Anyone going BACK to film? Just bought 1N...

[Andy Collins]

I guess I would consider myself a photography enthusiast rather than a film or digital enthusiast. While I mentioned and ranted about the film cameras that I still love and enjoy using, I didn't mention the little Canon Powershot A710IS digital I got a couple of weeks ago. I've had more fun playing with it than just about anything in recent memory, and all of the features it has on it have been the source of hours of photographic exploration and entertainment. It also takes incredibly good pictures (you should get one if you can--it's an amazingly full-featured camera at a very good price!). For me the bottom line is that I love photography and everything about it, and I love using just about any kind of camera I can get my hands on and the challenge of creating the image I want with each one I use. Film and digital will probably always coexist in my camera bag; film will always have a special attraction for me, but digital will give me increasingly more control and the tools I want/need to make the images I envision. Sarah makes very good points with excellent examples of the strengths of both. I don't think that there needs to be two camps though, just one: Photographers, regardless of whether they use film, digital, or whatever. All this to say, Jason, enjoy your 1N and don't worry about film becoming obsolete anytime soon.

[ibraar_hussain]

Sold my digital gear( Nikon D200 and kept a lowly Nikon D50) - I use my Contax G2 with

Zeiss glass.

 

The richness and organic lushness I get with e100vs and RVP 100 is gorgeous - it's the

film combined with glass - and I'll still be using it in many years time when my D50 is on

the scrap heap. (Multinationals want your money, hence the constant upgrading which'll

always go on - which im tired with)

 

Sure, high end DSLR's get you crisp grainless quality unmatched by 35mm film, and you

can toss around the iso or white balance and shoot trillions of frames - but they

look...digital! the

characteristics are...digital! The BW images are....digital! Sod that! I LOVE grain! I was fed

up of adding it in photoshop!

 

clinical digital images dont do it for me I'm afraid - theyre boring - and need to be

tampered

with electronically to get me what I want - and then not even close to what I want!

Film always has and will have its own 'beauty', Velvia will be Velvia, and cannot be matched

at what it is by velviavision or any other action!

Being a pragmatic man, one day a digital camera will arrive with a sensor which takes

photos which are identical to film - then I'll switch!

[ibraar_hussain]

sarah, those images look....Digital. sorry, can do the same thing with Silverfast HDR scanning

of slides

[aziel_epilepsia]

It's nice to know I'm not alone in dropping back to film. I started SLR photography last year on a 350D, bought a 5D b/c I wanted to see a 50mm act like a 50mm, and sold it all for a 1V and Tachihara 4x5 with Velvia 100. I hated sorting pics and pixel peeping on the monitor. I stare at the monitor for so long at work, I don't want to look at it so intensely for my fun time.

 

I used digital to learn how to work an SLR, and moved back to film because I like the challenge and get huge satisfaction from a perfectly exposed slide. Granted, I miss a lot of shots that would have been great on digital (esp at ISO 400), but I can live without those. I'm not trying to make money off my photos. I just need to keep going outside and making the most of what I have.

 

Moving back to film shouldn't label one as "afraid" of computers or too "backwards" to embrace the digital workflow. The point of photography to us non-professionals is to have fun, and everyone has fun in different ways. My fun is viewing my slides on a lightbox and scanning the good stuff on the V700. Others get their jollies from grain free digital pictures.

[ibraar_hussain]

but why? horses for courses and all that! its all relative, personal preferance.

[apdx]

Sarah,

 

You claimed a scientific carrier, you also claimed that digital beats film in dynamic range among other things. Can you elaborate please? Perhaps you meant MF and larger digital?

 

Disclaimer: I shoot both and there is peace here between digital and film.

 

Best, Y

[ibraar_hussain]

same here, I started photography with digital, after early digicams (apple Quicktake

anyone?) being a graphic designer Ive been using computers (Macs) since 89 for DTP and

Des, so I'm pretty savvy in regards to computers!

 

I got into SLR photography eventually, and was 'told' (in other words) to 'upgrade' as my

Minolta Dimage A2 had a 'small sensor' and was fixed lens thus limited - I 'upgraded' to a

Dynax 5d then sold it and bought the better 7d, but it didn't have enough MegaPixels and

its 'dynamic range' wasnt as good as Nikons etc etc. So i got myself a D200, with some

fine lenses....

 

and guess what? I saw Tom Mackies 'Photos with Impact' and the lush look of FILM!

