7 ms·

Kodak Is Hiring Film Technicians: ‘We Cannot Keep Up with Demand’

74 points by Stratoscope 4y ago

mikece 4y ago
Shooting on film has more merit than the "vinyl is better than CD" argument because if you nail the exposure -- especially on Kodachrome -- you get colors and vibrancy that no other film or digital sensor can capture. That said, I cannot see why anyone shooting on a deadline of any kind would want to shoot on film.
- tpmx 4y ago
  you get colors and vibrancy that no other film or digital sensor can capture https://eng.vsco.co/reviving-kodachrome/ https://eng.vsco.co/reviving-kodachrome/ ?
- staticautomatic 4y ago
  On Kodachrome you’d also get a negative you can’t develop…
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    I would say you've got film you can't develop if we're going to be pedantic about it, though I suspect someone can run it through some chemistry and get a (likely black and white) image.
    - Finnucane 4y ago
      That is exactly what would happen. You can process Kodachrome (assuming you can get your hands on some) as B&W film. Obviously, you can't do K14 process any more. You can't do this trick with E6 film, the chemistry of the emulsion is too different.
      - hilbert42 4y ago
        As per my comment, use B&W developer such as Dektol, Microdol etc.
    - hilbert42 4y ago
      Kodachrome if developed in a B&W developer will produce a B&W negative (I've done it but it was decades ago and only as an experiment). That said, one also has to get rid of the anti-halation stuff and yellow filter which normally blocks blue light from hitting the orthochromatic (green/yellow) layer and the red layer below it (they're also blue sensitive). That's messy too. Really I wouldn't bother (but when done properly it did turn out some pretty decent B&W prints.
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        I would say it's a good option if you come across an old, exposed roll and what to see what's on it these days, but otherwise, I wouldn't bother either.
        hilbert42 4y ago
        Whilst not common, that problem is far from being unheard of. I've had similar experiences albeit only two instances where 'good' film was developed by commercial operators who put the films through the wrong processes. With much Photoshopping I actually got usable photos but they certainly weren't pretty. That's different to experimenting. Years ago I worked for a television station that had a huge Eastmancolor processing lab attracted (we processed millions of feet of movie stock per month). Running various 'non-standard' test strips though the baths proved very interesting. We produced many strange effects (it was an excellent way of getting to understand how color emulsions work).
- gw99 4y ago
  There are Kodachrome presets off the shelf for Lightroom. I did a double-blind test a couple of years back with a few friends who shoot film only and no one could reliably tell the difference. It's another audiophile thing. Incidentally I still shoot film myself occasionally, Ilford B&W on an old Praktica w/ Zeiss lens. It's slow, painful, I screw up 1/4 of the shots and occasionally destroy a whole roll while developing it. But it's fun. When it's no longer fun, out comes the Z50...
  - etrautmann 4y ago
    I thought the argument was that it fails more gracefully in high dynamic range saturating situations?
    - gw99 4y ago
      It depends how you interpret it. There is some dynamic range compression on over-exposure which can save you if you blow something out. If you underexpose Kodachrome you are screwed. I prefer the crutch of 12 bit RAW and Lightroom which usually gets me out of the same sticky situation :)
      - Turing_Machine 4y ago
        > If you underexpose Kodachrome you are screwed. Quite the opposite. Reversal ("slide", "chrome") films like Kodachrome are more forgiving of underexposure, while negative films are more forgiving of overexposure. Back in the heyday of chromes, it was common to slightly underexpose them to get more color saturation.
        gw99 4y ago
        Good point - got my point the wrong way round.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
- xattt 4y ago
  I have a LOMO Lubitel that I love to use, but I have no labs in my area that will process slide film in that format. I just dread the shipping fees for getting a roll developed.
- derefr 4y ago
  Is there a reason that a RAW from a digital sensor can't be "color-graded" (to use the video term) with a preset to match the light-energy response curves from any given film process? Is it something to do with light bleed/"bloom" not being emulated?
  - heisenzombie 4y ago
    It’s a complicated physical and chemical process, so a “per pixel” LUT approach won’t get you there fully. Here’s a very interesting article from the development of “filmulator”, an open source film simulator. https://github.com/mermerico/filmulator/wiki/How-Film-Works https://github.com/mermerico/filmulator/wiki/How-Film-Works
    - derefr 4y ago
      This is a really cool project. You should submit it as a toplevel post. (A shame there's no website / that the README doesn't embed images of example outputs, though.)
- i_am_proteus 4y ago
  The technical difference is that digital color is always* a demosaic of a Bayer filter (or X-trans, or other filter), whereas color film has three layers of emulsion to capture e.g. Red/Blue/Green. Lens focus is indeed very slightly different for each of the three layers. *There are a few other methods, such as prisms and stacked sensors, but in practice, Bayer/similar filters give better performance and that's what commercial cameras use.
  - tpmx 4y ago
    Somehow, you can still downscale a scanned Kodachrome photo and it's still considered a Kodachrome photo. It's about color/LUT, not pixels.
- whateveracct 4y ago
  I think the main reason people actually like vinyl nowadays is because it's fun and tactile and visual and a very intentional listening experience. I guess people would probably say similar things about shooting on film though :)
- ayngg 4y ago
  Commercially, film probably shines in larger formats since digital basically only goes up to 645 format which is on the smaller end of medium format and those cameras cost upwards of 50k and most digital cameras use the same sensor technology compared to differences in film stocks. Otherwise it is more of a hobbyist/ artistic choice.
