The FILM LOOK in digital photography?

[@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.

[@valdiskrebs566]

Yes! You win the best comment of the post.

[@smallbatchsessions6892]

Well said

[@bhotaling1]

Pictures of Madelines

[@mikewilson8513]

Absolutely spot on. My first reaction when i saw the title of this video was simply "WHY ?" Digital is a million times better than film, and on every level.

[@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

[@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?

[@christopherward5065]

Absolutely. The other thing to mention, particularly with negative stock is that you can compensate for lighting using both the development and the exposure to maintain highlight detail and shadow detail. The printing was where the local contrast was determined. The professional films had lower contrast and higher acuity in the mid tones than the consumer emulsions. I am glad that Ted is exploring what to do to bring film feel together with digital practices. The two media at their best seem to exist on different sides of the street and require very different mindsets and expectations. I have stopped previsualising my final image with any film stock and it’s aesthetics in mind. I look at film photographs and love the plasticity and colours but, I don’t speculate about film stock as much.

[@F9FCJ429]

Right with you on the benefits of digital camera as scanner. And how much highlight latitude is hiding in those color negatives. i think paper and later, CCDS and 90s hardware held color negative back. I shoot vanishing roadside America so, lots of night shots with neon and artificial light sources. I do this on a variety of film stocks and formats plus my ‘camera scanner’ Sony A7Riv and a recently acquired GFX100S. I was astounded the first time I put even a modest stock like Lomo CN800 shot in my RZ67 through the camera scan/NegativeLabPro workflow. It was like using Lightroom’s grownup HDR process; I could hold back highlights to retain color in true neon, the kind that is clear glass when off and reddish orange when lit. That’s my benchmark. True neon has strong green lines in its spectra and easily goes to babysh*t yellow when captured if one isn’t careful. About those Fuji emulations: Nostalgic Negative is a drug for those attracted to neon motels and gritty old downtown Las Vegas. Instant Stephen Shore. It was that one extra thing that pushed me into a GFX100S. I’ll be following this series of videos closely!

[@KNURKonesur]

What about medium and large format film scans?

[@AdrianBacon]

@@christopherward5065 For black and white, yes, changing the development to meet your output needs is pretty common. For color negative, I don't recommend doing that as C-41 is pretty standardized and changing the development regime introduces all kinds of variations into the 3 color channels, and it's not predictable from emulsion to emulsion. If you only shoot one emulsion and know it well and do your own processing, then, sure, you can go there, but in my experience, it's more trouble than it's worth. Same with E-6. Unless you know what you're going to get and can't get there once it's digitized, not generally worth it.

[@AdrianBacon]

@@F9FCJ429 Yep, many negative films can pretty easily hold 16+ stops of total DR without even breaking a sweat. Depending on the stock and where it shoulders you may or may not start to get highlight colors that push towards a color cast, which is a problem if you're making analog prints, but if digitizing, it's fairly straightforward to correct out. With BW negative, TMAX 400 is the king of DR. I've had stuff come through the shop where the shooter accidentally overexposed by 6 or 7 stops (1/400th of a second at f/1.4 outside in the middle of the day, way, way, way over) and it was really dense and grainier than it'd be if less exposure was used, but, with a shorter processing time, once it was digitized, it was all there. The highlights were beautiful, and the client had miles of shadow detail. They actually commented that it almost looked digital with how much shadow detail was there.

[@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'...

[@dre400]

Sharper isn't necessarily better. Film has a more organic sharpness. Film and digital has its pros and cons, like digital drawing or on paper, acrylic or oil paint etc. you choose what fits your needs. Some pros with film is the variety of formats, resolution (can exceed 1000mp), dynamic range, colours (based on opinion but often goes to film by many), film grain and more. 35mm and 70mm are often used in movies and preferred by many directors over digital. While 35mm has a resolution at 9K, 70mm reaches 19k. Movies like Once upon a time in Hollywood are shot on 35 and 16mm film, other newer movies shot on film are James Bond No time to die, The Joker, Fast and the furious, Wonder Woman 1984. There's a reason film are chosen over digital on blockbusters like these. And as Tarantino stated, digital can get close to film, but why shoot a format to try to replicate another instead of using the real thing. And went on to compare digital to a veggie burger.

[@noah_the_nerd]

@@dre400 ​ I agree sharper isn't necessarily better, and I made no claims that either medium was inherently sharper than the other. You do raise a good point, though, about the sharpness difference between film and digital that I forgot to cover, I suppose because the video didn't cover it either. What I mean to say is that the 'digital look' and 'film look' imply more than just the look of digital sensors and film emulsions. Modern lenses are generally sharper than vintage lenses, and thus digital media takes on that sharpness because modern lenses are only designed for digital cameras. Likewise, sharpening algorithms are regularly applied to digital media and never to film media, so digital media takes on that 'digital sharpness' as well, even if it's not an effect naturally brought on by the sensor. I agree that the film look has an 'organic sharpness', but just like 'digital sharpness' comes from modern lenses and sharpening software, I believe a portion of that organic sharpness stems from the characteristics of vintage lenses and then not fussing about with software in post. Of course, the arrangement of crystals in a film emulsion also leads to organic sharpness, but I believe that doesn't account for all of it. Tarantino is right, but he's also a purist. If you want it to look exactly like film, you shoot it on film. However, if you want to get the 'film look' with a digital camera, you can achieve many parts of it honestly by using the same lenses and techniques that are used on film. This is why Joker (a production that aimed for the film look yet used digital cameras) paired their modern ARRI cameras with vintage lenses. Hopefully I was able to clear up any confusion about my comment.