And nothing I'd ever seen with digital could touch the look of it, sure, we all know about

grainfree images and all that, so please!

 

So all the upgrading eventually came to an end! Sold the lot, and even though I'm no Tom

Mackie or Charlie Waite or Jo Cornish or Steve McCurry, and I aint ever used MF or LF, I did

discover Ansel Adams Mr CB and BW photography and the beauty of GRAIN (in BW anyway)

along with the JOY of photography etc.

 

So if you want to use digital, feel free, and it has many advantages, but pray dont say its

'better',

[anson_ko]

This war will go on and on. One thing for sure is, if you have customer willing to pay you "enough" to do the job at a certain requirments that only film can do the job, then use film. However, if digital can do the job and customer is happy, there is no reason to spend extra time and money on film (cost effective). If it's your hobby, not a business, then do what you want....only you can tell if film or digi is "better".

[photographicsafaris]

Baby got film...

 

I like Transparency film and I cannot lie.

 

All you others brothers cannot deny,

 

that when you see a slide on a projected place,

 

you've got a round smile on your face..

 

Well I cant rap, but I shoot about 70% Digital and do love film. Quality wise, there still is

nothing to compare with a Cibachrome print.

However I have invested in a 5D and a Epson R800, which produce simply stunning results

at a fraction of the price of anything that film can do.

 

But truth be told, to me a bottle of wine, 100 slides and my Projector kissing images of

Demi my schnookies (little pooch) projected 4x lifesize just does it for me.

 

G

[sarah_fox]

Ibraar:

 

"sarah, those images look....Digital. sorry, can do the same thing with Silverfast HDR scanning of slides"

 

Are you implying that tonal depth can be created from nothing by doing a high depth scan of a lower depth medium? This would be similar to blowing a native 6 MP image up to 24 MP and expecting to somehow have twice the detail. It only works that way in the movies. Besides that, scanning film images doesn't even START to do what I did. It's not the digital format that's important. (Who cares?!) It's what you can do with it that matters.

 

I would be curious to see something similar to what I have done (e.g. layering of images) using traditional methods. I am very sincere when I say this. Can anyone post a link to an expertly done image of that sort for me? In particular, I would love to see sample blowups of the transitions between image layers. If someone would do this, I would be happy to upload a few detail snippets from some of my images, showing the transitions between image layers. An honest comparison would be edifying.

 

------------------------------

 

Yuri, I would be glad to explain the dynamic range comments, but you can probably find much more detailed explanations (perhaps a different theoretical approach used, as well) at normankoren.com. I'll throw out a few approximate numbers that could well be wrong, so please, anyone, feel free to suggest revisions!

 

Photographic prints typically have a 100:1 contrast ratio, representing about 6.6 stops. More extreme printed contrast ratios can get as high as 300:1, as I understand it. That would be about 8.2 stops.

 

A good B&W film can achieve densities that yield as much as a 250:1 contrast ratio (nearly 8 stops).

 

In the case of both film and paper, the extreme low density and extreme high density ends of the contrast curves are in "tail regions" where the contrast is not too great. However, we'll give film and paper the benefit of the doubt that they somehow can faithfully represent contrast differences throughout all 8 stops of their range (which they can't). We won't discuss color, because it doesn't do as well.

 

By contrast, good dSLRs have native tonal depths of 12-14 bits, representing a total contrast ratio of 4096:1 to 16,384:1, or 12-14 stops, respectively. This tonal depth is preserved in RAW and 48 bit TIFF files, and any digital photographer who knows what she's doing shoots and archives in RAW. However, even an amateur cranking out 256 level JPG files probably benefits from oversampling, and even the 8-bit-depth data represent a broad dynamic range, albeit with considerably less resolution. (I have to be a bit fuzzy here, because the camera manufacturers are closed-lipped about their algorithms.)

 

Assuming you shoot RAW like a pro, you've got an extra 4 - 6 stops of information to play with. With so much image information, you will have to throw some of it out in order to put the image in print or on a conventional monitor. You can do whatever you want with this surplus information:

 

(1) You can compress the contrast of the entire image to fit those 12-14 bits of resolution into an 8 bit range (meaning that you throw out resolution). Note that 256 luminance levels are more than the eye can differentiate without light/dark adaptation.

 

(2) You can pick what tonal ranges in your image you are interested in, and you can max out the remainder -- either with blown out highlights or maxed out blacks.