- Aloha 4y ago
  Kodachrome was indeed special, but Ektar is amazing, and while not as good at Kodachrome, has a visual appeal all its own. My best photography has been on film. https://leho.blastpuppy.com/~aloha/photos/ https://leho.blastpuppy.com/~aloha/photos/ I can do what I do on digital, but not as well.
- Synaesthesia 4y ago
  I think sensors and the HDR systems of digital camera processors has evolved to the point where dynamic range is as good as film was.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
theandrewbailey 4y ago
Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.
- hilbert42 4y ago
  ...And it's more than a drug if you're interested in chemistry. Why bromine and other stuff such as color 'couplers' are added to B&W silver halide emulsions to make them panchromatic as well as faster and more sensitive is complicated enough, but the chemistry that goes into making either a color (masked) negative (Kodacolor, Eastmancolor etc.) or a reversal colour emulsion such as Ektachrome, is a whole new ballgame. Processing the film may be comparatively easy but deep down color emulsions are a true wonder of chemical engineering. Not only do chemists have to be familiar with color theory but also they have to find stable color coupling dyes that bond with the silver halides (a difficult task with many compromises) as well as work through a reversal process and still remain stable not to mentioned the fact that this has to be compatible with the separate process of 'doping' emulsions to both increase and balance the speeds of the layers (each of which is different). Optimizing each of these competing demands is almost a complete branch of chemical engineering itself. If that's not enough, couple it all with the the need to stop color cross-coupling between layers (which is akin to cross-modulation in signal processing and muddies colors and which cannot be removed by simple color balancing)—and the incorporation of stabilizers whilst simultaneously keeping the silver halide crystals very small throughout the process (to reduce grain)—and also the incorporation of chemicals to prevent and mold etc. Even then that's not the end of the story. It's a great shame that most photographers haven a clue what a gem of technology that's in their possession when clasping a roll of 36 exposure color film. Now don't think that that the chemical technology of color film is now obsolete as it isn't. Even if color films were now a complete dead end each of its chemical processes live on in other areas of chemistry.
kylehotchkiss 4y ago
People really like the color profile of film, not the hyperrealistic/vibrant photos that a lot of cameras are making today. Especially for portraits and wedding photography. I have a Fujifilm with built in color profiles that are really nice.
- chomp 4y ago
  There's also something I appreciate about slowing down and considering each shot individually, since you only can take a finite amount of shots, vs the thousands I can fit on an SD card. Yeah, I can't do astrophotography very well, but my shots on film are a lot more considered.
  - pathartl 4y ago
    I have practically no creative bone in my body but have always been drawn to photography due to my parents being photographers their whole life. I've started using their film equipment because yeah, 12 shots on a roll of 120 film means you have to think before you hit that button.
  - dingaling 4y ago
    A similar mindset can be achieved by only shooting in Manual mode on a DLSR ( and no cheating with Auto-ISO ). After a while you can pre-guess the exposure settings for a particular shot before even looking through the viewfinder, but point the camera a few degrees to the side and you have to reset your exposure for the new lighting. It's frustrating for the first few years and initially you'll miss many shots but when you nail The Shot you feel that you really 'own' it because everything leading to it was your decision. Eventually it becomes second-nature and you'll be spinning the settings dials without conscious effort.
- bergenty 4y ago
  I mean it’s super easy to throw on a filter/color profile that makes your pictures look that way.
  - Scene_Cast2 4y ago
Mobius01 4y ago
The Better Everyday channel has a 3-part visit at the Kodak facility, it’s a fascinating look at the process of film manufacturing: https://youtu.be/HQKy1KJpSVc https://youtu.be/HQKy1KJpSVc
null_object 4y ago
Interesting to see all the negative comments on the article over on PetaPixel, and quite often the same cynicism towards film shooters here on HN, usually along the lines that it’s just a fad or only a passing phase for hipsters. But exactly this sort of internet ‘wisdom’ was putting me off trying film around 15 years ago, and yet these days I see more people carrying film cameras than dedicated DSLRs. If you’re shooting color-reversal film - say, something like Portra from Kodak, then believe me, digital cannot match that exposure curve, and the beauty of those colors. I shoot about half digital - half film these days, because of the cost. But it’s the film images that are truly special.
- pathartl 4y ago
  It's interesting how in this age of displays and video we're finally shedding the idea of 8 bits per channel. The stuff I've been shooting in film I've been scanning in with a Flextight Precision II which has a sensor that claims to have a 16 bit DAC per channel. Scanning in RGB 16 bit definitely helps with color banding. However, it's kinda like having access to a video camera that records in 16K, but you're only going to be able to view it on a 4K display. What's really interesting is if you use an old film recorder like a Lasergraphics LFR M3 (something in the $25,000 range in 1998) and don't mind dropping to a max resolution of 8K and 12 bits per channel, you can somewhat preserve that RGB16 image back to film. Like yeah, this was professional level equipment in the tens of thousands of dollars in the late 90's, but some of the consumer technologies still haven't caught up. It speaks volumes to how limited the human eye is and how much technology surpassed it a long time ago.
xiphias2 4y ago
It sounded crazy to me that Dune was shot on digital cameras, converted to analogue film and then digitalized again. It doesn't really make sense in theory, but I loved the end result in IMAX, it felt different to other movies.
