(emebiggenable)
THERE EXISTS A SOMEWHAT CONTRADICTORY DILEMMA which stems from 2 ideas a.) that digital is better than analog (aka: film) and that, nevertheless, b.) that there is an interest in film simulation apps. Or, in other words, that you make a photograph using some form of digital capture-cuz it’s better than film?-but would like it to look like it was made with film-i.e., exhibiting the visual characteristics of film-cuz it looks better than digital?.
It would seem that the obvious solution to that somewhat contradictory situation is quite simple; if you want your pictures to look like they were made with film then, duh, make your pictures using film. However, it is not really that simple. Using film is much more expensive in the long run than using digital and it also involves finding a reliable source of high quality film processing-more expense-which, depending upon where one lives, is like finding a needle in a haystack. And, quite frankly, even finding film can be a challenge; that is, if you can want certified “fresh” film-film that has been properly stored and handled before sale. In my commercial film-based hay-day, when I purchased film, it came out of a refrigerator and was then kept in a refrigerator in my studio (film warmed to room temp prior to use).
Truth be told, very few picture makers are willing to enter-or re-enter-the film world. Consequently, app makers have recognized enough of a demand for a film-like appearance that can be applied to digitally produced images. So now you have it, film simulation apps aplenty. Haven’t tried any of those apps and I don’t intend to. However….
….. all of that written, I must admit, I do like my prints to exhibit film-like appearance. Which is not to write that I want my prints to look like they have been made with a specific type of film-aka: Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Kodak color negative film, Fuji film, Agfa film*, et al.
Rather, what I strive for is what might be called an anti-digital look. That is, a “softer” look that is less color saturated, has less acutance (edge contrast), softer highlight / shadow contrast, and a smidge-and-a-half less “sharpness”. I can get that look all by my lonesome all of which produces a print which strongly resembles a C-print made from a color negative. A look that, to my eye and sensibilities, is more gentle on the eye than the prints that exhibit all of the “better” qualities of digital capture.
*true confession, I did love Agfa color negative film.