[@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.

[@ddsdss256]

Film = vinyl records; digital = well, digital. I shot film for decades (mainly Kodak, Agfa, and Fuji) but just as I can emulate analog amps reasonably well digitally, DxO FilmPack and various Nik plug-ins do a masterful job of emulating many film looks. IMO, DxO is much better than anyone else in this regard, as they have all of the data required to create more accurate renderings (and they now include many Fuji camera looks as well as all of the emulsions you mentioned and many more), plus you have the ability to access these from FilmPack within PhotoLab and tweak the settings in either program to get the exact look you want (however you recalled it). You can also export from PL to Nik (Silver Efex Pro in the case of B&W) to apply further enhancements if "necessary." Also, you have way more flexibility with what you can do to an image compared to film (especially with DxO's U Point tech, which enables you tweak specific areas, so you could "fix" the skin tones without affecting anything else that fell in the same color range). Lenses and technique also affect things, but I think the key element here is in the printing. Especially when coupled with the aforementioned workflow, My Epson P900 with various papers can produce very convincing film-like results. For example, I expect it would be very difficult for many "experts" to tell a P900 (or a Canon PRO-1000) print, especially on various baryta papers, from a film-derived silver-gelatin print (certainly at a normal viewing distance). Some may beg to differ, but as far as I'm concerned, the only really important thing is to get the look you want (regardless of how a laboratory analysis might assess things) and I can generally do that, so no more chemicals for me!

[@MichaelCortese1]

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

[@hellatightdude]

I actually shoot with a Pentax 67II and am looking to sell it and move to digital cause the cost to shoot/develop are killing my wallet! However the results with that camera and the 105/2.4 SMC are just incredible

[@humanbeeing69]

Who cares? I am sick and tired of all these technology wankers. I have seen a lot of KZbin movies, i have written a lot of commands...they are all the same. It's pathetic!!! Stop buying gear. Stop doubting. Be happy with what you have and work on your artistic skills.

[@hellatightdude]

@@humanbeeing69 are you addressing him or me?

[@humanbeeing69]

@@hellatightdude it's in general

[@MichaelCortese1]

@@humanbeeing69 huh

[@b991228]

I like adding grain in digital camera that would ‘simulate’ film look. Now I’ve progressed into another approach. Rather than pretending that my digital film look was fooling anyone I still sometime do grain type look but accept that it is a well rendered digital effect.

[@juliette-mansour]

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.

[@teleaddict23]

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. 😉

[@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.

[@edwardbrown2142]

he is talking mostly about slide film, which has a much narrower dynamic range than negative film

[@41666bg]

Yes! Also, film reciprocity is what gives us that warm and realistic tone curve. Digital just exposes every tonal range at the same exposure rate. Which is why it's so easy to blow out highlights. Frustrating and sometimes Infuriating if you ask me.

[@geoff650r]

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.

[@teufelsbauer]

I stopped film shooting since there are so expensive. Here in austria you have to pay for one HP5 roll about 9€. The porta 800 is about 14€. One roll!!! Thats insane!

[@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)

[@edwardcrosby5034]

It’s interesting that many digital photographers are trying to get the “film look”. Maybe that’s why film photography is seeing a revival ?

[@Gnshksvr]

I’m pretty surprised that I didn’t see anything about VSCO film presets within the first couple scrolls through the comments. VSCO did the same thing and then some, between 2011 and 2018 I believe, working with professional colour graders and camera manufacturers. They did different sets with different film stocks for different cameras as how the sensors treated the information coming in differs and every sensor required specialised attention. End result was amazing. Then they decided to get rich and switched to mobile. Anyway, this is still quite a good idea, and it’s a fun exercise on Lightroom.

[@borja2771]

RNI presets are even better!

[@jpdj2715]

Dynamic range of film less than your/my Z 7ii? Well in 1970, we would measure/calibrate sensitivity and processing and measure film or print in "density" (let's call that saturation to keep it easy). This generally generated sort-of an "S" curve with a straight section that we considered "usable dynamic range" or usable contrast envelope. That straight section in the density curve would cover about "4" units on the X axis. This was hard to grasp for uneducated photographers. Because the "X axis" in the graphs represented the 10-base log intensity* time. Extremely good films might go to "5" or bad films to a bit less than 4 (log i*t). What does that "4" mean? Well, if we remove the log, we get 10,000 and if we look at f-stops, we need to go to 14 in order to get more than 10,000 as f-stops or EV stops are 2-base log things. If a film could go to "5" you would have 20 f-stops. The problem with film is that it needs to be printed and in the end you only have between 3 and 5 f-stops of contrast and seemingly that is your dynamic range. As average film would easily do "4" in the straight section of the density curve, there still are the non-linear "shoulders at the bottom and top of the graph - imagine software to straighten these shoulders out and you can digitally increase the usable dynamic range of film. The problem with digital is that we generally look at our photos on a computer monitor with a childishly limited color space and even worse dynamic range.

