What exactly gives film it's special look? Even medium format

The contrast and colour tones.

>>3013966
What does that mean exactly?

film is perfect and comfy.

>>3013960
Digital your limited to about 13 stops of dr, giving crunchy contrast and grads, film will do double the stops giving smooth, deep, tangible colours.

>>3014116
wtf are you talking about? Portra has a DR ~11 stops. Velvia is less than 6. Some black and white films may hit 13.

>>3014120
Lol, no. Lrn2scan

File: Portra Data Sheet.png (22KB, 457x474px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 457x474px

>>3014123
Lol, yes. lrn2readadatasheet

The range falls from roughly -2.5 to +1, which is between 11-12 stops.

>>3013960
This would be the actual holy grail of answers on this board, if only there was a general consensus. I have been trying to get close to this "film rendering" in digital with every kind of postprocessing and format but it's never quite there. Close, but not the same.

>>3014124
Here's someone comparing a 10 stop spread in a scene with high contrast, as you can see, you can't overexpose c41 film without doing something drastically wrong, there's no lost detail in the sky between 0 and +6.

https://petapixel.com/2015/08/10/how-much-can-you-overexpose-negative-film-have-a-look/

Or you know, shoot some film, expose to the right and see for yourself.

>>3014128
When I was shooting film, I was trying to make it look more accurate in terms of colors and contrast and so on. You know, like digital.

Because when you got a photo and hold it right in front of the thing you shot a day earlier in similar light conditions, it very often just looked worse. It's not as good and interesting as reality with more details and colors is.

Unfortunately the closest I got was film I couldn't afford to shoot much back then. And then initially digital also was wrong.

Very happy we got *good* digital sensors now. Things finally look quite right (at least not so that I see everything is wrong right away as long as the exposure was good).

>>3014116
holy fuck are all filmfags this delusional? double the stops from 13 stops is 26 stops. do you not really know how logarithmic systems work you moron?

26 stops is approximately the brightness difference between the surface of the Sun in zenith (EV ~31) and dimly lit interior. try it sometime, capturing both of those in single exposure and any media and come tell us how it went.

fucking delusional filmiots.

>>3014130
b-but anon, they have datasheets and countless hours of reading stuff on the internet to back their arguments up! Your pitiful "practice" and, ahaha, "experience" is worth squat, compared to a good manufacturer-developed chart. just shut up already, you deluded clearly wrong fool.

>>3014135
>using ev instead of lv
Are you new?
>not understanding lv goes into minus figures too
Like, have you got any fucking clue what's going on?

Milky way is -8 lv, direct sun reflecting off a white/grey object is +16, this is a 24 stop difference, and yes, you can get a milkyway exposed and retain texture on the moon on film, You may need to bracket scans.

>>3014130
You're confusing 'exposure' and 'dynamic range'. Sure, overexpose a roll of film by 4 stops if you want. That negative is still going to only contain 11ish stops of dynamic range.

>>3014135
>26 stops is approximately the brightness difference between the surface of the Sun in zenith (EV ~31) and dimly lit interior.

This.

>>3014141
>shown that you can overexpose film with no penalty

>but it still only has 11 stops

So, friend, if you expose for the shadows as middle gray, how many stops above your midpoint do you have before the film starts to fail? Now that you know you can't blow highlights...

If you can't wrap ypur head around this, you should probably quit.

>>3014130
>Or you know, shoot some film, expose to the right and see for yourself.

I've been shooting film for a looonngggg time and I know it ain't got no 26 stops of DR.

By overexposing a roll like in that example, all you're doing is moving the curve I posted here >>3014124

You're not magically making the film more capable of retaining more information.

A change of 1 in that curve I posted is about 3.5 stops. The company that made the god damn product is giving this information, why would they lie...especially if the 'truth' is that the film can handle more detail than they claim.

>>3014140
1: moon is not "white or grey in sunlight", but very dark shade of grey.
2: full moon is about twice as bright as it is couple of days before full moon. the brightness doesn't scale linearly with the phase angle.
3: during full moon, there is no chance that the milky way is visible. rayleigh scattering of the moonlight simply floods it.

>>3014120
19 STOPS
9

S
T
O
P
S
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/05/kodaks-new-portra-400-film/

>>3014124

What happens if you expose for more than 1.0 lux seconds? I don't see a shoulder on that curve yet and there's still plenty of density left for a good, bright scanner to shine through.

>>3014147
>The company that made the god damn product is giving this information, why would they lie...especially if the 'truth' is that the film can handle more detail than they claim.

because americans are lawsuit happy faggots? the company gives you the numbers where the film will perform exactly like in the chart to cover their asses. but, we all know film goes beyond that, its in the photos. now show me photos where digital gets full use of its DR and doesnt look like a tonemapped piece of shit. ill make myself a coffee and wait right here.

>>3014183
> Dude shoots three shots at -4, base, +6 EV, they all can be developed into SOMETHING useful.

> Sees picture and concludes inside the picture he has maybe 5+6=11 EV

> BUT OF COURSE YOU CAN COMBINE THESE SOMEHOW!
Wrong. Actually he basically only found out that he has a guesstimated 11EV dynamic range within one picture, that's all.