 

(3) You can apply custom contrast curves that compress contrast in some tonal ranges, expand contrast in other ranges, and/or some combination. In fact you can duplicate the contrast curves of your favorite film if you like. Maybe youve got a really contrasty scene, with bright sky, bright highlights, and very dark, shadowy regions (like in my mountain example). You can fit it all together to make it work.

 

(4) You can say, "Gee, a red filter would be great in that shot, converted to B&W" and you can make it happen. (I know this sounds like a different issue, but it reduces dynamic range.)

 

You can do all this, and more, without losing detail -- if you know what you're doing, of course.

 

And if you want to lose information, that's fine too. Do you love that ol' Tri-X grain look? Fine. Put it there. Do you want that cross-processing look? Fine. Do it. (Or experiment with botching up color profiles -- much the same effect.) Do anything you like.

 

The only things that MUST be done during the shoot, if necessary, are polarization and split diopter filter use, and relative color balancing of light sources. Everything else can be done in the computer. Color filters are optional but will yield greater dynamic range in the end, if you KNOW you want a given filter anyway (but see the question I'll be writing in another thread in the digital forum). They have to be GOOD filters, though, or they will decrease overall shadow detail because of lens flair.

 

All of what I said presumes that the photographer has excellent optics. Excellent flair reduction (excellent coatings and squeaky clean lenses) are of paramount importance. No cheapie kit lenses allowed! ;-)

 

Hope that helps...

 

Peace,

Sarah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[john_hancock]

What a wonderful thread! Getting back to Jason's original question: "Anyone going BACK to film?" -- my sheepish (amateur) answer is "Yes, because when I pulled my 1985 Hasselblad out of its bag for the first time in almost a year, it was still LOADED!"

 

And every time I open the fridge I see a box of 120 Portra on the shelf. I haven't had the strength of character to actually check the date on it.

 

Worse yet, co-workers gave me a roll of 35mm ISO 100 Kodak Gold as a gag gift at last year's office Christmas party. True, the battery in my 1972 Canon F1 is toast, but I have a hand-held meter, so that's no excuse. Actually, I'm not certain about that battery, because the F1 hasn't been out of its bag in, well ...

 

Anyway, "Thank you" to all the posters for an enteraining and informative read. And "Thank you VERY MUCH!" to Canon, Adobe, SanDisk, Apple, IBM, Microsoft, et al for the Brave New World. I've been in love with photography since age 14 (ca. 1960). The affair waxed and waned over the years, but since going digital I'm taking more pictures, and getting more really good ones, than ever before.

 

Sure I'll go back every now and then, like I go back home to visit family every now and then. Such visits are emotionally satisfying. One of these days I'll take the 'Blad and the tripod out for a nostalgic walk. And I will sincerely enjoy the planning (note: buy fresh film), the pace, the seductive image on the grid-ruled ground glass, the focusing, the judging of exposure, the Christmas-morning wait to see the chromes or prints, the whole thing.

 

In some ways the pictures will be truly different to those I take with my 30D. They'll even be 'better' in the way some things about home are 'better' than anyplace I've lived since I left home. I just don't live in film anymore.

 

-- John Hancock, Sydney Australia

[mark u]

http://larrysface.com/deception.htm

[ibraar_hussain]

Sarah Fox, Jun 29, 2007; 07:49 p.m.

 

Are you implying that tonal depth can be created from nothing by doing a high depth scan

of a lower depth medium?

 

RESPONSE

 

I'm implying that HDR images are created using programmes such as Photomatix by

combining several bracketed frames, and Silverfast can do the same thing, by scanning

ONE slide several times - and yes tonal depth IS created. Thus one is able to gain a higher

dynamic range using scanned slides - higher than in the slide itself - assuming this is

what one wishes for off course.

 

But this is straying from the topic, 'Anyone going back to film'?

Yep, many are, and for valid reasons, not simply because of 'nostalgia' or any such.

 

:)

[apdx]

Sarah,

 

I am aware of the need to match the range of several media and I fully agree that in theory it can be done. (What is inside that range how [non]linear it is a whole different dissertation). I also enjoy both and learned to treat limitations as artistic means. But the question was: Do you really state that the dynamic range of linear 12-bit 35[?]mm digital cameras of today exceeds the dynamic range of the film? That's just one variable out of many.

 

Science begins, observed one Mr Thomson better known as Lord Kelvin, "when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers."

 

We are getting there, don't we?

