An exercise in my search for the film-look

 The tools:

Minolta 7000, loaded with Kodak Gold 200, set to ISO200, aperture priority at F4, no exposure compensation afjustment for the snow scenes. Film was processed by Grainnation, and they're shown here without any adjustments: straight from the scans.

Sony A99: 24MP, known for it's creamy rendering. set to ISO200, aperture priority at F4, exposure compensation adjusted for the snow scenes. The digital files were adjusted for brightness and contrast to match the film files. Very little adjustment was necessary, since the exposure compensation applied in shooting worked quite well.

Lens used by both cameras: Tamron 20-40 F2.7-3.5

The top image is on digital and the bottom image is with film.

The weather was overcast, like a very thick diffused softbox was hung over the whole scene. Undoubtedly this lack of lighting extremes led to a very close matchbetween digital and film. With a wider lighting range, film will differ significantly from digital, and I suspect, negatively.

No preset was involved in this exercise. I use presets when necessary to get the look that I am looking for; and it's a different look for different occasions. Presets can add grain, halation, edge contrasts, vignetting, etc, all in almost-ready-to-apply packages.

It's essential that I don't define the finished product as a digital-look, or a film-look, or a hybrid-look. It's not even a Dodge-Baena-look. It's just a look that suits the image, for the purpose and the audience it is intended for. Hopefully, it's a pretty picture, too. Presets are tools for specific jobs.

This is my first time using the Tamron, which came to me as a bonus with the A99 from Facebook MarketPlace. One discovery from this exercise is that the Tamron 20-40F2.7-3.5 is an underrated lens, a fine optic with character. Pairs nicely with the Sony a99. I think I'll hang on to both.

My take on the Film-Look

Film Simulation: the process of obtaining the film-look from images obtained by digital means.

There are two  kinds of film-looks: the cheap-lens look and the expensive-lens look.

The cheap-lens look can be found in old family albums, pre-2000 snapshots. Typically, these photos were taken with consumer cameras with plastic lenses, using film of varying quality, film-processed in  chemical soups in different states of freshness, in thousands of developing labs where film-processing protocol weren't always followed. Finally, cameras were used with primitive focusing systems. So-called auto settings  were imprecise, let alone accurate. A decent lens inaccurately focused is a lousy lens.

Finally, to fully realize the cheap-lens aesthetic, shoot scenes with total disregard for the rules of composition, shoot into the light, shoot on Auto setting, etc. or all of the above. With or not-with a cheap lens.

The following photos were taken with a 2008 Canon G11, 1/1.7" sensor, 28-140 F2.8-4.5 lens, processesd to look like film snapshots. I tried to get away from conventional rules of composition, with little success. 

The expensive-lens look is what is found in publications and photo exhibitions. The tools used were (traditionally) not accessible to the average consumers. Professional films had a narrow exposure latitude, which necessitated accurate metering. Lenses were colour corrected and sharp (read: expensive).  Films went to Labs with  precise processing. For example, Steve McCurry used Kodachrome that could only be processed in a handful of labs in the United States.

The following photos were taken with a Sony ZV-1 with it's 1" sensor and a very sharp 24-70 F1.8-2.8, processed to look like Kodachrome 64. I used the ZV-1 because it produces detail that looks like film grain.

And two honorable mentions, taken with a Sony A7III