[@theartofphotography]

So you could explain that without insulting "uneducated photographers" - I'm sure not intended. As for the childishly limited displays - SDR is about 6 stops which can handle film scans (depends on the monitor I realize). HDR is much higher (15 or so if I recall).

[@taytumwymer770]

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

[@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.

[@benjones8977]

I’m not much interested in going backwards, I understand the interest in film and the look, but at this point in my life it’s more important to get the images! Too many photographers I meet are all about gear and lenses and equipment and seem to have forgotten the photograph. I’m more interested in the subject matter and how I can make it stand out. But good luck in your pursuits. 🖖

[@dre400]

One of the reason many go over to analog, digital is too much gear talk where the photos turns less important. With an analog a $50 camera vs a $2000 camera uses the same "sensor" and gear is less important. I must add shooting analog is not going backwards. That'd be the same to say an artist are going backwards for drawing/painting on paper instead of digital. Now I can return from a vacation with 100 memorable photos instead of 3000 photos that I struggle to go through, ends up on a hard drive and never seen again.

[@benjones8977]

@@dre400 I came from analog or should I say film, so I understand it quite a bit. It’s the same whether you were doing film or digital, how much time are you going to spend with technique and technology. I know a few film photographers who still can’t even get a simple image to look good! It’s the same even with digital photographers, as too many don’t even know how to process an image, and their understanding of the technology is still subpar. After a lifetime of taking images, the most important things to me are understanding your image editor and your camera gear. Only then can you start to get quality images of the photos you do take. and I’m not even talking about understanding it all, just a few simple basics. Contrast, color, shadows, highlights, composition. I see so many on Flickr and Instagram who’s photos are too dark and muddy, making me wonder why they’re even posting? Some of them are even better at composition then editing? It all goes hand-in-hand, and if you can’t even do these basics why do they keep talking about all the different camera and lens makers? A lot of them would be better off just having an iPhone. At least technology has progressed to where you can get a half decent image without trying. I still prefer using a camera that has a viewfinder.

[@scottdemello7278]

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.

[@OrganDanai]

Hi Ted, I'd love to have you explain WHY you use a certain slider in your creative process. What made you decide you wanted a part of the photo to be more blue, less contrasty, more saturated, ... Most KZbin clips just show you where the sliders are, what the abbreviations stand for, and that's it. I wouldn't even know where to start looking for improvements to my (mediocre, let's be honest) shots. So my question to you, is: can you provide some of your creative insights in WHAT somebody should start looking at, and only then tell HOW to do it? I know the H/S/L slider, but I wouldn't know when to use it apart from turning my portrait subjects into space aliens. Thanks for all you've covered so far, Ted, especially the retrospectives on some of the best photographers.

[@erichartke4331]

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.

[@ohm8n]

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

[@jakeduggan3854]

This is why I shoot with Fujifilm. I like the film look. You can dial the saturation, shadows, highlights etc in the settings.

[@muppas82]

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!

[@stephenm103]

I shot film beginning the day my dad handed the Argus he brought home from the war. Learned a lot from that experience including how to manually meter my shots. Since then I moved thru Minolta, Canon and Nikon SLR’s until one day someone bought me a digital. I shot the thing for several years and learned a lot of what was possible in post. But ultimately I hung up the DSLR - I was weary of photography - I thought I had outgrown my love for it. One day someone dug out a shoebox of my old prints and watching their joy and looking at those old shots it hit me that something was different here. No one was scrolling thru page after page of digitized images on their phones or tablets. They were passing prints around the table over a bottle of wine and reminiscing. There was also a character in those shots that was very different thsn my digital crap. I dug up the old film bodies and havent looked back. And once again lI am enjoying what these images do for my family and friends. Here is what I’ve learned: The process of shooting digital ultimately devolves to one of “shoot, shoot, shoot!!” - throwing away the many garbage shots to get to the one keeper. Film isnt anywhere near as quick. I think about my shot. And the results are changed by that difference in approach. Its the difference between masturbation and making love …while the results may end up in a similar place the process of getting there is very different and for the participants - far more satisfying.

[@_willfunk_]

From someone who has been shooting film and digital for over 20 years.. 100% yes, I would love to see more on what your creating.

