wide2tele wrote:
I haven't shot film for around 13 years.
Maybe a couple of months ago, I looked at some 6x4 prints that were taken back then and printed through a simple consumer lab of the time.
The prints looked absolutely brilliant! I've had so much digital printed since, but the digital prints just seem to lack something.
The tones, the colour, the traditional prints looked so incredibly sweet.
Not sure what it is. I need to evaluate but there is something very special about film I don't think digital can replicate. Technically speaking, it should be possible to replicate anything film can do with digital but I'm starting to become a sceptic.
To answer the OP, I intend to shoot some film. I intend to have traditional prints made. I'm starting to believe shooting film and then scanning may defeat the purpose.
Just my wild thoughts but I was literally knocked back viewing those old traditional 6x4 prints.
I haven't shot film for around 13 years. br Maybe ... (
show quote)
I went through a similar experience, though my "focus" is and was on medium format equipment. The large prints that I prefer, when shot with 35mm equipment, suffer from the same problems as tiny digital censors.
I ran into the following after cleaning, spending some time using, and reacquainting myself with my Rollei 6008i and Mamiya 7, and their suite of lenses:
1. The equipment is heavy, and carrying it is difficult for this 86 y.o. body when I get more than a few hundred yards from home or car. I have to admit though, that modern very fast lenses are as heavy as the old slower ones.
2. Multiple lenses have to be carried, because the very few zoom lenses available for older (film) equipment are of marginal quality when compared with modern excellent equipment. I suspect that's because of computer aided design and manufacturing that was unavailable until the last couple of decades.
3. Older lenses are slower than many modern lenses, and films are much slower than modern sensors. Films faster than ISO 400 have rather poor IQ.
4. Image stabilization in the digital world is ubiquitous, and rare in the older film world (needs modern IS lenses, not often available for film cameras).
4. Because of #1 & 3 above, carrying a tripod is needed far more frequently than with digital.That adds a great deal to weight, bulk, and difficulty with airline transport. It's become impossible for me to carry, hiking around the 9000' plus mountainous terrain where I enjoy the spectacular vistas, clear air, and magnificent photos that follow every trip.
5. I share with the modern generation, a distaste for the time delay between exposure and availability of prints or slides for evaluation.
There are multiple additional reasons - it's silly to waste time continuing with that discussion.
In spite of the above and more, certain films have qualities that are difficult to achieve with digital. It's just fun to go retro some of the time. It's difficult and time consuming, but rewarding as an occasional break. I don't intend to stop. Still, digital is a vast improvement. I'll never willingly back away from the ease and far greater abilities of the latter.