- morley 4y ago
  Is it that much crazier than previously, when a movie was shot on film, scanned to a digital intermediary, then printed back onto film for distribution? EDIT: Now that I've read up on Greig Fraser's reasoning, it makes a lot more sense for Dune! https://ymcinema.com/2021/12/03/dune-was-shot-on-alexa-lf-transferred-to-35mm-film-then-scanned-back-to-digital/ https://ymcinema.com/2021/12/03/dune-was-shot-on-alexa-lf-tr...
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Is it that much crazier than previously, when a movie was shot on film, scanned to a digital intermediary, then printed back onto film for distribution? Yes. They did that because they didn't have digital equipment suitable for cameras and projectors. This is much crazier.
    - Synaesthesia 4y ago
      The reason is supposedly to achieve a softness in the image. I’m sure that could have been achieved with a video filter.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wmf 4y ago
  This is just what happens to people with unlimited budget.
- hey2022 4y ago
  This happens a lot in music production/mastering as well. Digital -> tape -> digital. Tape certainly adds specific saturation.
Finnucane 4y ago
For me it is because I am old and I learned on film from when I was a wee tyke. I mean, I started doing darkroom work when I was 9. So I just keep doing it. Mostly b&w, so I can process it myself and also because I am colorblind. It can still be a relief from the digital world. Also, a Hasselblad is just the best thing ever.
jinto36 4y ago
I considered myself pretty knowledgeable about photography (mostly through videography though) but I never had a decent film camera, and neither did my parents, so most of my experience with film was disposables and a cheap panoramic camera I bought for 10 of my own dollars when I was seven or something. Last year I ended up with a Canon AE-1 Program with a couple of Canon prime lenses in good shape and decided to try to revisit film, since I realized I probably had dismissed it more from using cameras without proper ability to meter or adjust exposure, and with tiny lenses. As others have said, having to think about settings really helped with making me step back and take another look at how what the parameters really mean in terms of camera and lens construction and how they inter-relate. Also when I was looking for info on the AE-1 Program I had come across samples posted by others taken on Kodak Ektar 100 and could hardly believe they were from film- it has nearly color saturation that's typical of modern digital cameras, and none of the grainy greenish underexposure that I was so used to seeing from film.
- Aloha 4y ago
  Ektar is absolutely magic, its probably the best looking film ever made. Also, honestly, even with my fancy mirrorless camera, I usually shoot in program or aperture priority mode, depending on how much control I want over the image.
perardi 4y ago
I long ago moved past the “oh I should try film” hipster phase…largely by being a hipster and shooting with Fuji. I was curious what a good, fine-grained roll of slide film costs nowadays…yikes. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274846-USA/Kodak_1884576_E100G_135_36_Ektachrome_Professional.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274846-USA/Kodak_1884... I’m always skeptical of any story about film really coming back, because it’s just so pricey. And notably this repackaged press release doesn’t quote any actual numbers. But, well, maybe I’m wrong, someone opened a new film development boutique in town, maybe film will hold on just enough to be viable. https://blockclubchicago.org/2022/05/20/with-bellows-film-lab-a-lifelong-photography-lover-brings-quick-turnaround-film-development-to-wicker-park/ https://blockclubchicago.org/2022/05/20/with-bellows-film-la...
- bergenty 4y ago
  I mean it’s less than a dollar a picture. That’s not terrible. Obviously nothing compared to digital pictures but film is always going to be a niche like vinyl at this point. It’s going to be enthusiasts and professionals using it, not the common man.
- Aloha 4y ago
  First thing is - you linked a slide film, not a print film, slide film always costs more. Also, its less tolerate of under/over exposure than print film is. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585497-USA/Kodak_6031330_35mm_Ektar_100_Color.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585497-USA/Kodak_6031... Ektar is a more realistic product that the film nerd would be shooting, the processing is less arduous, and much cheaper than processing slide film. Processing is cheaper for C-41 vs E-6 as well, it'll cost you between 10 and 20 dollars for develop and scan. I prefer film because I learned how to be a photographer on it, and it looks just how I want it to look out of the box. Beyond that, certain kinds of photography, like long exposure just look better on film.
supernova87a 4y ago
Can someone convince me / correct my logic here? I used to be a huge film photographer as well, back to high school days in the darkroom and getting my hands smelly and watching images appear in developer bath. I too have nostalgia. I was entertained by the online meme/question where someone asked "what is the 'red room' in Stranger Things?", ah these youngsters nowadays. But objectively, digital sensors can have their color profiles / output remapped to most film "looks", even adding grain, and of course you're not spending $ on film with every shot and waiting days to get the film back. Aside from if you need the medium/large format resolution, (and the nostalgia / anticipation / excitement of the image) there is no objectively better thing about film, is there? I really get puzzled by people on r/analogcommunity sharing their "finds" of old expired film and wanting to go out and shoot on it. Boggles the mind. You take images hopefully to keep, and wanting to do that with unknown film to save $5 and see what comes out, is... exciting? (I'm sure this is a religious-level debate, I'm not imagining that this will be resolved here, but at least some enjoyment in discussing it.)
- Syonyk 4y ago
  > But objectively, digital sensors can have their color profiles / output remapped to most film "looks", even adding grain, and of course you're not spending $ on film with every shot and waiting days to get the film back. Given what I can get a used, very high quality 35mm camera body and lenses for... that's an awful lot of film and development cost before you start coming out ahead there.