[@_parkphoto]

Yes please to more. As a photographer who has shot only in the digital age, but has been shooting plenty of film in the past year, I’ve come to love the simplicity of color choice with film. I’m very quickly “paralyzed” by choice when it comes to coloring digital photos. So I’ve actually dialed in a specific edit in-camera on my X-Pro3 with Classic Chrome so as to simplify my process. But I would still be oh-so interested in gathering the knowledge to understand the why’s and how’s of reaching the color tones I want, chopping through the chaotic brush of choice when the edit comes. I think the intense amount of testing that went into creating films testifies to just how complicated color is by nature, and shoot, just how much I have to learn when it comes to coloring photographs. And I’ve been shooting for 12 years!

[@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!!

[@thornleychan]

This has got to be one of the best and elaborate ad for a film preset ever

[@earthlingtheaaron21]

I think the obsession with film colors and how digital camera jpegs look straight out of camera, we’re losing what made colorists such as Gordon Parks great. They chose how they wanted to interpret the colors they saw. Where as we typically rely on the camera to interpret what we see while ignoring how much flexibility we have to stylistically interpret what we see in Lightroom. In 2021 we can be the artist that we were relying on film stocks to be back in the day. Let’s use that ability! Edit: got rid of a typo that was bugging me

[@gibcoprobe66]

Not all people like to spend hours in post...

[@earthlingtheaaron21]

@@gibcoprobe66 absolutely correct. That’s why presets and profiles are super nice to have, because you can quickly find a good starting place for you image and tweak it from there

[@gibcoprobe66]

@@earthlingtheaaron21 As I said in my other comment, I've never seen a preset or color profile that I like. So to me it's not even worth it. If I want the film look, I shoot film.

[@trevorandrew8726]

@@gibcoprobe66 good for you bro, everyone doesn’t have such a luxury. If you shoot digital and want an exaggerated look without time in post, you either set up presets or even something like recipes on Fuji cameras for your jpegs.

[@trevorandrew8726]

@@gibcoprobe66 furthermore, if it’s taking HOURS in post to touch up your photos, you’re either extremely picky or you just don’t know what you want and how to accomplish such a look efficiently. Practice makes perfect and if you’re struggling to edit in post, it’s time for practice. It comes with the territory of digital photography. If you shoot raw you’re just getting whatever data comes from the sensor, the sensor isn’t an artist, you are. Same goes for film.

[@petouser]

I wouldn't say super digital photography is superior i terms of dynamic range. You can overexpose professional grade negatives by many stops. More than with most digital cameras. You shouldn't underexpose negative too much, but in general the dynamic range is astonishing. Modern sensors are better, but elder sensors (especially canon) couldn't beat the dynamic range professional grade negatives offered. But, to be fair, slide films aren't good at dynamic range, that's true. Anyway, I love the way film looks. They may not be super color accurate and--especially for non-professional grade film stocks--skin colors aren't that beautiful, but it looks very distinct and characteristic and organic at the same time, and that's what I love. Often, my digital photos don't look very organic without retouching, which is what I hate. Also, I really enjoy watching films made with film. Lately, i have watched some Japanese films shot with film, and the colors looked magical.

[@williamsingman1489]

Please keep sharing. I’ve been digitizing my slides and negatives using my Canon 5DSR coupled with a Canon L 100mm macro lens. I’m using a copy stand setup and illuminating and masking my slides and negatives on a light box for the even lighting. Its been working out pretty well. My favorite b/w 35mm film back in the day was Kodak panatomic x. I would have fit right in with Group f/64. I’ve pretty much decided to go at least 50% b/w these days. I’m very much looking forward to using my beautiful Rollei Hy6 and Ebony 4X5 which have been collecting dust on the shelf far too long. I love digital photography and think it has made great strides in trying to replicate the look of film. At the risk of offending pure digitalists (is it even a word), I would compare digital photography to making a TV dinner vs spending the time and effort to prepare a gourmet meal using lots of different ingredients. BTW I do love Swanson Hungry Man Dinners. I sooo miss Poloroid type 55 4X5 film for those who remember those days.

[@jensruckert4763]

I shot mostly Velvia for colour. When digital arose I quit photography more or less, only some b/w on medium and large format in the studio. Then I needed a camera and got me a pentax digital k10, which sometimes surprised me in the outcomes. Later on I switched to Nikon - after a short liaison with Fuji - which I still use for my digital work (D3/D3x). But otherwise, as I am literally disappointed by digital I came back to an analog workflow. I shoot mostly black and white with Leica Ms and Hasselblad, for colour I very much like the Kodak portra films and their 200ASA kodakcolour films. Gives me more connection to my work I even have a darkroom again, whereas I don’t like sitting in front of a computer screen and photoshopping. The thing is that I kind of don’t like the super clean outcomes of digital especially with the newer sensor generations. If necessary I scan Film with my Nikon D camera. But I think, best things in life are analog… like a hug or a kiss … always good light

[@ForestRoute]

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

[@PhilKnall]

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

[@hello7gods362]

I loved Velvia, use it for most of my colour work. The interesting thing is when I used it in Japan it was amazing, colours were out of this world and it looked like Japan, however when I used it in India the result was not so great, it did not have the same pop. I shoot landscape for most part and some street photography, I understand its due to the geography and the light you get in those parts of the world. Did anyone else have similar experience?

