Both are great. Which do you like better and why? Try and take composition and subject out to some degree. I purposely chose not to use "vs." in the title. I enjoy both mediums.
Both are great. Which do you like better and why? Try and take composition and subject out to some degree. I purposely chose not to use "vs." in the title. I enjoy both mediums.
Nice work, Mark! I've never been big on monochrome, but do the occasional digital conversion. I used to shoot almost solely Kodachrome, whose look I loved, and didn't like any other negative or reversal film much. I lamented Kodachrome's disappearance, and held off buying a digital camera until 2011. I didn't do any darkroom work.
Having discovered digital, processing, and printing, I'm blown away be the all-round seeming superiority of digital. My home-made, all-my-own-(and-Nikon-and-ACDSee-and Epson's...)-work prints come out looking pretty much exactly as I'd hope, whereas there were always unpleasant colour shifts and contrast problems with film. And darkroom dodging and burning seems to leave much worse haloing artifacts than with digital.
I understand that people who have done their darkroom apprenticeship may see subtleties in film which I can't (I love my vinyl LPs too!). But try as I might, I can't see the difference on screen or in prints, apart from grain, which can help or hinder images.
So I keep my Nikon 801s out of sentiment (and because it'd fetch about ten bucks!) and all my unused film remained unused after I got the D700 (since upgraded twice - digital's downside?)..
Every time a new A2 print comes out of the printer, I'm still blown away after four years.
Can you say what appeals to you about film, Mark? Your first image seems to be scanned film, the second digital, and the latter looks better, subtler to me (before I peeked at your EXIF!).
Hi Chris:
Some of the first film I ever used was Kodachrome, but unlike you, not solely. I also shot a lot of B&W since I was able to develop and print it myself, plus I played with other reversal films and color negative also. I did a little professional work and used mainly VPS at the time (I guess I am dating myself). That was before digital was even part of the discussion.
I like film because I like the look of it- the tonality, the way the grains build up the image (kind of like the attraction of pointillist painting), etc. It is not something I can describe completely because there is a lot to it. Film has been developed over 150+ years (especially B&W), and the last 50-70 years of their development (which ended largely say 20 years ago) the quality, beauty and reliability of film was excellent, and it is just a medium I like and use. I can get similar results with digital, and especially like digital for color, as you mention, because it is much easier to manage color; though some color films are also quite beautiful, and color film is rightly a medium unto itself. Digital in general of course has very high resolution (which can be achieved in film, but more with larger formats, say 6x4.5 and above), clarity, accuracy in reproduction, and of course rapid turn-around. If I wanted to make a living with photography, I would probably lean more towards digital, but it would be cool to offer your customers film as a choice.
I will continue using digital, and learning more about post processing. I actually chose Fujifilm (XT-2) as my "serious" re-entry into photography, partially because of its reputation for film like results, but recognize that digital photography does not need to be film-like to be good. In fact I feel that digital should be free to explore new areas that might be more difficult for film, and develop its full potential as a photographic medium unto itself.
I feel I could go all digital, or all film, but see no reason to do either, as both are quite available, and I like working with both.
Thanks for the comments and the compliment.