Can you replicate film look with digital camera?

It depends.

but can you replicate digital look with a film camera?

>>3100036
Can you elavorate please?

>>3100037
literally high definition scan and light editing.
and Why would you do this?

>>3100047
Whether or not you can replicate films look with a digital camera relies upon the exposure, collection, comprehension and comparison of currently nebulous, neglected, precluded or overlooked information. Then, mutatis mutandis, an appropriate resolution can be approached sui generis and without need for obiter dictum ad referendum.

>>3100078
So, it depends?

>>3100084
yeh.

File: 20170603-DSC05832.jpg (311KB, 1152x2048px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1152x2048px

Perhaps.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Windows)
Photographer	David Mornet
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:22 21:53:27
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Brightness	0.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard

Not perfectly, but we're pretty close.

File: 1495763690732.jpg (83KB, 600x817px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 600x817px

you can emulate but not replicate

it depends on how visually illiterate you are. if your leve is high, youll be fooled easily into buying an emulation as real film.

>>3100034
NO
but you don't really want to.
embrace digital for what it is.

>>3100034
yes

Fuji does have film emulation.

a digital photo emulating the "film look" is akin to those female to male trans weirdos. they check most of the boxes, but they just arent quite there.

>>3100552
How to become more literate?

>>3100680
the same way you learned to ditch shit food in favor of better food. by exposing yourself to good shit and learning to differentiate shit from gold aka. have standards. it all boils down to how many sensory distinctions can you manage. can you differentiate overdrive from fuzz from distortion? some people have natural skill for this, some people cant discern instant coffee from recently brewed espresso from fresh top tier grains. these are fucked and need to be born again.

>>3100688
I'm a pleb when it comes to food but I can tell good cologne from bad.

Everyone on p says I have awful taste in photos but I think a lot of them might be autistic.

How can I find out if there is any hope for me?

>>3100690
Don't sweat /p/. Just do what you enjoy doing and put time into researching and practicing how to do it better.

>>3100690
>/p/
>might be autistic

ding ding ding! Seriously, it's good for finding technical advice but the taste here, they value symmetry (easy to define things) over genuine panache or style (hard to define).

>>3100708
I know that you're using "autistic" in the internet vernacular kind of way (similarly to how "retarded" is used as an adjective to describe something the speaker considers foolish, idiotic, inane, etc.), but actual autistic people in general have a very high affinity for aesthetic judgments and other tasks that involve large amounts of subjective perceptual processing. This is because the cognition of autistic people tends less towards conceptual abstractions from immediate sensory input (i.e. the normal way non-autistic people think) than it does towards an immediate, affective synthesis of environmental stimuli. In short, autists are actually really, really sensitive to their environment, and accordingly have very complex and refined tastes.

t. special ed volunteer

File: NN11445042.jpg (1MB, 1056x704px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1056x704px

There is just something to film that I don't know how to emulate. With film it's like I can feel the textures. But with digital it feels like in a video game where it's a flat surface with an image on it.

Anyone else feels this way? Have any photography masters shared their views on this whole film look / digital look thing in detail?

Also the amount of digital/film comparisons online is surprisingly small. I want to see a direct comparisons. Maybe I am not looking hard enough?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	7380
Image Height	4920
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	156 dpi
Vertical Resolution	156 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:09:21 17:13:44
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800

>>3100717
Aren't they sensitive to any stimuli except those involving humans, thus would be absolute dogshit at evaluating portraits because they can't interpret emotions?

>>3100722
>Aren't they sensitive to any stimuli except those involving humans

Sort of, but it's arguably the inverse--because autistic people are so sensitive, they find contact with other humans to be very overwhelming (at a biological/neurological level, human faces and bodies are the strongest visual stimuli there are). Accordingly, they shut out/ignore other people as a sort of defence mechanism.

>>3100728
HOLY fuck I think I might be autistic. When in public I usually hope people don't talk to me or sit beside me on the bus and shit. It feels very taxing to talk with people I don't know. So I try to ignore people and avoid eye contact. Wear shades and listen to music and shit.

>>3100717

I feel you. I'm a filmmaker and not at all a mental health professional but I am somewhat on the spectrum and tend to enjoy working with people who are a little socially off. Sometimes social climber normies literally don't have the ability to just focus on one thing and be great at it, or ignore the politics of a collaborative art like filmmaking.

>>3100733
That sounds like garden variety introversion, anon (maybe with some anxiety thrown in). Probably nothing to be too worried about. These personality traits only become pathological when they reach a critical mass.