[@cockatielsingsbeatlesaussi7686]

I always thought usa light was the best for Kodacroome never liked it in europe

[@319.e]

I’m all in. Also if you ever decide to dive into Fuji cameras in camera processing and make a recipient for these stocks that you mentioned, that would be a video that I would watch many times

[@chriskola3822]

I used to love picking a different film type depending on the shooting I was going to be doing. Ektachrome 100 and Velvia 50 were always a joy to use (even if they were a bit of a pain exposure wise). One of the reasons I really like my Fuji system now is trying to match the in-camera profiles to the original look (I use the presets as a starting point because, as you point out, they are definitely off to my eye). One of the great things about the Fujifilm community (and this certainly may be true of other systems, I don't know) is that people are developing and sharing these "recipes". The degree to which we have control over the image (color, contrast, dynamic range etc) is actually one of the greatest parts of digital photography. Especially because so much of this can be done in camera. Basically it is like having 100 different film types you can load up when you need. Great project idea (I don't use lightroom so it might not be exactly beneficial for me). Sharing formulas on how to achieve film looks is always a great idea.

[@MarcHillM]

just downloaded these and they are the best I've tried by far. Thanks.

[@valdiskrebs566]

Of all of the digital images I have shared with folks in general, I have never heard anyone say, “too bad it doesn’t look more like Kodachrome/Velvia/etc” or the new trendy word “filmic”. Having learned on film, I do not miss it. I have more control now over the look of my pictures w/o the “filmic” hassles. 😉

[@teufelsbauer]

I use presets of "really nice images" with LRcc. They are great but you have to do a little finetuning. Printed on fine art baryt paper it looks like film.

[@caleb_stephen]

Please share more of these. I find too many presets that are targeted at wedding/blogger photography. This is the approach I want to see.

[@AustenGoldsmithPhotography]

I'm going back to digital for colour and film for B&W, colour too expensive, love the process of B&W

[@arunashamal]

The problem with designing presets is the dynamic range.. not the shadow and highlights, but the dynamic range of the color tones. I haven't found a way to limit dynamic range on individual colours on digital. For example The blue tones on the kids photo you showed. There is just one flat blue tone and that is it...If you look at early kodachrome the red is just one tone.. there is not many red tones in that one red...Until you find a way to limit the tonal range of individual colors it is going to look off...

[@bradbell4022]

Fascinating. This is exactly my workflow for moving images. Cinema camera - shoot raw - FilmConvert in Resolve - raw controls to expose, control contrast, colour temp, etc. I didn't consciously realise film had less latitude and increased contrast. Also, a raised black level. I spend all my time reducing highlights and lifting shadows to fit into Rec.709 box for display. Same with audio: squeezing and squashing dynamic range to hit loudness target. Seems a bit ironic. HDR monitors will be able to display the full dynamic range of the camera, but not sure how this will affect the film simulation🤔

[@RoyORear]

Yes, I'd like to follow along as you work through the process.

[@RMF.Studio]

RNI has done this for a myriad of film stocks. It’s not cheap but pretty accurate and is available for C1 and LR/PS.

[@sbl2051]

I'd certainly like to see where you can take the processing.

[@mark_wangerin]

Yes. Would love to see more content on your film look processes.

[@typeraver]

I love going for the film look when processing my images. Years ago I bought VSCO Slide, their interpretation of a variety of e6 looks from Fuji and Kodak, including Astia. They're not available anymore for PC, and they only work in photoshop (my copy).

[@MrNatMa]

Yeah its a shame they discontinued the desktop version. I used to love using it for my lightroom.

[@hudster1969]

I would definitely be interested in the Fujifilm film simulation presets for Capture One.

[@stephanedubarry8624]

I fully support your project. Please keep us posted

[@photographicamateur]

I am caught between both worlds. Apart from my personal nostalgia of shooting film most of my life, I do need to recognise the benefits of digital photography. Recently I have tried to understand my various use cases and the result is that I appreciate the versatility of shooting raw but also like the ease of jpgs. Fortunately my Nikon Z 5 allows me to shoot both. I would like a film look straight out of camera and the ability to dig deeper during raw development. For this readon I would be most interested in learning more about the approach illustrated in your video

[@fboucheros]

I would love to follow you in that process. I used to, just like you, shoot on all those film and also process them ( I work for many years in a lab). I only do photo as a hobby now but it is very interesting to see and ear someone that remember films, not discover them. Great video like always BTW.

[@Mike_M_Smith]

I was a photojournalist for 20 years in the film era. You are not missing anything. Even if you shoot jpg's, its better than film.

[@brucewayne000]

Heck yeah, I'd love to see more stuff about emulating the film look too!

[@ared18t]

The profiles of fujifilm cameras need to be set with the right highlight shadow tones and saturation levels to get the old film looks. They actually have the settings in an article on their website.

