Digital film simulations have become a popular way to capture the look of classic film stocks without the hassle of processing and scanning. They’re practical for anyone who wants a specific aesthetic without spending time on extensive post-processing, and they give you the freedom to focus on composition and light.
Coming to you from Reggie Ballesteros, this practical video breaks down how film simulations work and why they’re useful in digital photography. Ballesteros explains that while film simulations can’t replicate film’s organic look precisely, they get remarkably close. Unlike shooting on actual film, digital simulations let you adjust settings like ISO on the fly and adapt to various lighting conditions. Traditional film stocks often require specific lighting to achieve their intended look. With film simulations, however, you’re free from these constraints. This flexibility is a huge advantage for those who want the aesthetic of film but with the adaptability of digital.
Ballesteros also emphasizes the efficiency film simulations bring to a photographer’s workflow. Unlike raw files, which require significant editing and rendering power, JPEGs created with film simulations are essentially ready-to-use. This is particularly valuable for photographers who want to spend less time editing and more time shooting or sharing their work. Ballesteros recalls his time in wedding photography, dealing with thousands of raw files per shoot. Processing these large files became tedious, prompting him to switch to a JPEG workflow. With film simulations, he can achieve his desired look right out of the camera, cutting down the editing time drastically.
Another advantage Ballesteros mentions is the cost-effectiveness of using film simulations. Film photography requires purchasing rolls of film and paying for development and scanning—or investing in equipment to do it yourself. These expenses add up, especially for those shooting frequently. Digital simulations offer a similar aesthetic without these recurring costs, making it a budget-friendly alternative. For photographers on a budget, or those with family and other financial responsibilities, film simulations provide a way to capture the nostalgic look of film without straining the budget.
Film simulations also offer a level of creative constraint that can be liberating. Ballesteros shares that the limitations of JPEGs push him to think carefully about composition, exposure, and lighting rather than relying on extensive post-processing. JPEGs offer less flexibility than raw files, so there’s only so much adjusting you can do after the fact. This constraint encourages a more intentional approach to each shot, helping you refine your style and focus on what’s in front of the lens, not unlike film. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Ballesteros.
Because the most powerful tool of digital photography is faking the look of something else.
Sounds like sour grapes. Who said anything about simulations being the most powerful tool in digital photography? It's simply just one of its capabilities.
Imagine if, when the electric guitar was invented, musicians concentrated on making it sound as much like an acoustic guitar as possible.
That is hyperbole and desperately grasping at straws at the highest degree. I used to play an electric guitar and not once did I try to make it sound like an acoustic guitar. I don't know of anyone that does. Musicians that want a specific sound will play that specific instrument. It's not uncommon to see them switch between the two in live events.
Film is dead because it's a pain in the ass and expensive. The only people clinging to it are hobbyists and hipsters. One of the reasons why people try to replicate it in digital photography is because of the unnatural look, aka color grading.
"I used to play an electric guitar and not once did I try to make it sound like an acoustic guitar. I don't know of anyone that does." That's the point. People taking digital photos trying to make them look like film photos.
The high-end studio motion pictures still being shot on film. Would you call directors like Christopher Nolan, Martin Scorsese, and Steven Spielberg "hipsters" or "hobbyists"?
--- "That's the point."
What? I don't think you understood what I wrote. I specifically said, "NOT once did I try to make it sound like an acoustic guitar." It probably doesn't help your guitar analogy was a poor example to begin with.
--- "The high-end studio motion pictures still being shot on film."
Still grasping at straws I see. We are talking about photography and you want to bring up cinematography. They are totally different genre and budget. That's the problem with some of you people, you try to use cinematography to champion your hobby. At the end of the day, digital reigns supreme here also.
I guess I'm trying to use an analogy with someone who refuses to see beyond the end of his nose. Oops, there's another analogy you won't understand.