>>3014147
"all you're doing is moving the curve"
You realise that makes zero sense right buddy, let's try again;

>expose for the shadows, you can't blow highlights.

Once you've wrapped your head around that, where is the limitation? Either you're trolling or you don't understand basic logic.

>why would they lie
Because it's consumer film designed to be used with matching chemicals and paper. With a lab scan or wet print you will be limited to 11/12 stops, if you can blast the densest areas with enough light in your scanning method you can pull more detail.

>>3014200
You pull more detail ;)

>>3014210
A -4, +6 shift on a scene with 10+ stops of dr already in it. Nooblet

File: tulla-trees.jpg (210KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1000x800px

>>3014149
Explain this then, detail still in the moon, detail still in the shadows of trees at night.

This image has had no d&b done.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	8028
Image Height	9936
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2755 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2755 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2011:05:17 23:10:56
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	800

>>3014210
>>3014202
> because americans are lawsuit happy faggots? the company gives you the numbers where the film will perform exactly like in the chart to cover their asses
And in the rest of the world, they don't publish the real values because... what?

Actually, why wouldn't they do the same for digital cameras with even more of a margin of legal safety?

> now show me photos where digital gets full use of its DR and doesnt look like a tonemapped piece of shit
Most are *actually* tone mapped to be redder and gaudier or some shit like that by default (and also by RAW processors imitating the JPEG processing as default picture to start out with) because people apparently like it. But at least you can do away with that.

Unfortunately photographs are also severely "tone mapped" pieces of shit, just with lower DR and still pending a time-consuming scan to have ANY chance of undoing their "tone mapping" at home.

>>3014221
>no photo

of course. ill keep waiting here with my coffee.

>>3014219
There is no detail in the moon, the fuck are you on about?

>>3014233
t. blind digipleb.

>>3014236
Not an argument, and that whole image looks like shit

Filmfags gonna filmfag as always.

>>3014233
is it blown homie, or can you see shade on it. Obviously there's no fine detail due to the atmospheric haze that's warping it all out of shape.

Plz tell me you noticed the above, if not, go to school, noob.

>>3014242
>atmospheric haze
That doesn't make any sense, if the moon is that low you should be able to see far more detail than what's there.

>>3014222
What are you waiting for. I said you're right on the explicit claim.
Just the implication that film is better is absolutely wrong.

Yes, digital shots are not neutrally colour mapped by default (either in a JPEG or RAW workflow) on most digital cameras, and it's generally a vendor choice because apparently people think red tint is more beautiful than realism.
But at least you can undo this quite well with a profile in a RAW workflow.

However, film *does the same shit* with often fucking extremely horrid "tone mapping", and the method to undo it is so god damn annoying.

You need very deliberate shooting and developing so you can use a color profile, and you still basically can't do it without digitizing your film first. It's just not any argument whatsoever for film, film is a complete debacle if you think you don't want "tone mapped" shit but just reality as it was.

>>3014246
no, learn 2 geometry, you're looking through a lot more atmosphere when the moons on the horizon than then it's high up.

>>3014258
Then explain to me why it looks so large and vibrant when it's just raising over the sky?

I shoot film exclusively and am severely disappointed in this thread because other filmfags have shown me that they're goddamn retarded and keep making ridiculous calims, which are proven wrong, and then just spout some retarded "durr digifags are just DUMB"

please never post again and stop acting like film is some magical sorcery that can capture 3x more dynamic range than can even be visibly printed on paper.

>>3014286
>I shoot film exclusively and am severely disappointed of other filmfags

said no film shooter ever. film bros are bros to each other and dont side with the dumb digicucks.

>>3014290
kill yourself you fucking spazz, I shoot film and I'm proud not to be part of your shitty lomo hipster delusional "brotherhood"

>>3014261
dont you notice the fog between the trees? yeah ofc, itll have way more detail on a clear day.
you can clearly see that theres both a yellow tint and some blurred shades on that moon.

>>3014219
the moon is darkened by the haze, you dimwit

>>3014306
t. visually illiterate.

>>3014261
because of atmospheric distortion, our atmosphere is denser than the vacuum of space, and spherical, so works like an optical lens.

A lot of that effect is also down to relative size theory, next to trees and houses the moon looks massive, in the emptiness of the night sky it looks smaller.

Glad I could help expand your knowledge :o)

>>3014316
Cool but that doesn't explain why a moon that normally appears larger and with more detail when lower in the sky would somehow look like a blown out white blob due to "haze". That's what I meant to ask.

>>3014321
because of the motion blur, the moon moves pretty fast, but you can still see a darker patch which is just smeared detail.

>>3014299

>In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony film blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence

>>3014249

wew lass

>>3014219
ahahaha. your ignorance on both atmospheric extinction and celestial mechanics is showing. american """"education"""", right?

>>3013960
is there anything close to the "clarity" function in film developing? cuz every dig has clarity out the hizzizz

>>3014344

Atmospheric extinction will still make for a bright moon, especially in comparison to the shadow side of a tree at night. Kill your self, you smug little chode.

>>3014286
Holy fuck me too film friend.