- ElCheapo 4y ago
  It boggles your mind that people find surprise and adventure exciting? Do you also think digital painting has superseded actual brushes?
- jakobdabo 4y ago
  Is it wrong to find the result aesthetically pleasing? In short, it's about the art of photography, those expired films are not for archival family photos, and surely it's not about saving $5.
- jes5199 4y ago
gumby 4y ago
I was just in lower Manhattan last week and was struck by how many film sales & processing shops I ran across. Not as many as in the pre-digital era, but encountering more than one was a surprise.
imwillofficial 4y ago
This makes me so happy. Good for them.
tibbydudeza 4y ago
I still have a Nikon F1 in the cupboard with lenses - maybe I should ebay it.
Syonyk 4y ago
I'd put this in the category of what increasingly seems like a growing wave of, for lack of a better term, the "F** Digital" movement. I don't think it's purely digital, there's a lot of disgust with what we've done with consumer electronics as well (turning them into surveillance devices to collect behavioral surplus and then turn around and market to us), and a reaction to about 15 years of ever-increasing "Everything on your black mirror!" pushes from every corner of the modern world. Of course, every one of those apps is hoovering up absolutely as much data as it possibly can in the process. To more and more people who were adults before this transition happened, there's a growing sense sense (certainly in my circles) of "Nah, the old ways were better." It is no business of anyone what I care to listen to in the evening. And with a record, tape, or CD (assuming no SmartTV spying on room audio), that's true. Streaming, hah. It's all being analyzed and prodded. One can get into the usual pissing matches about records vs CDs vs streaming vs lossless streaming vs... whatever else is out there, but they rather miss the point as far as I'm concerned. The experience of listening to a record, with the processes involved, and typically sitting down to listen to it specifically vs just having it on as background music, is different. It's a very different way to experience music from the never-ending algorithmic playlists, though those are interesting for discovering new groups. You also don't (usually...) have the "analysis paralysis" problem of infinite options. And we see this with the ever-increasing record (LP) sales. Vinyl now outsells CDs [0]. You can argue about why it shouldn't be, but clearly "the market has spoken," and vinyl is cool again. It doesn't seem to be a flash in the pan either, as the count has been going up since about 2012 every year, by large jumps. Again, argue how you will about audio quality, but "curling up with a vinyl album in the evening in a kerosene lantern lit room" is a very, very different experience than listening to the same album on some streaming service on a modern digital platform. I view the return to film as something similar - it encourages a very different way of engaging with photography. Shots aren't "free," which means you have different constraints, and history shows that a lot of art happens when given constraints. I've also been seeing (and experimenting with...) a rejection of "all the LED lights" - especially in the evenings. The human body is independently sensitive to blues in light from how we perceive color, so one can have a fairly warm color temperature but still have a lot of blue in the spectrum, and we know that blue messes with human sleep. So there's at least a few people I know (myself included) messing with going back to incandescent light sources in the evening once the sun goes down. Lanterns, incandescent bulbs on dimmers, etc. The goal is to see how much a hard removal of "blue" before bed changes, and... I notice a difference. If I've been away from screens, with just incandescent sources, for a few hours before bed? I seem to sleep better and wake up better rested. I'm far from the only person to notice this, and I intend to continue the experiment through the winter. But at this point, betting on the analog seems a good option. Digital, especially the consumer electronics side, has been weighed by many and found wanting. [o]: https://vacationvinyl.com/how-many-vinyl-records-are-sold-each-year/ https://vacationvinyl.com/how-many-vinyl-records-are-sold-ea...
neverartful 4y ago
I grew up with film photography and also did a fair bit of B&W darkroom work back in the day. I have a European vacation coming up and I started thinking about what kind of camera(s) I should bring on the trip. After pondering the question for a LONG time, I decided I would use 35mm film. I could try to give my own detailed reasoning, but I think the following YT video does a better job explaining. Watching this video pushed me over the edge to make the decision to use film. I may still bring a small, inexpensive digital for low-light situations, but the bulk of what I plan to shoot will be on film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv6VFy1Mx_g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv6VFy1Mx_g I'll mention 2 specific points that I don't think are mentioned in the video: (1) I'm sick and tired of all the digital tracking, (2) I don't have to have ANY batteries of any kind to take pictures with my old Nikon F2 35mm camera. Before anyone makes the claim about it needing batteries for the light meter to work -- I don't need a light meter to take good photos.
sebastianlay 4y ago
Also, there is not 'the one' film look. There is still a lot of different films around and even new ones being released each year. I have made a list of films that are currently reasonable easy to obtain with links to example images: https://analogfilm.space https://analogfilm.space I think for many people the question is not whether you could recreate the look with a digital camera. Instead you already get the look you chose by selecting your film baked into the image without having to do any post-processing.
- Kailhus 4y ago
  That’s awesome, thank you!
SentientAtom 4y ago
Eastman Kodak sold off all their valuable IP a long time ago. Densitometers, Colorimeters, then more recently the silver-halide paper and the chemistry to Sino in China. Wouldn't go to work for them even if I got paid well.