To put it simply, in terms you might comprehend if you work your tiny mind really really hard: Digital cameras are digital cameras. Film cameras are film cameras. Digital cameras make good digital cameras but make for poor imitations of film cameras. If you want a film camera look, use a film camera.
Here's where it gets complicated: If you want the look of Velvia film, use Velvia film. If you want the look of Tri-X film, use Tri-X film.
Using a digital camera instead of a film camera to "achieve a film look without using film" is like using peanut butter instead of hamburger to make a hamburger. Oops, another analogy. Sorry to confuse you. Now go shoot some jpegs and shout "Look at me! I'm shooting film!"
--- "Digital cameras make good digital cameras but make for poor imitations of film cameras. If you want a film camera look, use a film camera."
Wrong. The other reason film is dead is because how well digital can imitate film. It's good enough. Only recluse filmphiles and eccentric has-beens can maybe tell the difference. And, that's a big maybe. At the end of the day, clients, collaborators, galleries, websites, social media, and publications won't care.
--- "…is like using peanut butter instead of hamburger to make a hamburger."
Holy mackerel, you have so fallen off your rocker. Just when I thought you've peaked your analogy idiocy, then comes along your new desperate attempt for a win. Listen up, digital and film are comparable because they produce photos. What the hell does peanut butter have anything to do with hamburger? Lolololololol. What are you, pregnant? If not, seek help. If so, seek even more help.
"Listen up, digital and film are comparable because they produce photos." And there you have your position made plain. A photo is a photo is a photo. All photos are the same, and there's no difference between them.
Sorry, but some of us are a little more discerning. And a lot more intelligent.
--- "All photos are the same, and there's no difference between them."
Okie dokie, then. Let's add lack of comprehension to your list of deficiencies. Comparable means similar things being compared. The definition is even in the name, "comparable". Duh. So much for your so called intelligence.
--- "but some of us are a little more discerning."
More like delusional. To which, I should not be surprised since you are enamored with fictional fantasies.
At this point, I'd say you're comparable to a troll.
Haha. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You started off with a divisive (trollish) comment and you got schooled.
Back-handing some of you people using a splash of reason, logic, and common sense makes me more of an educator. The best thing is it's FRREEEEEE! :D
I'm a former National Park Service photographer, former photo conservator, and retired high school/college photography teacher. You take dirty pictures. And that makes you "more of an educator"?
Sigh. If I've mentioned it 2 times, I've mentioned it 2 million times, you have poor comprehension. When I said I was "more of an educator", I was referring to "reason, logic, and common sense". It was even all in one sentence, and still, your thought process fails you. The reason I brought these up is because when you utilize these tools, you won't be grasping at straws and no need for asinine analogies that don't make any sense.
--- "I'm a former National Park Service photographer, former photo conservator, and retired high school/college photography teacher."
You probably should just keep that to yourself. These accolades mean nothing when your photos are very amateurish. It does not matter if you've been shooting for decades and decades if you don't ever improve.
--- "You take dirty pictures"
Only hermits and prudes would see them that way.
Oh, and speaking of dirty, what's up with your figurine fetish with fairies embodied in a child? You stage the shots as if they were actual photoshoots. Don’t you think that's a little weird and creepy for a grown-ass man to do?
But wait, there's more. What's up with your suggestive figurine images of a child (see attached)?
Maybe you should just sit this one out.
That photo isn't from my portfolio here. I guess "Black Z Eddie" has been doing some internet stalking. This site really needs a block-user feature for creepy trolls. I think I'm done...
You're just mad because you've been exposed for being a hypocrite and a sicko.
People like you, "Mark Owen Sawyer", should never be allowed near little girls. It's pretty evident how you see them as.
I know Fujifilm is coping a fair bit of hammering at the moment because of their bad auto focus. It's only batting one type of thing well actually two video and eye detection other than that it actually focuses really well but that's just my view from a fairly balanced perspective I've been using Fujifilm now for about three years. And I have no intention of changing. It's not just the colours. It's actually the grain. It's everything else as well. It goes with making a good photo.