I stumbled upon your blog today and I like what I've read.
I've been shooting for just about 25 years; 22 of which with film. In 2000 I started to scan my negatives but still shot with a 35mm Canon SLR & Holga 120. In 2004 I went totally digital, shooting with a Digital Rebel & Kodak Easyshare.
However I'm starting to find that digital may be more of a curse than a blessing. My biggest gripe is that we're losing that creative God-given edge with digital. We now depend more on the camera and the computer than with our creative ability. Once we shot and were thoughtful with our shooting. Today we can shoot over and over/delete and "Photoshop" it if it's salvagable.
However all's not lost. I'm starting to shoot with my late father-in-law's 35mm rangefinders from the 1950s! Talk about getting your butt kicked! With light meter in hand, I have to think before I shoot.
I plan to use digital only for "quickie" shots or client work that's time sensitive. Anything else is on film.
Thanks for this blog and its 'opening statement', especially your suspicion that 'sample images from even the latest digicams had an unnatural smoothness in areas where film showed texture'.
I like texture a lot. It is essential for photography, as it gives realism, credibility, 'life' and interest to pictures. I shoot 35mm Fuji Velvia or Astia. I have a digicam too (a really nice one: Sony R1), not just for practical purposes but also as a reference for comparisons.
Somehow my film results generally make me happier. My digital images often show, besides much technical 'correctness', some sterility or 'deadness'.
Keep up the good work!
Hi Carson! Thanks for creating this blog. It makes me feel less like an oddball to know there are others out there with my same sentiments.
I like film, too. However, my preference has nothing to do with sharpness, resolution or megapixels. If digital hasn't already surpassed film for pure sharpness and detail, then it eventually will, I'm sure. To my eyes, an image captured on film simply looks different than an image captured on a digital sensor. It has, as others here have said, a texture that digital lacks. It has character. My scanned 35mm images just seem to jump out at me in a way that my digital photos don't. Looking through the hundreds of digital and scanned 35mm photos currently stored on my laptop, I find that the film images just speak to me more. It's hard to describe. There is a timeless quality to them.
This doesn't mean I don't like digital. It has many practical advantages over film, and when I am in need of those conveniences I reach for a digital camera. I can absolutely understand why a professional newspaper, sports, or wedding photographer might ditch his or her film equipment and convert over to 100% digital capture without looking back. It cuts two or three rather time-consuming steps out of the process and makes good business sense.
I'm not a pro. I make photographs because I enjoy it. I'm a "serious amerture." I am going to do what I like to do, and I like shooting film. I will always own a digital camera of some sort. They are great for snapshots that I will be e-mailing to family members, photographs going straight to the 'net and other times when I am not as concerned about the look of the image as much as I am the functionality or practicality of the purpose it serves. But when I am shooting pictures that matter and that I want to be viewed and appreciated years or even decades from now, I will always reach for my 35mm rangefinder.
The masses will convert to digital and forget about film, but serious hobbyists and artists will continue to prefer film for its look, feel and character which digital will never completely replicate.