74 points by Stratoscope 4y ago

Shooting on film has more merit than the "vinyl is better than CD" argument because if you nail the exposure -- especially on Kodachrome -- you get colors and vibrancy that no other film or digital sensor can capture. That said, I cannot see why anyone shooting on a deadline of any kind would want to shoot on film.

tpmx 4y ago
you get colors and vibrancy that no other film or digital sensor can capture https://eng.vsco.co/reviving-kodachrome/ https://eng.vsco.co/reviving-kodachrome/ ?
staticautomatic 4y ago
On Kodachrome you’d also get a negative you can’t develop…
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I would say you've got film you can't develop if we're going to be pedantic about it, though I suspect someone can run it through some chemistry and get a (likely black and white) image.
  - Finnucane 4y ago
    That is exactly what would happen. You can process Kodachrome (assuming you can get your hands on some) as B&W film. Obviously, you can't do K14 process any more. You can't do this trick with E6 film, the chemistry of the emulsion is too different.
    - hilbert42 4y ago
      As per my comment, use B&W developer such as Dektol, Microdol etc.
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    Kodachrome if developed in a B&W developer will produce a B&W negative (I've done it but it was decades ago and only as an experiment). That said, one also has to get rid of the anti-halation stuff and yellow filter which normally blocks blue light from hitting the orthochromatic (green/yellow) layer and the red layer below it (they're also blue sensitive). That's messy too. Really I wouldn't bother (but when done properly it did turn out some pretty decent B&W prints.
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      I would say it's a good option if you come across an old, exposed roll and what to see what's on it these days, but otherwise, I wouldn't bother either.
      - hilbert42 4y ago
        Whilst not common, that problem is far from being unheard of. I've had similar experiences albeit only two instances where 'good' film was developed by commercial operators who put the films through the wrong processes. With much Photoshopping I actually got usable photos but they certainly weren't pretty. That's different to experimenting. Years ago I worked for a television station that had a huge Eastmancolor processing lab attracted (we processed millions of feet of movie stock per month). Running various 'non-standard' test strips though the baths proved very interesting. We produced many strange effects (it was an excellent way of getting to understand how color emulsions work).
gw99 4y ago
There are Kodachrome presets off the shelf for Lightroom. I did a double-blind test a couple of years back with a few friends who shoot film only and no one could reliably tell the difference. It's another audiophile thing. Incidentally I still shoot film myself occasionally, Ilford B&W on an old Praktica w/ Zeiss lens. It's slow, painful, I screw up 1/4 of the shots and occasionally destroy a whole roll while developing it. But it's fun. When it's no longer fun, out comes the Z50...
- etrautmann 4y ago
  I thought the argument was that it fails more gracefully in high dynamic range saturating situations?
  - gw99 4y ago
    It depends how you interpret it. There is some dynamic range compression on over-exposure which can save you if you blow something out. If you underexpose Kodachrome you are screwed. I prefer the crutch of 12 bit RAW and Lightroom which usually gets me out of the same sticky situation :)
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      > If you underexpose Kodachrome you are screwed. Quite the opposite. Reversal ("slide", "chrome") films like Kodachrome are more forgiving of underexposure, while negative films are more forgiving of overexposure. Back in the heyday of chromes, it was common to slightly underexpose them to get more color saturation.
      - gw99 4y ago
        Good point - got my point the wrong way round.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
xattt 4y ago
I have a LOMO Lubitel that I love to use, but I have no labs in my area that will process slide film in that format. I just dread the shipping fees for getting a roll developed.
derefr 4y ago
Is there a reason that a RAW from a digital sensor can't be "color-graded" (to use the video term) with a preset to match the light-energy response curves from any given film process? Is it something to do with light bleed/"bloom" not being emulated?
- heisenzombie 4y ago
  It’s a complicated physical and chemical process, so a “per pixel” LUT approach won’t get you there fully. Here’s a very interesting article from the development of “filmulator”, an open source film simulator. https://github.com/mermerico/filmulator/wiki/How-Film-Works https://github.com/mermerico/filmulator/wiki/How-Film-Works
  - derefr 4y ago
    This is a really cool project. You should submit it as a toplevel post. (A shame there's no website / that the README doesn't embed images of example outputs, though.)
i_am_proteus 4y ago
The technical difference is that digital color is always* a demosaic of a Bayer filter (or X-trans, or other filter), whereas color film has three layers of emulsion to capture e.g. Red/Blue/Green. Lens focus is indeed very slightly different for each of the three layers. *There are a few other methods, such as prisms and stacked sensors, but in practice, Bayer/similar filters give better performance and that's what commercial cameras use.
- tpmx 4y ago
  Somehow, you can still downscale a scanned Kodachrome photo and it's still considered a Kodachrome photo. It's about color/LUT, not pixels.
whateveracct 4y ago
I think the main reason people actually like vinyl nowadays is because it's fun and tactile and visual and a very intentional listening experience. I guess people would probably say similar things about shooting on film though :)
ayngg 4y ago
Commercially, film probably shines in larger formats since digital basically only goes up to 645 format which is on the smaller end of medium format and those cameras cost upwards of 50k and most digital cameras use the same sensor technology compared to differences in film stocks. Otherwise it is more of a hobbyist/ artistic choice.
Aloha 4y ago
Kodachrome was indeed special, but Ektar is amazing, and while not as good at Kodachrome, has a visual appeal all its own. My best photography has been on film. https://leho.blastpuppy.com/~aloha/photos/ https://leho.blastpuppy.com/~aloha/photos/ I can do what I do on digital, but not as well.
Synaesthesia 4y ago
I think sensors and the HDR systems of digital camera processors has evolved to the point where dynamic range is as good as film was.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