>>3100733
>HOLY fuck I think I might be autistic.

Well you ARE here.

>>3100784
OHHHHHHHH SHHHHIIIIII-

File: photo.jpg (229KB, 1032x774px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1032x774px

Just add some grain with some editor or app.
I took this one with my cellphone and edited it with Snapseed.

>>3100841
That looks terrible lmao

>>3100034
>Can you replicate film look with digital camera?
No. Film captures light differently. Maybe we can comes close with the new organic sensors.
>>3100219
Right now only close in perfect conditions. But still film captures light differently.
>>3100612
Fuji's filmsims are not even close to the the real thing. Just inspired by film.

In short film. Still has more colour depth, DR, highlight rendition and resolution. Besides Arri this is reason why Hollywood still uses film.

File: Pizza.jpg (1MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4608x3456px

higher ISO adds some grain to it that looks quite filmish sometimes. this is one of my first pics shot with my m10 II OOC and ISO 1600.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera Model	E-M10MarkII
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.9 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:24 11:05:12
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/4.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/4.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3100887
>film has more highlight rendition

Lolwut?

>>3101072
Not that anon, but yes of course it does. Negative film has fenomenal highlight range.
Have you ever even shot film?

>>3101086
I'm being kinda pedantic about it, but I figure if you expose for highlights they will render properly so long as your using a decent camera, No?

Yes I have shot film before.

>>3101092
Yes if you expose specifically for the highlights they'll render properly, of course. What's your point?

On (negative) film you generally expose for the shadows because there's a lot of highlight latitude. It handles overexposure really well.
On digital you generally expose for the highlights because there's a lot of shadow latitude in post. Overexposure is harder to fix.

File: 1490733449404.jpg (21KB, 480x405px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x405px

>>3100718
>Also the amount of digital/film comparisons online is surprisingly small.
You're right on this part. There are barely and film next to digital comparisons online. You also have to remember that there are different films and when people develop it, they want something different from the digital photos they take. In conclusion, they just usually don't want to waste a roll lugging around 2 cameras and having the same photos. I am pretty sure that is why there aren't many film next to digital reviews online.

>>3101149

OK, I need fucking sauce on this pic once and for all.

>>3100034
>faking film look
why do people do this?
you are just lying to yourself
you'll never get it right

just shoot film pussy

>>3100078
Why don't you say "yes, under certain conditions"?
"It depends" is such a vague answer.

>>3100034
make photos look the way you want them to

nobody else's opinion matters, especially not /p/

>>3101157
I tried to find it for myself and can't find it. All that comes up are a bunch of mexican twitter account reactions.

>>3101174
> take a digital photo
> make it look blurry and shitty in post
TA DA, FILM! <3

File: IMG_9437.jpg (227KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 667x1000px

let's see if /p/ can guess.
film scan or digital replicating film?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3101899
VSCO

>>3101904
VSCO is never the answer to anything.

>>3101946
this post is completely meaningless

>>3101949
No really - VSCO is the most overrated filter package ever. Tiffen and Topaz both produced more realistic packages. People are only even aware of VSCO because it started life as an app - thus underscoring who its main consumer base is, talentless teens.

>>3101899
Too good to be film

>>3101899
Digital

File: PICT0790.jpg (191KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1200x900px

Possibly?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	KONICA MINOLTA
Camera Model	DYNAX 7D
Camera Software	RawTherapee 5.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	450 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1200
Image Height	900
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:06:09 14:59:35
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	7.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3101962
That looks terrible

>>3101963
Yes, but isn't that the point?

File: test f 2.jpg (275KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1000x667px

film or digital?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3101899
digital but really good job imo

>>3101988
probably digital?

>>3101988
>misaligned scan
>dark spots along sprocket holes from bromide drag = not enough agitation

yep, film

File: IMG_8640-Edit.jpg (150KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1000x666px

>>3101904
>>3101958
>>3101960
>>3101992
All correct.

How about this one?
film scan or digital replicating film?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3102076
Film.

>>3102076
film desu yon

>>3101962
Looks very shitty, so I would have guessed film. Well done!
>>3101965
I think you also need to waste some money and time to get the "true film experience."

>>3101988
Looks soft and shitty. I'm gonna guess film.

File: 033334.jpg (422KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1000x667px

any guesses

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3102146
Soft and colours are bad. Film IMO.

>>3102146
Taken through the rangefinder

File: DSC01902.jpg (466KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1000x667px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi