Yesterday, I had the "pleasure" of visiting the local camera proprietor in
the Quad-Cities. I actually stopped in at both locations. Had I realized
what I was in for, I probably should have ventured to Calumet while I was in
Chicago.
At stop number #1, the young man at the counter asked me what cameras I was
shooting. When I told him, he had this look of puzzlement wondering why
anybody would shoot film anymore. This openned up a discussion as we were
the only ones there, and I had a couple minutes to waste. His question,
although sourced from ignorance is fair.
Why shoot film? Specifically, why shoot 35mm film? Isn't digital better?
The answer is not a clear yes/no. I explained to this gentleman that it
isn't a matter of "better" but it is a matter of "different". Now, granted,
by shooting Portra 160NC, I can almost perfectly match images taken with my
E-1. (You think that partnership with Kodak might have had something to do
with this?). But with the constant improvement in digital cameras,
technically, digital has left smaller-format films in the dust. The
latest/greatest from Canon is sure to put the final nail in the coffin for
35mm film...
...if you are talking about "technical comparisons."
I explained to him that film allows me to get a "different look" than
digital. Not "better", but "different". I pointed out specific things and
even drew a comparison of B&W film vs. Color film. Personally, I believe
the "look" is almost as drastically different between some color films and
digital as color film is to B&W film. It's not that you can't mimick one or
the other, but natively they are different. Yes, I can use a photoshop
action to mimick Velvia, but it still isn't Velvia. You can desaturate a
color image to make it a B&W print, but it isn't the same. Why?
Because each medium puts a bias into how the image is rendered. As an
example, I have a B&W picture taken on Isle Royale, which was only
attainable through the specific choice of film/developer and
paper/developer. I have scanned the negative and tried to print it
digitally, but it is nearly impossible to get it anywhere as close. I shot
the exact same picture on Provia, and that image is completely different.
If I use my chemical B&W print as a guide, I can get a reasonably close
facsimile of it, but would I have gotten there without the guide print?
Absolutely not. I would never have seen this picture in this way.
Each medium (and media) has an unique way to present an image. This is the
imaging bias of which I am writing. You CAN mimick almost anything in
digital and get reasonably close. But WILL YOU make those adjustments? In
almost every case, the answer is no. We choose to work with the image which
sits in front of us on the monitor and adjust it the way the image wants to
be adjusted. Most of us (all of us?) do not possess the visual "perfect
pitch" necessary to conjure up how a specific film/developer paper/developer
exposure/contrast setting is going to render that image. We are entering
the realm of the "intangibles".
I know for a fact that I shoot images totally different if I'm shooting film
or digital. For example, in digital we are "exposing to the right", whereas
when shooting E6 films, we are exposing for the mid-tones. When shooting
B&W, I'm exposing for the highlights or the shadows or sometimes even both.
We make critical decisions prior to pressing the shutter release which
create the imaging bias for the entire workflow and the final print.
As an "artist-photographer", I've made the decision to get off the "current
trends" bandwagon and go my own way. I have to look at my competition in
this marketplace and I realize that I either have to go megaprint (bedspread
sized prints) requiring 60+ megapixels or create my own look which exploits
the characteristics of a different imaging system. Personally, I happen to
like the look of 35mm B&W and now that it is two-generations of technology
old, it is starting to come back in style again in some strange way.
Why shoot film? There are few technical reasons why film is better than
digital. I can come up with various reasons and Moose or Chuck will rightly
blast me with workaround methods or alternatives. Inotherwords, if I say
"film is better than digital because of battery life", the response should
rightly be that the premise of my claim is suspect. Photographing an MRI
procedure is probably the one specific application where film clearly holds
an edge, but then one must ask the question "how often are you photographing
MRI procedures?"
The reason why I choose to shoot film really comes down to several things:
1. A "look" which is natively present, not "photoshopped".
2. Fiscal. To go 100% digital and achieve the desired technical superiority
over my competiton requires at least a $20,000 USD investment and this is a
constantly escellating warfare.
3. I REALLY enjoy working with film, in spite of the ongoing usage tax.
4. Different. I like things which are different, yet of excellent quality.
5. The OM system. Need I say more?
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|