What is the 'organic look' according to you?

I think it's subjective. i have seen films shot digitally that look how I perceive 'organic' to look (The Hunt). and i have seen films shot on 16mm which don't have an organic look to them (Dead Mans Shoes).

To me, in my ultra-low-budget scenario, My nex5n and zeiss primes don't look organic - even when graded to look warm or 'retro'. it's not that it's too sharp, or too digital. it just doesnt look how I perceive 'organic'. add an iscorama anamorphic adaptor on the front of the zeiss primes and even though it stays almost as sharp, and really doesnt add that much flare, the fact that it applies the waterfall effect to out of focus areas is something that I feel adds what I feel is an 'organic' look. I can't describe it, But I guess it is beacuse the movies I grew up watching were mostly shot anamorphic and it reminds me of an analogue world where people wanted analogue things rather than dream of ipads and mobile phones. I think 'organic' and 'analogue' are often used in similar discussion.
 
Yes, film is analog. But that doesn't make it any more natural, or real, than digital. It simply doesn't use electronics (for the most part) and uses synthesized chemical processes instead. Organic doesn't mean analog. Film is not organic.

That said, I'm not being hypocritical or insincere. I'm giving my honest opinion. That there is no such thing as "organic" when it comes to videography or cinematography, it is a term out of place, coined by pseudo-intellectuals, like kennedymax alluded to, when their vocabulary ran out.
 
Organic for me has always meant more natural, less slick, and has a texture to it. I often associate organic with softer light for some reason. Just my definition for it I guess. Something with more texture or grain is what I prefer sometimes and I would call that more "organic" or as some said above less digital.
 
J Michael said:
Re infinite colors, strictly speaking I suppose you could say that since there is pretty much a stepless gradation in color density in film. Gamut defines the range, not the steps within the range.
Click to expand...

You are very right about gamut, but it is difficult to find the right terms when comparing film to digital. I was going to say colour depth, but that doesn't really exist for film until after it has been digitized, and then it is a function of the scanner.

As for stepless gradation, I don't know if that is true or not. I would like to see if tetrachromats see gradations or not. Or people from other cultures who have different words for colours, and thus perceive colours differently. Like the Himba of Namibia, Africa. Who have a word for, and perceive, blue and green as the same thing, and where the sky is black, and the water is white.
 
What happens with analog production of prints in a color darkroom is that there comes a point at which a change is barely perceptible. The perception of fine differences in color is an acquired skill. If you have a color meter which can read fine color gradations you might be able to measure a difference at a finer level, but what would typically occur is that the variation in the process itself (manufacture, chemistry, temperature, etc.) would be too inexact to make a repeatable correction beyond a certain point. So for all practical purposes there is a limit to gradations in the range.

Re the term organic, I don't agree that it implies any pseudo-intellectual reach, it's simply a word used to try to convey the character of what is seen. When I hear the term I tend to think of Kodachrome 25. If I had to define it I suppose I would say something like it is a look characterized by a lack of digital artifacts, displaying realistic tonalities and natural color.

Could the origin of the term be related to the use of organic dyes in analog photography?
 
J Michael said:
When I hear the term I tend to think of Kodachrome 25
Click to expand...

Really ???

...I shot a lot of Kodachrome 25 with an Olympus OM-1 and Nikon F2/F3 in the 70's and 80's, and it has a very pretty look to it, but I wouldn't think of it as "natural" or "organic". I think of it as the Kodachrome 25 look, which is bright super-saturated colors, invisible grain, and incredible detail. Compared to what I see with my own eyes, Kodachrome has an un-natural exaggerated super-real look to it.

In the late 80's I switched to shooting Fuji RDP 100, mainly because I find it has a more neutral color palette, and I could buy it in every format right up to 8x10 view-camera size.
 
"Organic"...I dont know what it means in relation to "film look" so I wouldnt personally bother myself over thinking it.

Then again...anything I dont understand ...I just say.."its magic"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top