 

Best, Yuri

 

P.S. Selling D200 for the Contax G2 was an elegant move

[pbizarro]

I have never left film in the first place. I have learned photography shooting slide film, I have saved hard to buy a EOS 1V a few years ago. I have no reason to spend thousands of dollars getting a full-frame DSLR.

 

Once you buy a DSLR, then you will probably have to replace it every 2-3 years or so. You can hardly get "comfortable" and settle with a DSLR if you only keep it for 2 years, and you will spend much more time in front of the computer, just upgrading firmwares and what not. For a semi-pro like me, it is not worth the hassle, and the expense.

[obakesan]

Sara

 

back a few years ago I did an experiment with a Fuji 100 iso black and white film called neopan. I 'wasted' a roll with taking shots starting at metered exposure of a white wall (to get my cameras mid grey) and took started from recall getting 4 stops below and 5 stops over the mid that I could discern. I'm not sure what I got on my contact print.

 

I think you're under estimating the capacity of black and white film.

 

BTW presently using 3 digitals 35mm and 4x5 here

[DickArnold]

Here is my problem with going back to film. I no longer have a darkroom so I would have to rely on a local processor to produce prints. I would again feel the frustrations that I did with weddings because I had to pay for someone else to do my proofs because of workflow considerations. I also printed TMax for the newspaper I worked for which was a lot of work. The outside processors were sometimes terrible and I had to force the developer to reprint with the correct color balance. I don't have to rely on outside processors at my current work flow and I have control over my product from start to finish. I just don't want to lose that control. Having said that, I just unpacked a group of 11x14s that I used to market weddings. They were done with MF and they are nice pictures. I wish I could do MF again if it were not for outside processing and printing costs and my lack of control. So, even though I would really like to do some film work I don't it is practical for me.

[sarah_fox]

Ibraar,

 

Multiple scans of the same negative will NEVER add dynamic range. Information cannot be created from a vacuum, period. I do agree that one can combine the information from bracketed frames to expand dynamic range. Of course this is done digitally.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

Mark U,

 

Very interesting page. Thanks! However, if this is the best that the traditional methods camp can achieve, I think it falls short. In the self portrait picture, there is a ghost image of the right easel leg, and the back wall is visible through the subject's hat. In the Stalin photo, there is some conspicuous hand-retouching (a fuzzy, light diagonal line) where Stalin's and Yehzov's arms are/were in close proximity. I can't see the defects very well in the Oswald photo, but the article talks of a line in the photo where Oswald's face was stitched into the photo.

 

I promised to reciprocate with examples of my own photoediting work. I forgot I already had a page up on this subject:

 

http://www.graphic-fusion.com/photoediting.htm

 

I don't claim to be the very best in the business, but I do claim to be pretty good -- better than the guys at the KGB with their traditional methods, even without the added motivation of a gun to my head! ;-)

 

---------------------------

 

Chris,

 

You're probably right. I had a "well duh" moment this morning, and I'm surprised none of you filmies caught it! (As someone who has studied Adams' methods, I should have known better. Yes, it's possible to expand the dynamic range of film -- by pulling it. However, this begs an interesting point that I hadn't considered (and neither did any of you): A lens would have to pass 99.5%+ contrast to the focal plane (at least at low spatial frequencies) to transmit 8 stops of information. Even the best lenses can't do this. So all this dynamic range may admittedly be a moot point.

 

What I do contend, though, is that digital media maintain response linearity over a much larger dynamic range than film. The greatest importance of this is in color photography, where color purity is lost in the upper and lower tails of film response. In digital photography, highlights actually have color! ;-)

 

-----------------------

 

This has been a very interesting thread for me, and I have learned a few things from it. What's more, I even got a few new ideas to try out. :-)

 

I'll leave y'all with one parting thought, though. I resent being called a "pixelographer" by one person on this list. This is the sort of disrespect I was referring to in an earlier post. There's no place for it in our profession.

 

Peace,

Sarah

[mark u]

I'm quite sure that photographic technique has come on a long way since 1890, the date of the self portrait. The examples from the link were chosen by the compiler of the page to illustrate the history of "false" imaging, rather than the finer points of technique - I just happened upon the link while I was searching for something else, and thought it at least provided some examples.

 

I would argue that so long as the rolloff of response is even across the colours, you will often get a more faithful representation of colour using film than when a digital capture suffers from clipping in one channel ahead of the others - so highlights do indeed have colour - the wrong one.