theandrewbailey 4y ago

Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

hilbert42 4y ago
...And it's more than a drug if you're interested in chemistry. Why bromine and other stuff such as color 'couplers' are added to B&W silver halide emulsions to make them panchromatic as well as faster and more sensitive is complicated enough, but the chemistry that goes into making either a color (masked) negative (Kodacolor, Eastmancolor etc.) or a reversal colour emulsion such as Ektachrome, is a whole new ballgame. Processing the film may be comparatively easy but deep down color emulsions are a true wonder of chemical engineering. Not only do chemists have to be familiar with color theory but also they have to find stable color coupling dyes that bond with the silver halides (a difficult task with many compromises) as well as work through a reversal process and still remain stable not to mentioned the fact that this has to be compatible with the separate process of 'doping' emulsions to both increase and balance the speeds of the layers (each of which is different). Optimizing each of these competing demands is almost a complete branch of chemical engineering itself. If that's not enough, couple it all with the the need to stop color cross-coupling between layers (which is akin to cross-modulation in signal processing and muddies colors and which cannot be removed by simple color balancing)—and the incorporation of stabilizers whilst simultaneously keeping the silver halide crystals very small throughout the process (to reduce grain)—and also the incorporation of chemicals to prevent and mold etc. Even then that's not the end of the story. It's a great shame that most photographers haven a clue what a gem of technology that's in their possession when clasping a roll of 36 exposure color film. Now don't think that that the chemical technology of color film is now obsolete as it isn't. Even if color films were now a complete dead end each of its chemical processes live on in other areas of chemistry.

kylehotchkiss 4y ago

People really like the color profile of film, not the hyperrealistic/vibrant photos that a lot of cameras are making today. Especially for portraits and wedding photography. I have a Fujifilm with built in color profiles that are really nice.

chomp 4y ago
There's also something I appreciate about slowing down and considering each shot individually, since you only can take a finite amount of shots, vs the thousands I can fit on an SD card. Yeah, I can't do astrophotography very well, but my shots on film are a lot more considered.
- pathartl 4y ago
  I have practically no creative bone in my body but have always been drawn to photography due to my parents being photographers their whole life. I've started using their film equipment because yeah, 12 shots on a roll of 120 film means you have to think before you hit that button.
- dingaling 4y ago
  A similar mindset can be achieved by only shooting in Manual mode on a DLSR ( and no cheating with Auto-ISO ). After a while you can pre-guess the exposure settings for a particular shot before even looking through the viewfinder, but point the camera a few degrees to the side and you have to reset your exposure for the new lighting. It's frustrating for the first few years and initially you'll miss many shots but when you nail The Shot you feel that you really 'own' it because everything leading to it was your decision. Eventually it becomes second-nature and you'll be spinning the settings dials without conscious effort.
bergenty 4y ago
I mean it’s super easy to throw on a filter/color profile that makes your pictures look that way.
- Scene_Cast2 4y ago

Mobius01 4y ago

The Better Everyday channel has a 3-part visit at the Kodak facility, it’s a fascinating look at the process of film manufacturing: https://youtu.be/HQKy1KJpSVc https://youtu.be/HQKy1KJpSVc

null_object 4y ago

Interesting to see all the negative comments on the article over on PetaPixel, and quite often the same cynicism towards film shooters here on HN, usually along the lines that it’s just a fad or only a passing phase for hipsters. But exactly this sort of internet ‘wisdom’ was putting me off trying film around 15 years ago, and yet these days I see more people carrying film cameras than dedicated DSLRs. If you’re shooting color-reversal film - say, something like Portra from Kodak, then believe me, digital cannot match that exposure curve, and the beauty of those colors. I shoot about half digital - half film these days, because of the cost. But it’s the film images that are truly special.

pathartl 4y ago
It's interesting how in this age of displays and video we're finally shedding the idea of 8 bits per channel. The stuff I've been shooting in film I've been scanning in with a Flextight Precision II which has a sensor that claims to have a 16 bit DAC per channel. Scanning in RGB 16 bit definitely helps with color banding. However, it's kinda like having access to a video camera that records in 16K, but you're only going to be able to view it on a 4K display. What's really interesting is if you use an old film recorder like a Lasergraphics LFR M3 (something in the $25,000 range in 1998) and don't mind dropping to a max resolution of 8K and 12 bits per channel, you can somewhat preserve that RGB16 image back to film. Like yeah, this was professional level equipment in the tens of thousands of dollars in the late 90's, but some of the consumer technologies still haven't caught up. It speaks volumes to how limited the human eye is and how much technology surpassed it a long time ago.

