The sad history of digital cameras trying to imitate film
The sad history of digital cameras trying to imitate film
Stop trying to make digital film cameras happen.
By Stan Horaczek, Popular Science, October 14, 2017
Just buy a film camera.
Yashica
There are a ton of great film cameras on the secondary market right now. Prices are up from where they were a few years ago, but your options span everything from classic manual SLRs to fun compact cameras with surprisingly sharp lenses. But, film photography does take some extra effort and cost, which makes the idea of a digital camera that simulates a film photography experience so appealing. The problem, however, is that no one has been able to do it right.
(Note by Buzz) I came across this article by accident, and found it to be quite fascinating. There is a YouTube part to it (which I am unable to open) so instead of trying to copy and paste the rest of the article here is the link to the rest of it:
https://www.popsci.com/digital-cameras-arent-good-at-imitating-film
Tags
Who is online
397 visitors
My last film camera was a Canon F1 SLR. I bought the first one sold in Toronto, and I loved that camera. I had a professional darkroom in the basement of my home with a Leitz Focomat enlarger, developed my own films and enlargements. It was a time-consuming effort, but I enjoyed it. Now I use a pocket-sized "point-and-shoot" camera and an online editing program, and can produce the same results in a lot less time and effort.
I was one of those "holdouts", who, when digital cameras first hit the markets, would say things like … "they'll never match the quality of film"!
I continued to say things like that until about the time of the 8MP sensors … at which point a digital point and shoot by FujiFinepix got my attention.
After going through a bunch of Nikon Digital SLRs … shooting these days with a Nikon D500, 21MP sensor, 10 frames/second capability and a continuous auto focus that stays with it … considering the Digital Darkroom (a.k.a. Photoshop/Editing software) … no more waiting until my film is processed …
… no knocks on Kodachrome 24, Fuji Velvia 50 or any other great films …
… I'm not going back.
In the days of film, if I wanted to combine a part of one 35mm slide with another, assuming any two slides could be made to work together as one, I made a "slide sandwich" and hoped it could be recorded to make a decent new composite.
Rare if/when it did.
Today, with digital images and image-editing … I make dozens of "sandwiches" for publication every year.
Here are some examples …
I photographed this sunset in July, the Eagle this past Saturday (at 10 frames/second I got about 30 Eagle shots, about 5-10 of which are publishable quality). Long story short … never would have happened without a traditional dark room without a tedious, no results guaranteed process.
© A. Mac/A.G
Best Look at this Link
And to show it's not a fluke …
… I did this one about an hour before the one above …
© A. Mac/A.G
Best Look at this Link l
Thanks for this article, Buzz.
Was the El Capitan photo we spoke of before a sandwich as well?
Yes it was.
I want to expand on my "yes" to that question, Buzz.
• What were "slide sandwiches" in pre-digital photography days, are now "LAYERS" in photo/image-editing applications. Layers allow for images to be stacked upon one another with each layer enabled for transparency/opacity as well as every modification enabled for any/all photographs.
• Many digital photographers are also digital artists/illustrators/painters/designers … I am a photographer first, that is, almost all my "digital art" begins with photographs … and a "digital artist" secondarily, but extensively.
• When submitting images for publications like science text books/magazine articles … any publication where "literal" representations are requisite, I do not edit. My biology background takes precedent.
• When submitting or directly marketing images where "anything goes" in the hopes of finding a buyer … I allow my fine arts background to take me wherever my imagination goes.
I would say definitively, that the buyer/collector/enthusiast of works of art, virtually never witnesses the act/process of the creation of a given work before it's publicly available. I sometimes hesitate to answer your "sandwich" question, et al, because some consider such images as "cheating," as "gimmicky" …
Ansel Adams did lots of "editing" in a traditional darkroom … God knows what he would have done with Photoshop.
Thanks for that information. I guess I shouldn't inquire, in your case, so not to let the cat out of the bag (so to speak) about your editing procedure, just in case a potential buyer sees our dialogue.
Potential buyers never ask about process ... Students ask all the time.
Hopefully there will be others to comment on this article.
I've learned not to get my hopes up about that. This article has nothing to do with American politics or religion.