 

I suspect that your consideration of contrast in lenses may betray some confusion between loss of contrast due to flare, and the overall proportion of light transmitted by the lens. A moment's thought will tell you that using a 1 stop ND filter doesn't in principle alter the contrast range captured: it merely doubles the required exposure. In careful work, t-stops are used rather than f-stops.

 

The measurement of the dynamic range of film depends on the criteria used to measure it as well as on the emulsion you choose to measure, and the development and exposure technique employed. Actually, similar considerations apply to measuring digital dynamic range. The answers are rather less absolute than you might imagine in both cases, despite the attempts of many different investigators to portray their results as incontrovertible. Linearity is not necessarily of itself the optimal property: the eye's response is logarithmic in normal vision. As you yourself pointed out earlier in the thread, in any event the real limitation is in practice the medium in which the photograph is produced for viewing.

[sarah_fox]

Mark,

 

Either I've offended you, or you seem to assume I don't know much about photography (or pixelography). If it's the former, I apologize. That was not my intent

 

I'm also sorry I misunderstood the intent of your link. I'll offer a link in return -- a page I have rough-drafted on this very subject, not otherwise available (yet) on my web page. Constructive criticism would be welcome and appreciated:

 

http://www.graphic-fusion.com/cheating.htm

 

Your comment about clipping doesn't apply to digital imaging any more than it applies to film, as a rolloff is applied to the top 1/2 stop or so. However, linearity is preserved throughout much more of the dynamic range. I will sometimes blow out the highlights, but I only do so in postprocessing, NEVER in the exposure. In fact I meticulously avoid that top 1/2 stop region (or more) wherever possible, so as to preserve saturation. (I don't like washed out skies and such.)

 

I assure you I am not the least bit confused about MTF functions, contrast ratios, lens flare, and such. I also assure I've devoted considerably more than a "moment's thought" to these issues, even touching on some of it in during some of my postgraduate studies. I referred to CONTRAST, not LIGHT TRANSMISSION. Please re-read what I wrote with that in mind, before suggesting that I am "confused."

 

I am fully aware of the difficulties of comparing dynamic range between film and digital, as I have previously indicated, and yes, I am acutely aware of the less-than-absolute nature of quantitative comparisons.

 

Linearity of sensor response IS important and is the foundation for a logarithmic transform that reflects a constant exponent (gamma). In the digital format, each doubling of luminous flux should result in a set increment in pixel value. In the film world, each doubling of luminous flux should result in the halving of light transmission through the developed negative. Any departures from these relationships denote nonlinearities. As most people use the term "nonlinear," they are referring to disproportionate responses, not the mathematical difference between linear and exponential functions! "Nonlinear" would describe a relationship whereby information is not faithfully reproduced, due to imperfections in the system.

 

Do I need to make any other disclaimers?!

 

But I suspect this thread will never end without my making certain concessions under duress:

 

(1) Film photography is far superior to pixelography, the inferior medium in which I devote my amateurish efforts.

 

(2) Pixelography will never measure up to film photography, a medium that will be around for thousands of years after the last digitals have been tossed in the garbage.

 

(3) Although I might have once known what I was doing (as an avid professional film photographer), I have apparently lost my mind and have become confused by pixelographic heretics who have filled my head with nonsense.

 

Shall I continue?

 

Nay, VICTORY IS YOURS ! ! ! ! In fact victory has been yours for a very long time. I have a hard time convincing clients that digital photography is not a worthy (if not vastly superior) medium because of all these "I love the feel" arguments and traditional-speak. Enjoy your victory. Enjoy my professional difficulties. Enjoy it while you can -- while your disappearing medium fades like the vinyl LP, the carburetor, oil portraiture, and dye-based prints and negatives.

 

Meanwhile, this is becoming a rat hole into which I continue to pour sand, unproductively. I'll continue dabbling in pixelography, because I enjoy it -- even though it is unartistic, unappealing, and unworthy.

 

See-ya',

Sarah Fox, Ph.D. (sensory physiologist sans research funding -- because scientific research is also apparently wasteful, unworthy, and evil -- and owner of Graphic Fusion)

 

PS Sorry for the raw nerves -- sincerely.