[@hughsydney2620]

Great video. I shoot black white and color and slide film and shoot digital with my Fuji X-T3 and X100s with their film simulation with custom in camera set up. The reason I use them because those film simulation can remind me what I was thinking on sites. Later on, I may retouch them in C1. And sometimes, it easy to make my one projects with unique style. Good video again, and I love to see more of this kind.

[@simonpayne7994]

A couple of years ago, I digitalized around 1600 slides using the same method, without any really professional special equipment. Using a 20 MP sensor camera I could see the grain of the ISO 100 diapositive film I had used. Of course the white balance had to be set up according to the light source shining through the slide. Once digitalized, I tweaked each image to my taste. Looking back (i.e. back to the 70's) I am amazed how often the exposure and the focus were spot on, quite apart from having a good composition. At that time you had to apply thought to taking a photograph. Alone the price of the film and the developing demanded a certain amount of thought. 😊

[@vermontmike9800]

I wish other camera manufacturers made those film scanning macro attachments.

[@Shawns_snapshots]

You can get them 3d printed for stuff like the Sony 90mm

[@mattphillips60]

I’d be interested in profiles for Capture One. As you mention great as the Fuji simulations are they aren’t a 100% accurate representation of the original films

[@cliffwilliams3793]

Absolutely I’d love to see more of the process you use in creating and using the presets. I have started shooting film again because I love the look and the process. It is so much more tactile than digital is.

[@johntravena119]

Film is like shooting an arrow. You hit the mark or you don’t. That’s the magic of it. I also like the limitations. The processing is a chore, though, and why I quit shooting with it.

[@Outlast1965]

The same process I do with my X series. Its what I love about Fujifilm. Exactly I adjust color channels to my taste specially on skin tones which I am particular. Thank you for sharing!

[@james263]

Yes, I would be really keen to see more about how you go about this process. As always, thanks for sharing your knowledge.

[@carlomac]

@Ted Forbes If you can pull this off, it woud be an absolute miracle Ted. I have been trying for years to be able to get colour that looks as good as film but it just never works consistently. If you have a film photo next to a digital with enough tweaking you can usually get the digital close to the film. The problem is in my experience that it doesn't carry over to different shots that well, theres way too much work every time. One pointer that I have noticed is that digital will produce a brighter highlight area (its very sensitive in the highlights), so turning down highlights in lightroom can help on digital shots. As well as turning off any sharpening and potentially turning down clarity, texture etc to get rid of that super detailed digital look, which I personally don't like, and potentially helping this with introducing some grain. As you alluded to, Digital can capture for the most part the colours of a film neg/slide, the trick is in the interpretation of the colours when we shoot digital. I CANNOT believe manufactuers don't put more work into this side of photography. I really wish they would. As a side note, I often see video footage that looks more film-like than still images, what this is down to I'm not quite sure, maybe it's the LUT's people are using or it maybe something to do with the lesser resolution that video has. Personally I sure would be interested in this journey.

[@danskehans]

Thanks for some very good tips. While I love digital photography, I, at times, also long for more of a film "look". I have gotten some of it by using old Nikon non-Ai lenses. They create images that which are softer and different in ways I can't explain. A good 50mm can be had for a mere $50-75 and a 105mm around $150-200.

[@Biosynchro]

Lenses certainly have something to do with it. That's what a lot of cinematographers say. I am inclined to believe them.

[@elliotresnick5433]

Great video!! I’m very interested learning about Ernst Haas’ analog workflow. Finally, do you have a release date for those Fujifilm presets/color profiles???

[@richkovach]

Really Nice Images profiles has been my go to for this to date. Will be interesting to see how yours come out!

[@camerasutra247]

Finally someone other than me finally speaking about this honestly. Much respect TED. Let me know if you are up for doing a collab on these subjects.

[@shanebakerstudios]

I am a full-time professional photographer but I came to the industry when everything was already digital. I've started exploring film presets as a way enhancing my style. I would be interested in your versions.

[@blkninja12]

Have you messed around with Fuji Recipes? I'd like to know your thoughts on those and how they match up to the original film stocks.

[@prilljazzatlanta5070]

Love the video, Ted. I like that it wasnt a film is better than digital video nor is it teaching you to trick people into thinking you shoot film. It helps us to understand unique qualities of various stock

[@texasflyboy525]

Getting your take on things since you've lived it would be very interesting. I have distant memories of my brief dip into the Provia and Velvia world and have wanted to go back there ever since. But not badly enough to dust off the TLR quite yet. Nikon drew me in because of the color rendition, Fuji pulled me in partly because of the promise of film simulations but I haven't been super impressed quite yet. Let's explore color rendition, that would be a fun series.

[@ThiruvengatamAdavan]

Yes, please do more videos about the process.

[@jakubstrumillo]

Fuji files also did not render correctly in C1, even if you set film profile in C1. Actual .jpg with settings in camera will look different. Maybe colors are similiar but thats it. So i always shoot RAF/JPG because of that. When i figure that. Also different Fuji cameras render different colours even in same picture profile settings. Its not only based on sensor they use X-Trans I/II/III etc, but whole firmware settings. Tell Ted how your presets differ from what Exposure Software offers?

