3 ms·

Sounds like he thinks the benefits of film are its physical limitations and expense, but those limitations could always be emulated for digital shots too. Does

Sounds like he thinks the benefits of film are its physical limitations and expense, but those limitations could always be emulated for digital shots too. Does film generally look better than a pre-processed raw digital photo? If so, that'd be a better selling point to me. Not having to master fiddling with clunky post-processing software - much more appealing than, "film is better because each shot costs a dollar, I can only take 36 shots instead of 2,000, and I enjoy the 2-weeks-later surprise of the results." Also wish they would disclaim that the links in the article are affiliate links, quite impolite not to.

ghaff 3y ago
>Does film generally look better than a pre-processed raw digital photo? "Better" is subjective. It can probably look a bit different; some Hollywood directors still shoot on film. However, it's really hard for me to make the case that 35mm film is objectively better than full-frame digital with equivalent lenses etc. (And a lot of individual film characteristics can be emulated in post-production.) (I'm sure someone could make an argument for 4x5 film and the corresponding camera which gives you very precise focus control.)
dietrichepp 3y ago
> Does film generally look better than a pre-processed raw digital photo? Under typical circumstances, no. Even digital JPEG is better than film, most of the time. There are some exceptions. Negative film retains details even when overexposed, unlike digital. Medium format or large format film is a lot less expensive that medium format digital, but you need to take pictures carefully and use slow film to take advantage of the difference. Slides still look amazing in-person—they have better contrast than typical monitors, and typical side projectors / light boxes can get pretty bright. Professional photographers back in the day would deliver slides as their finished product. In one workflow, you don’t do any post-processing on the slide at all—you scan it in, you print it out, and you make sure that the colors in the print match the colors on the slide. You have to get the picture right in-camera, and then you’re done.

ghaff 3y ago

>Does film generally look better than a pre-processed raw digital photo? "Better" is subjective. It can probably look a bit different; some Hollywood directors still shoot on film. However, it's really hard for me to make the case that 35mm film is objectively better than full-frame digital with equivalent lenses etc. (And a lot of individual film characteristics can be emulated in post-production.) (I'm sure someone could make an argument for 4x5 film and the corresponding camera which gives you very precise focus control.)

dietrichepp 3y ago

> Does film generally look better than a pre-processed raw digital photo? Under typical circumstances, no. Even digital JPEG is better than film, most of the time. There are some exceptions. Negative film retains details even when overexposed, unlike digital. Medium format or large format film is a lot less expensive that medium format digital, but you need to take pictures carefully and use slow film to take advantage of the difference. Slides still look amazing in-person—they have better contrast than typical monitors, and typical side projectors / light boxes can get pretty bright. Professional photographers back in the day would deliver slides as their finished product. In one workflow, you don’t do any post-processing on the slide at all—you scan it in, you print it out, and you make sure that the colors in the print match the colors on the slide. You have to get the picture right in-camera, and then you’re done.