[obakesan]

Sarah

 

I didn't realise that so many were 'hounding' you. I'm sorry to have seemed to have contributed to that. I almost hardly use film these days except for large format and some 35mm colour for wide angles. Thats mainly for the reasons of not being able to afford wide lenses for my 10D. Personally I normally get hounded over my preference for using a 2/3 compact digital (a Nikon CP5000) as my prefered hiking camera. Using it to capture NEF is nearly as good as my 10D is, and certainly wider angles than the 24mm on the 10D.

 

On your point about colour, certainly I can never get the colours in my scans that I get on the film and with my digitals. For this reason I almost never go wandering with my film cameras anymore.

 

shalom

[sarah_fox]

I humbly offer my apologies to one and all. My outburst was uncalled for. Please understand it was provoked by the unfortunate synthesis of comments from this thread and situations far removed from the forum. In particular, Chris, please know that nothing you said contributed in any way to any "hounding" feeling on my part. Your comment was well taken.

 

My sober reality is that, for whatever reasons, illegitimate or legitimate, real or imagined, rational or irrational, many people maintain a very strong attachment to and preference for film and traditional practices. This includes customers who I might not be adequately serving by not offering film as an alternative medium -- at least for the "service" photography I offer. (I still enjoy the digital format for my artwork, which is mostly for my enjoyment anyway.) I'll probably be doing some sort of side-by-side page at some point -- carrying around a digital and a film body for a day and photographing the same things, to show customers/clients what they can expect from either. Then it can be their choice, not mine. If they feel strongly about it, then I will shoot film for them, although I won't be setting my darkroom back up. If they want something edited, they'll just have to settle for my digital methods. If they strongly want traditional retouching work, there's a woman in town who does that (and vilifies all things and people digital).

 

It may surprise some people here that I do indeed own an EOS film body -- not a great one, but one that serves its purpose -- an Elan 7n. I rarely use it though. I bought it to have full frame capabilities, but with the 5D that's a moot point. I'll hang on to it, though, for clients who prefer film.

 

Finally, thank you all for your input on this subject. I HAVE learned something from it. I hope also that we can ALL (myself included) recognize prejudice and arrogance within ourselves with regard to media we choose not to use. This exercise in raw nerves has actually made me acutely aware that I am being too critical of the film community. In the end, as some have pointed out, you do whatever works for you. Digital works for me; film works for you. When the client/customer looks at the final product, it should make little difference how it was produced. No? I will be rethinking how I discuss digital vs. film with prospective clients, and I hope those inclined towards "pixelography"-like comments will do the same. I think we all arrive here for the same reason: We are passionate about photography, and we try to excel at what we do. We are all worthy of respect for that.

 

Peace to all,

Sarah

[mark u]

Here is a shot from 1983 - a very worthy prizewinner IMHO, which relies on extensive darkroom work to achieve the end result:

 

http://www.jaypix.com/pix/bss.jpg

 

Jay Hector, the photographer, is a Photonet member.

[ibraar_hussain]

Sarah, calm down!

 

Ultimately who CARES what anyone else uses? film, digital, whatever. Its your choice and

its about the end result!

 

I wasn't concieved by film nor is my dads name film, nor am I related to anyone called

'film',

Its a tool, a medium, apart from that I've no special attachment to it - it's something I use,

and something I happen to like using, something whose results I PREFER to 'digital' results

- as I explained above.

 

All these stats and numbers and rolling off HDR pixel counts and all that youve been

coming out with just goes straight over my head, doesnt mean anything to me! I dont

CARE about how many resolutions or pixels or bits or whatever a sensor or pixelography

or dynamic range or whatnot (see it's all making me tongue tied! ;) - I'm interested in

LOOKING at a photograph - so the reasons I explained above hold true a. So I use film,

and certain film cannot be matched by digital, as far as I am concerned!

 

photography is an art, ok some people take photographs to show clients and sell them,

but others photograph for their own pleasure, I happen to be one of the latter! I view

photographs as viewing beautifully made photographs gives me pleasure - and as

explained above, 'certain' film cannot be matched by clean clinical digital images.

 

You cannot compare the film vs digital to Vinyl vs CD, to do so is simply foolish and

narrow, that argument is like comparing CARS from the 1970ies to ones today, or

comparing Golf Clubs in the 80ies to titanium aerodynamic golf clubs of today - ie. a

bollocks argument!

 

- comparing film to digital is like comparing CINEMA FILM (ie the look of film on cinema -

now and in the past) to HD TV, or similar Television. Sure HD TV is sharper, cleaner - but

is it BETTER? does it LOOK BETTER? The answer is a great big resounding N O .