[@Harlequin565]

I was kinda hoping the answer to your question would be "just shoot film". Take Velvia 50 and expand the dynamic range and it's just not Velvia - regardless of the colour replication. Digital has it's place, don't get me wrong, but the absolute best way to emulate film is to actually shoot it. Totally understand why pros who pay for the roof over their head might want the ease of digital; and that emulations and presets are an excellent substitute, but ultimately, that's what they are.

[@HotarusLens]

I respect your work, your goals, and your sharing of so much through your videos. Thank you. I'm afraid I don't see film presets/simulations/profiles the same as you though. If I would want to use them I would want to genuine look, shortcomings and all. The moment you start to change the contrast, shadows, saturation, and involve the dynamic range of digital it just becomes another preset and re-enters the same digital world with only an echo of film inspiration.

[@M.Kabane]

I love your videos. I'm interested in some of your presets, do they work with Luminar Neo?

[@sara505sings]

I have been digitizing old negatives lately too and I have been using my Canon EOS r with my 100 mm macro lens and it works great. I sandwich the negatives between two pieces of heavy plate glass and place them on my light box and shoot away. I have a beautiful flatbed scanner but as you and others have mentioned, it's very tedious and time consuming and I'm pretty sure the digital copies I create with my camera are much better than even my very good scanner could give me. It's definitely the way to go. That Nikon rig looks pretty cool.

[@charliejg]

I only recently began experimenting with styles and presets in C1. I shoot with an X-T3, so I've used the in camera simulations. However, I've also used raw files and added the simulations in post inside of C1. I would definitely be interested in learning more about this. One of the issues is learning the best simulations/styles/presets for any given shooting situation. Questions about C1: I'm currently using the free version of C1. How can you tell if a set of styles will work in that version? Which do you think is a better method, styles, presets or recipes in camera? It gets very confusing trying to make sense of all of these sometimes. Thanks for a detailed video!!

Do you know Raphael Guarino? His processing to get the film look is amazing!

[@UlliMueller]

I'd be interested in learning more about your process. Any opinions on Really Nice Images (RNI)?

[@erichung9043]

I agree. I shoot both film and digital. My Fuji XF10 film simulation doesn't even come close to Provia and Velvia. Skin tones were overly rosy with my XF10 right of the bat. I had to tone down the red channel to make it more pleasing CaptureOne. Thanks for your insights as always.

[@Mistygio]

The thing about film is that naturally it has a quality to it that you dont see in digital very often. And what I mean is actual detail. When im watching a movie on my 4K Sony Bravia, I can easily tell if it was shot with film or digital. And thats even if the movie is only in 1080. The reason for this is that the detail really does translate. The film look is the large format look. For example your face looks digital to me because of a couple of things. Color, Detail, frame rate characteristics and contrast. But its especially because theres just no detail on your face lol. Even when watching this video on my 5k display. The only way for digital to replicate the look of 35mm film for movies is that it has to be shot with a large 6.5k digital camera at minimum. Then it starts to look like film, even though im only going to watch it on a 1080 Plasma display. The detail of 6.5k is the minimum resolution in order to take full advantage of a 4k display. Its weird how that works. But the other day I was wondering why the movie "Smile" looked like film but with no grain or tears. I was thinking maybe its 70mm film? But then that would be way to expensive for a small budget movie. So I looked it up, its 6.5k digital. And not many movies are any more than 4k digital. I think this detail concept applies to still photos as well. Even If its a small printout or if you're viewing it on a small phone display, the camera has to pick up a LOT of detail for it to look like film. Thats how you replicate the look of film really

[@Wendy8888]

Loved this! I'm late to the party but I really enjoy seeing how other people process images, especially the why.

[@danieldanahey9446]

Yes, I’d like to see more of the process. Thanks

[@jpdj2715]

The main difference of film with digital is not that it comes out of a chemical process. At a deeper level, to explain what happens in a film, is probably better explained by someone with a degree in quantum physics than by someone with a degree in regular chemistry. And that quantum physics explanation may be needed for the photosites in your sensor too. The sensor is analog and colorblind, but it "sees" the entire humanly visible spectrum (that's called "panchromatic" in old B&W jargon). We get "color" from that sucker-sensor because of a color filter overlay over the photosites that renders each photosite "monochrome" seeing either red, or green, or blue. This means that we register the EV of only one color at each photosite coordinate. This also means that our raw files have no pixels because a pixel has all three of red, green and blue. Why are camera manufacturers entitled to rap about "megapixels" in their cameras? (a) they are not and fool us; (b) they do raw processing in camera to generate JPEGs that have the RGB and the megapixels. In what we call "raw processing" each photosite's single color gets the two missing colors added - and that's done in a high-brow version of wild-assed guessing: mathematically precise and repeatable. Digital color photography started with such crude wild-assed guessing that color noise, luminance noise and frequently Moiré were "added" to our photographs. With higher resolution cameras like the Z 7ii, this problem will play out less and better algorithms with better AI help improve the wild-assed guessing. Then what about film? Well, it had an R, a G and a B layer on top of each other, with subtractive filtering between the layers, and if we abstract grain and its random distribution away, this means that each [x,y] coordinate in a film shot has RGB information. And here is a big difference between multi-pass scanning and just shooting film with a digital camera. Multi-pass scanning can remove uncertainty from the wild-assed guessing - the guessing is completely removed because each coordinate is measured with a red, a green and a blue photosite in the scanner.