xiphias2 4y ago

It sounded crazy to me that Dune was shot on digital cameras, converted to analogue film and then digitalized again. It doesn't really make sense in theory, but I loved the end result in IMAX, it felt different to other movies.

morley 4y ago
Is it that much crazier than previously, when a movie was shot on film, scanned to a digital intermediary, then printed back onto film for distribution? EDIT: Now that I've read up on Greig Fraser's reasoning, it makes a lot more sense for Dune! https://ymcinema.com/2021/12/03/dune-was-shot-on-alexa-lf-transferred-to-35mm-film-then-scanned-back-to-digital/ https://ymcinema.com/2021/12/03/dune-was-shot-on-alexa-lf-tr...
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Is it that much crazier than previously, when a movie was shot on film, scanned to a digital intermediary, then printed back onto film for distribution? Yes. They did that because they didn't have digital equipment suitable for cameras and projectors. This is much crazier.
  - Synaesthesia 4y ago
    The reason is supposedly to achieve a softness in the image. I’m sure that could have been achieved with a video filter.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wmf 4y ago
This is just what happens to people with unlimited budget.
hey2022 4y ago
This happens a lot in music production/mastering as well. Digital -> tape -> digital. Tape certainly adds specific saturation.

Finnucane 4y ago

For me it is because I am old and I learned on film from when I was a wee tyke. I mean, I started doing darkroom work when I was 9. So I just keep doing it. Mostly b&w, so I can process it myself and also because I am colorblind. It can still be a relief from the digital world. Also, a Hasselblad is just the best thing ever.

jinto36 4y ago

I considered myself pretty knowledgeable about photography (mostly through videography though) but I never had a decent film camera, and neither did my parents, so most of my experience with film was disposables and a cheap panoramic camera I bought for 10 of my own dollars when I was seven or something. Last year I ended up with a Canon AE-1 Program with a couple of Canon prime lenses in good shape and decided to try to revisit film, since I realized I probably had dismissed it more from using cameras without proper ability to meter or adjust exposure, and with tiny lenses. As others have said, having to think about settings really helped with making me step back and take another look at how what the parameters really mean in terms of camera and lens construction and how they inter-relate. Also when I was looking for info on the AE-1 Program I had come across samples posted by others taken on Kodak Ektar 100 and could hardly believe they were from film- it has nearly color saturation that's typical of modern digital cameras, and none of the grainy greenish underexposure that I was so used to seeing from film.

Aloha 4y ago
Ektar is absolutely magic, its probably the best looking film ever made. Also, honestly, even with my fancy mirrorless camera, I usually shoot in program or aperture priority mode, depending on how much control I want over the image.

perardi 4y ago

I long ago moved past the “oh I should try film” hipster phase…largely by being a hipster and shooting with Fuji. I was curious what a good, fine-grained roll of slide film costs nowadays…yikes. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274846-USA/Kodak_1884576_E100G_135_36_Ektachrome_Professional.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274846-USA/Kodak_1884... I’m always skeptical of any story about film really coming back, because it’s just so pricey. And notably this repackaged press release doesn’t quote any actual numbers. But, well, maybe I’m wrong, someone opened a new film development boutique in town, maybe film will hold on just enough to be viable. https://blockclubchicago.org/2022/05/20/with-bellows-film-lab-a-lifelong-photography-lover-brings-quick-turnaround-film-development-to-wicker-park/ https://blockclubchicago.org/2022/05/20/with-bellows-film-la...

bergenty 4y ago
I mean it’s less than a dollar a picture. That’s not terrible. Obviously nothing compared to digital pictures but film is always going to be a niche like vinyl at this point. It’s going to be enthusiasts and professionals using it, not the common man.
Aloha 4y ago
First thing is - you linked a slide film, not a print film, slide film always costs more. Also, its less tolerate of under/over exposure than print film is. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585497-USA/Kodak_6031330_35mm_Ektar_100_Color.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585497-USA/Kodak_6031... Ektar is a more realistic product that the film nerd would be shooting, the processing is less arduous, and much cheaper than processing slide film. Processing is cheaper for C-41 vs E-6 as well, it'll cost you between 10 and 20 dollars for develop and scan. I prefer film because I learned how to be a photographer on it, and it looks just how I want it to look out of the box. Beyond that, certain kinds of photography, like long exposure just look better on film.

supernova87a 4y ago

Can someone convince me / correct my logic here? I used to be a huge film photographer as well, back to high school days in the darkroom and getting my hands smelly and watching images appear in developer bath. I too have nostalgia. I was entertained by the online meme/question where someone asked "what is the 'red room' in Stranger Things?", ah these youngsters nowadays. But objectively, digital sensors can have their color profiles / output remapped to most film "looks", even adding grain, and of course you're not spending $ on film with every shot and waiting days to get the film back. Aside from if you need the medium/large format resolution, (and the nostalgia / anticipation / excitement of the image) there is no objectively better thing about film, is there? I really get puzzled by people on r/analogcommunity sharing their "finds" of old expired film and wanting to go out and shoot on it. Boggles the mind. You take images hopefully to keep, and wanting to do that with unknown film to save $5 and see what comes out, is... exciting? (I'm sure this is a religious-level debate, I'm not imagining that this will be resolved here, but at least some enjoyment in discussing it.)

