Down on digital

The responses are almost more interesting.

I take the view that neither film nor digital is 'better', but that they are both good for different things, and you use whichever best fits the particular job you're doing. Even though I use film/digital about 90%/10% respectively, the article itself didn't seem like a particularly well argued one to me, TBH. But the responses were even weaker- I did rather get the 'methinks thou dost protest too much' feeling when reading them. They sounded a bit like VCR users rubbishing Betamax...

(I have to say that as I want to continue to use film, I do hope other people find they want to keep on with it for at least some of what they do or I'll not be able to get the consumables and processing I need- I'm presently struggling to get archival storage materials for negs!)

Wow, what an article.

I too subscribe to the thought that film is no better then digital (& vice versa), but I am finding with my own photography that Film is making me more like the photographer I want to be.

I think what I have taken from this article, is that people who feel like this have a general desire to MAKE pictures as opposed to just taking them. Even though you could spend a substantial amount of time in front of the computer getting a picture right (unless you print), once you turn that computer off, that image is nothing but some magnetic 0's and 1's. The immediacy of digital photography (again, unless you print) in turn leaves the photos soulless.

odd how i find an article from a news magazine in my own town on here.

i just got a maxxum 7 a month ago, for some of the reasons discussed in the article but have found it a struggle to go through a roll of film for random shots this time of year.

film is definately different but alot of what the writer describes is trying to get a shot right in only one shot. i'm becoming a believer that the PP is as much of the process as composition/framing and exposure setting. when people drop off their film to developers, they lose control of the film equivalent of PP, so they must tighten their control of the pre development phase.

i wouldn't put too much stock in the comments, there are alot of haters in Toronto, who just troll the free news outlet websites.

Originally posted by Eclipse I'm not sure I get the thing about 'soul' but I have found that though I take a large number of digital shots, (10,000 to date) albeit mostly on a small camera & not an SLR, and I have had some very decent shots on it over the years which are nicely exposed, etc. etc. and have often thought when taking them 'this looks great, I'll use this for a painting' I never have used any of them that way- it's always the film prints that win when it comes to painting. I can't even say why- there is just something about them- for me, I think maybe it is partly a coldness in the colour (my digi is a Fuji and I prefer Kodak films to Fuji films). But there is something- maybe a lack of tone which makes them a bit flat- I just don't know. I feel the same about even the really good digital things I see by other people- they are terrific, and I wish I could get as good a shot, but- that coldness and flatness is still there. It's weird. I now see it coming out in the paintings my colleagues are doing as well, as I'm about the ony one left on film. Maybe it is tone? (By this I mean light/dark.) But none of this takes anything away from how good digital is- it's just a personal quirk.

I think a lot depends on how you process..

Great article, thanks for linking.

I even couldn't resist to post, and here's what I wrote:

Originally posted by pegelli In my opinion the soul of any photograph (fine-art or other) is totally independent from the technology or technical means and only depends on the maker and his skill to produce an image with a soul. I have seen soulless photographs on film as well as digital and have seen great pictures with a soul produced by both means. On the other hand it might be you're stuck in a rut and uninspired (like Paul Terefenko was) and then a change of tools or technology can recharge and inspire you. For him that was the step back to film which is great. But who knows, he might get stuck in a rut again and then switching to digital might be the next change agent back to inspiration. Bottom line, if you're not seeing your soul back in your work it's good to make a change, no matter which direction that change is.

As I read this thread I'm scanning my father's old 6x6 and 6x9 negatives from the 50s and 60s. I find I can do a lot more PP on his negatives than he was ever able to do once I've scanned them.

As for my own shooting I'm still primarily digital but have a growing appreciation for film. Currently I'm enjoying a Speed Graphic 4x5, an Asahi Pentax 6x7, an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic and a Minolta 9.

that is a good read and I think it comes down to a few things as to why film may have more soul. I won't rant on about my views, only one of them. This being that so many take as many shots as they can since they can "save it later" or "fix in in photoshop". This to me is where digital loses the soul. With film you take much more care in setting up the shot, looking at composition, details in the shot, lighting, etc BEFORE you press the shutter release. This makes you much more connected to the shot before it reaches your computer. The shot has more meaning.

A great example is Kirk Voclain...a senior portrait specialist in Louisiana. He stresses and forces himself to adhere to one rule...get it right in the camera. When he does an indoor session he limits himself to 24 images. Why? Thats all he could afford to do on film otherwise processing took to much money and lowered his income from the session. So now on digital he poses his model, takes 3-4 images, and re-poses and another 3-4, rinse and repeat. Then for his outdoor session, another 24 shots. This forces to get the shots right the first time. This doesn't mean he doesn't PP them, he does, but more for added effects etc.

I've been working on this myself and find I like my shots much better and I spend less time at the computer now since I only have slight adjustments to make and 1/2 the amount of shots to work through.

Edited by Octupi - 09 January 2010 at 16:21