[@yusakuvlog]

Happy New Year! 🍻

[@mapakern3979]

I don't know how accurate the Fujifilm simulations actually are (and I really don't care a lot either) because I never shot film, but you should take a deeper look into the settings of Fujifilm cameras. They are extremely flexible with white balance, colour saturation, clarity and so on, so most of Lightroom's categories and so you actually should be able to recreate the look of the original films in camera. There are actually a whole lot of recipes already online. That said, I fully understand your interest in presets, but I think you went a bit fast over Fujifilm digital cameras.

[@yolofoto]

Looking forward to these. Just a thought but I would prefer to see them as Capture One presets rather than ICC profiles. I like to apply the preset as layer so all the sliders are zero on the underlying image and it can be adjusted readily AND the strength of the preset layer can also be adjusted.

[@amirgood]

This looks like an amazing project. As someone trying to now learn film after a few years of doing digital it would be great to find a harmony with both worlds.

[@LyndonPatrickSmith]

I would be very interested in learning more about your film emulation process and in the final presets/profiles. I still shoot a bit of film (120 & 135), and I’ve experimented with a variety of filmic presets. For me, Mastin Labs are the best to date - especially the B&W Ilford set. But they only cover in-production films that Kirk Mastin could actually shoot, scan on a Frontier, and compare to digital versions on various bodies. There are currently no slide films in the Mastin universe. So if you can emulate some chromes and classic negative films that would easily work fairly accurately with any digital camera brand, heck ya I’m in! Side note: Mastin recommends their presets for most RAW files, and their profiles for more baked-in originals like JPGs, HEIC files, and iPhone RAWS. In contrast, RNI films seem to recommend profiles for most camera RAW files. It will be interesting to see where you land with this. Capture One styles would be cool if you go that route too.

[@juancampos1164]

Nice video, I think the difference between digital and film is a microprocessor that modifies the wavelengths captured into a binary file, hence no true comparison will exist since there will always be a middle phase (comparison for film requires another camera). The best method to compare film and digital is to transfer the digital to a transparency then, well… . A more film-like digital is from CCD sensors (which is why they are still used for scientific or remote sensing imagery) rather than CMOS. Oh yes, the idea of modifying an image post-taking-it, makes you an editor rather than a cinematographer, this is where I just accept, alignment and minor contrast as a reasonable thing to do (only).

[@thientrieu91291]

Yes and yes. WOuld love to hear more and play around with your presets pack once they're ready. Great vid as always Ted

[@sclogse1]

A great look is Kodak VPS, which is, or was used mostly for wedding photography. Very warm skin tones along with warming up everything else. I printed it in a custom lab for 15 years. That's a film sim I'd like to see on Fuji X. Only thing comes close to it is shooting outdoors when there's smoke in the sky.

[@ufukkiblat]

Try RNI, they're pretty good at simulating film stocks

[@collectGenX]

All in on the presets.....great idea!

[@thenexthobby]

It's a year later and the previews for the presets do look nice. Knowing that not all film works well under all conditions, I'd expect the presets to "fail" if being asked to change an image way outside of what was recorded from the original scene. I understand each is only a starting point. I imagine the presets are "correct" for a given lens/camera/lighting scan.

[@raunlohry4000]

Ted - Great video, again! I am also scanning slides with the Nikon set up tethered to Capture One. For years I have been in search of Kodachrome for digital. My film days were black and white and ektachrome because we could process those in house. We shot a fair amount of Kodachrome for product shots and scenes we were using for educational slide programs. I have purchased several film packs but none seem to produce the results I remember. Still, I use the best of the Capture One Kodachrome simulations that I have often. I didn't shoot a lot of color print film beyond snapshots and I didn't shoot a lot of Fujifilm so I don't have an attachment to it. Some of the black and white presets are close but the graininess of the older high ASA films (like Kodak Tri-X 400) I remember differently. Might be the difficulty of adding grain digitally vs its appearance chemically. How all that works is beyond me. Bottom line is that It would be very valuable to have an accurate film preset pack that really did a good job of replicating some of the old films. I would buy it in a heartbeat from you because I would have confidence that you did the best that was reasonably possible. BTW - I was corrected on camera profiles being only for jpg. Nikon's NX Studio actually interprets the in-camera profile on the raw file. I rarely use NX Studio and mostly rely on Capture One's interpretations. Oh! One more note - Happy belated birthday greetings.