Syonyk 4y ago
> But objectively, digital sensors can have their color profiles / output remapped to most film "looks", even adding grain, and of course you're not spending $ on film with every shot and waiting days to get the film back. Given what I can get a used, very high quality 35mm camera body and lenses for... that's an awful lot of film and development cost before you start coming out ahead there.
ElCheapo 4y ago
It boggles your mind that people find surprise and adventure exciting? Do you also think digital painting has superseded actual brushes?
jakobdabo 4y ago
Is it wrong to find the result aesthetically pleasing? In short, it's about the art of photography, those expired films are not for archival family photos, and surely it's not about saving $5.
jes5199 4y ago

gumby 4y ago

I was just in lower Manhattan last week and was struck by how many film sales & processing shops I ran across. Not as many as in the pre-digital era, but encountering more than one was a surprise.

imwillofficial 4y ago

This makes me so happy. Good for them.

tibbydudeza 4y ago

I still have a Nikon F1 in the cupboard with lenses - maybe I should ebay it.

Syonyk 4y ago

I'd put this in the category of what increasingly seems like a growing wave of, for lack of a better term, the "F** Digital" movement. I don't think it's purely digital, there's a lot of disgust with what we've done with consumer electronics as well (turning them into surveillance devices to collect behavioral surplus and then turn around and market to us), and a reaction to about 15 years of ever-increasing "Everything on your black mirror!" pushes from every corner of the modern world. Of course, every one of those apps is hoovering up absolutely as much data as it possibly can in the process. To more and more people who were adults before this transition happened, there's a growing sense sense (certainly in my circles) of "Nah, the old ways were better." It is no business of anyone what I care to listen to in the evening. And with a record, tape, or CD (assuming no SmartTV spying on room audio), that's true. Streaming, hah. It's all being analyzed and prodded. One can get into the usual pissing matches about records vs CDs vs streaming vs lossless streaming vs... whatever else is out there, but they rather miss the point as far as I'm concerned. The experience of listening to a record, with the processes involved, and typically sitting down to listen to it specifically vs just having it on as background music, is different. It's a very different way to experience music from the never-ending algorithmic playlists, though those are interesting for discovering new groups. You also don't (usually...) have the "analysis paralysis" problem of infinite options. And we see this with the ever-increasing record (LP) sales. Vinyl now outsells CDs [0]. You can argue about why it shouldn't be, but clearly "the market has spoken," and vinyl is cool again. It doesn't seem to be a flash in the pan either, as the count has been going up since about 2012 every year, by large jumps. Again, argue how you will about audio quality, but "curling up with a vinyl album in the evening in a kerosene lantern lit room" is a very, very different experience than listening to the same album on some streaming service on a modern digital platform. I view the return to film as something similar - it encourages a very different way of engaging with photography. Shots aren't "free," which means you have different constraints, and history shows that a lot of art happens when given constraints. I've also been seeing (and experimenting with...) a rejection of "all the LED lights" - especially in the evenings. The human body is independently sensitive to blues in light from how we perceive color, so one can have a fairly warm color temperature but still have a lot of blue in the spectrum, and we know that blue messes with human sleep. So there's at least a few people I know (myself included) messing with going back to incandescent light sources in the evening once the sun goes down. Lanterns, incandescent bulbs on dimmers, etc. The goal is to see how much a hard removal of "blue" before bed changes, and... I notice a difference. If I've been away from screens, with just incandescent sources, for a few hours before bed? I seem to sleep better and wake up better rested. I'm far from the only person to notice this, and I intend to continue the experiment through the winter. But at this point, betting on the analog seems a good option. Digital, especially the consumer electronics side, has been weighed by many and found wanting. [o]: https://vacationvinyl.com/how-many-vinyl-records-are-sold-each-year/ https://vacationvinyl.com/how-many-vinyl-records-are-sold-ea...

neverartful 4y ago

I grew up with film photography and also did a fair bit of B&W darkroom work back in the day. I have a European vacation coming up and I started thinking about what kind of camera(s) I should bring on the trip. After pondering the question for a LONG time, I decided I would use 35mm film. I could try to give my own detailed reasoning, but I think the following YT video does a better job explaining. Watching this video pushed me over the edge to make the decision to use film. I may still bring a small, inexpensive digital for low-light situations, but the bulk of what I plan to shoot will be on film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv6VFy1Mx_g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv6VFy1Mx_g I'll mention 2 specific points that I don't think are mentioned in the video: (1) I'm sick and tired of all the digital tracking, (2) I don't have to have ANY batteries of any kind to take pictures with my old Nikon F2 35mm camera. Before anyone makes the claim about it needing batteries for the light meter to work -- I don't need a light meter to take good photos.

sebastianlay 4y ago

Also, there is not 'the one' film look. There is still a lot of different films around and even new ones being released each year. I have made a list of films that are currently reasonable easy to obtain with links to example images: https://analogfilm.space https://analogfilm.space I think for many people the question is not whether you could recreate the look with a digital camera. Instead you already get the look you chose by selecting your film baked into the image without having to do any post-processing.

Kailhus 4y ago
That’s awesome, thank you!

SentientAtom 4y ago

Eastman Kodak sold off all their valuable IP a long time ago. Densitometers, Colorimeters, then more recently the silver-halide paper and the chemistry to Sino in China. Wouldn't go to work for them even if I got paid well.