Unnatural looking digital photos

I have read a lot from film shooters that they don't like the
"unnatural look" that digital photos have and prefer the look of
film photos. After looking at a large number of digital and film
photos I have to assume that these people have gotten use to the way
film looks and have come to accept it as being the norm for what looks
natural.

So now I have to wonder, do these film shooters complain when they go
out in the real world that it looks unnatural. Does the real world
have that "unnatural digital look" to them. I have to wonder
because looking at digital photos and comparing them to film the
digital seem much closer to the real world then film.

Does the fact that the real world is missing that nice grain look
bother them, do the colors of the real world seem off to them, perhaps
flat and uninteresting?

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have read a lot from film shooters that they don't like the
"unnatural look" that digital photos have and prefer the look of
film photos. After looking at a large number of digital and film
photos I have to assume that these people have gotten use to the way
film looks and have come to accept it as being the norm for what looks
natural.

So now I have to wonder, do these film shooters complain when they go
out in the real world that it looks unnatural. Does the real world
have that "unnatural digital look" to them. I have to wonder
because looking at digital photos and comparing them to film the
digital seem much closer to the real world then film.

Does the fact that the real world is missing that nice grain look
bother them, do the colors of the real world seem off to them, perhaps
flat and uninteresting?

One only captures a facsimile of the real world with any camera. Actually,
a photograph can look better than reality (even without severe retouching).
Then, there are scenes that photographs can only struggle with.

We are at the point where digital is better than film for most
photographers. Those who still use film are certainly justified in their
decision, however. I went to an art show last month with the works of five
photographers on display and every one of them captured in medium format
film and then went digital with a scanner. Their work was stunning (some of
it) and I'd guess they will stick with film for at least several more years.

In article . com, Scott
W says...
I have read a lot from film shooters that they don't like the
"unnatural look" that digital photos have and prefer the look of
film photos. After looking at a large number of digital and film
photos I have to assume that these people have gotten use to the way
film looks and have come to accept it as being the norm for what looks
natural.

So now I have to wonder, do these film shooters complain when they go
out in the real world that it looks unnatural. Does the real world
have that "unnatural digital look" to them. I have to wonder
because looking at digital photos and comparing them to film the
digital seem much closer to the real world then film.

Does the fact that the real world is missing that nice grain look
bother them, do the colors of the real world seem off to them, perhaps
flat and uninteresting?

Agree. Digital is linear, while film is not entirely linear. Therefore
digital more accurately records reality
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Agree. Digital is linear, while film is not entirely linear. Therefore
digital more accurately records reality

Better to say digital is quantized and film is continuous. A fine point,
perhaps, but worth mentioning.

"Charles Schuler" wrote in
:

Better to say digital is quantized and film is continuous. A fine
point, perhaps, but worth mentioning.

Both are quantizised. Grains are not continous and
so are not photons.


/Roland

Thus spake Alfred Molon:
Snipped
Agree. Digital is linear, while film is not entirely linear. Therefore
digital more accurately records reality

Records reality? Are you sure any member of the human race is capable of
recognising reality even if bitten on the bum by it? Maybe after evolving
another million years Maybe by that time, we will also recognise that
"reality" is not a great deal more than what the majority thinks it is.

What do you think of the 8080 Alfred? I haven't handled one but the full
size pictures I've seen on the web were gobsmackingly good IMO: free from
CA/bloom artefacts, natural looking & sharp. I'm just growing older with my
C4040!

--
Thank people in advance? Thanking or cursing them afterwards at least
gives some feedback!

"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
"Charles Schuler" wrote in
:

Better to say digital is quantized and film is continuous. A fine
point, perhaps, but worth mentioning.

Both are quantizised. Grains are not continous and
so are not photons.

Photons are indeed quantized units of electromagnetic radiation. Film
chemistry and how it reacts to bombardment by light is widely/universally
regarded as a continuous process. You might not realize that photons are
merely a collapse of the wave function of light, and thus have little to do
with this discussion.

"Scott W" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have read a lot from film shooters that they don't like the
"unnatural look" that digital photos have and prefer the look of
film photos.

I suspect that in double blind tests that the vast majority of people saying
things like that could not actually tell the difference between digital and
silver photography. After all, their film is digitally processed, too. It is
all digital photography, now.

"Scott W" writes:

I have read a lot from film shooters that they don't like the
"unnatural look" that digital photos have and prefer the look of
film photos.

"natural"? I don't know what a "natural" digital photo looks like. I
remember when CDs came out, and we had this same discussion about CDs and
vinyl, digital mastering and tapes.

I'm not going to worry about it.

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.

"Scott W" wrote:

I have read a lot from film shooters that they don't like the
"unnatural look" that digital photos have and prefer the look of
film photos.

It's only _35mm_ shooters you hear that from. MF and LF photographers don't
make grainy prints, so we're used to clean prints. We complain about the
lack of resolution in digital, but other than that are quite happy with it.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan