good effort to replicate the film look in digital photography, we should cover our bases by using vintage lenses, disabling sharpening, and either disabling de-noising or adding grain in post.

Perhaps this is why we feel film is more honest, because we never try to cover up its 'flaws'...

[teleaddict]

Great video. I love film and still shoot Fuji Provia occasionally. But getting the film look on digital is something I tried to do for ages and I don’t really think it’s possible. Film has grain and inconsistencies that you wouldn’t actually choose to add to your digital photos but on film it seems to work. Not every great photographer has to be good at computer editing and I find the process rather complicated and tedious. Therefore, in my opinion, film is film, digital is digital. If you want the film look, just go and shoot film. You will have more fun, get great looking photos and help a dying industry. 😉

[KNURKonesur]

Reminds me of some friends who say that I'm dumb for buying some oldschool lenses with interesting bokeh because "YOU CAN ALWAYS ADD THE BLUR IN PHOTOSHOP" :D

[MichaelCortese]

I started with Nikon digital, and have since switched to about 80% medium format film with my Pentax 6x7. However my Nikon Z6 still gets tons of love as I use it to scan the film with the 105 MC! The Z9 will then take over as my main digital camera/scanner

[VincentJohnsonArt]

Interesting video! I find film has the most natural colors. I partly have to disagree on the dynamic range part though. When scanning 120 color negative film, I find the dynamic range to be a lot higher, compared to most digital cameras. Especially with slight overexposure. This is the reason why switched from digital to film about a year ago.

[muppas]

I am absolutely interested in learning more about this area. It's a beast I've been chasing for years and experimented with over time with limited success. I now shoot with a Fujifilm digital, and I absolutely love it. But you're right: the film stocks still don't look like I expect them to.

I'd love to see what you are working on for Provia and Astia as well!

[juliettemansour]

So true that most of the Fujifilm simulations do not mirror the original film stock. I am so glad you included the disclaimer that there's no substitution for real film and that we are just looking for more versatility in the digital space. Your Velvia version is sweet! I am grateful for this channel! Thank you.

[scottdemello]

Ted love the channel. I have always been attracted to the various different styles (I use Capture One with Fuji X cameras) but have not really played with them that much. Your video is pretty fortuitous because this week I decided that I was going to treat film styles like rolls of film. I see a lot of negative comments about using digital styles - things like you are not being creative, you are letting the computer choose the look of your picture, yada, yada, yada. I starting thinking a bit about these comments and the role of styles generally. As you mentioned in your video, we used to pick a certain film for its look. I only shot film for a short period of time before going fully digital in 2003, but shot my share of Velvia and a few other emulsions. What I find interesting is that no-one seemed to complain when we would let the film emulsion choose the look of our photos, but with the infinite possibilities of Digital the limitations imposed by styles suddenly becomes a negative.

I have not fully thought it through, but I think that styles can very much be like lenses. We can have almost an infinite choice of lens field of view, particularly if we are using zoom lenses. Over the past several years however, I have almost totally transitioned to prime lenses, and despite having a bunch of them, I find that I am using a single focal length for the vast majority of my shots. While certainly limiting in some respects it is also equally liberating not having to worry about focal length all of the time allowing me to focus on the photographs that I am making.

I think film choice, when we shot film, used to do the same thing. On the one hand it limited our options, but on the other it made us focus on the photography. We would pick a look and work to make the photographs work within the confines of the limitations of the emulsion. I believe we can use styles in a similar manner, if we force ourselves, to limit ourselves to a certain look for a particular group of photos (like limiting ourselves to a single focal length of lens). Digital gives us unlimited "emulsions" but that is really overwhelming and we can use styles to find a look that we like, which may be film like, or not, and then we can focus on the photographs and making our art.

[Danno-Matic]

I used to love to cross process film and I've been having an internal debate about weather or not that's OK to fake digitally, so thank you for the permission to go forward! I've been tinkering with a Capture One style and think I'm close to what I used to get with film and I would 100% would love to know more about this process, specifically what you mention at 10:50. (And if anyone wants to provide feedback on my cross process style, please let me know; I'm happy to share it)

[ForestRoute]

Yes, I'd like to see more of this stuff. Can't wait for these profiles to become available.

[WolfQuantum]

I used to love Velvia 50 for landscape and Provia 100 for most other stuff. Naturally, for portraits, Kodak Porta got a lot of use. I do miss the look of those. I would love to be able to closely replicate that with digital in LightRoom. So, yes. Please keep it up and share the journey.

[ohmn]

As someone who started with digital, one of the key reasons why I started learning film photography is the distinct look film gives. I also started enjoying the process of film photography but that is secondary. With all the flexibility digital photography gives me, I would love to have the best of both worlds. Looking forward to more. Thanks for everything you do for the photography community

[erichartke]

your old video helped draw me back into film and now I shoot mostly film because I love the more tactile experience, but digital is more convenient there is no denying it. Great work with the profile.

[taytumwymer]

I think as photography goes on photographers can look to more areas to expand creativity, especially in editing. I’m still starting and so this is just my opinion but I think being able to edit in a film style or a more digital style or anything in between allows you to pick the style for the shot more specifically

[geoffr]

15:41 YES! I miss the look of film, but despite having half a dozen (mostly) working SLRs and a 6x6, I never shoot it anymore due to the added time, cost, and inconvenience.

[PhilKnall]

Your old film videos (especially the one about the Voigtländer Bessa RF) are the reason I shoot film :) Thank you!

[Richardincancale]

I used to love Orwochrom transparency film back in the late 1970s and 80s. It was an East German film whose colour rendering was completely off - but that made for great effects out of the ordinary! And it was cheap!!