Hacker News Reader

Comment by japhyr | Hacker News Reader

> A decent full frame 35mm digital will probably beat a film medium format comfortably on colour reproduction, resolution and clarity. But Damnit, film just looks "real"

Do you have a clear sense of why film looks "real" to you? Is it because film is a more accurate rendering of how we perceive light, or is it because you grew up on film?

There were plenty of films that didn't represent the real world accurately, and plenty of digital filters that don't either. But I find that the default settings for most digital cameras look about as realistic as the default settings for most film cameras did when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s.

View on HN

I find the default settings for most digital cameras over-sharpen, blow out highlights, and create color fringes which looks less realistic.

though, sure, certainly all photos have a psychological component, and film may also look more "real" (absent significant defects) because culturally been ingrained. Once the culture changes, it will probably be film which looks less real over time. I wouldn't attribute it to individual tastes, though.

>and create color fringes which looks less realistic.

Interesting. I believe that lenses tend not to be corrected for chromatic aberration as much as they used to be because chromatic aberration is relatively easy to correct in post-processing. (Being lax about chromatic aberration can give lens designers more leeway to correct other more serious aberrations.)

It's not that, because classic film lenses are used on digital mirror less cameras rather routinely. Film has a pleasing, gradual acutance compared to digital - especially in high contrast areas.

Edit: but you are correct that chromatic aberration, distortion, and other things probably take a backseat to resolution these days, since those things are easier to correct in post.

>It's not that, because classic film lenses are used on digital mirror less cameras rather routinely

Sure, I don't think anything I said contradicts that.

Now that is a question!

I think its mostly that its what "historic" photos look like. I don't mean the lomo plastic lens rubbish.

Colours are more on the green/blue end (well dependent on what film of course) The dynamic range is well, film-ey, Highlights are smooth, as are gradients. Also 35mm lenses have shallower depth of field compared to a iphone sensor or similar.

The instagram filters don't really cut it. Its obvious it comes from a digital camera(depth of field, bad grain, silly colours)

I don't think that its accurate, I think its because all the iconic photos of the 40s-90s are in film

One analogy that I don't seem to find agreement is many is that shooting slide film is like saving only in jpeg/tiff on a DSLR: you get an image that is immediately ready to use but subject to the interpretation of a chemical formulation (or internal processing of a camera). Negative is more like RAW format, need more work and may never look as nice, but deep down it was more faithful than other options.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com