> I know people will disagree, but a skilled photoshopper can often reproduce the look and feel of film with digital.
But why go through the hassle of photoshopping when you can just get the image out of the camera the way you want it? This is especially the case where you're taking a lot of pictures. All of that photoshopping would be tedious.
And why is a more "accurate" photo superior? Like take any famous photo and ask yourself: If the photo showed even more detail would it be better?
The issue with film is that you can't get an image "out of the camera," it must be developed first. In order to get a usable image, you must know how to properly develop the film yourself, or pay one of the handful of competent remaining labs to develop it for you.
It's a much more sustainable process to throw a digital filter on your image.
>The issue with film is that you can't get an image "out of the camera," it must be developed first. In order to get a usable image, you must know how to properly develop the film yourself, or pay one of the handful of competent remaining labs to develop it for you.
To some degree I think this is part of the reason that film photograph has retained some appeal. There is no instant feedback, the process forces you to be more deliberate with each photograph, and the techniques to create images with film are becoming more arcane each year.
Like many other things that have been made easier by technology, there is often lasting interesting in the art of doing something by hand even if there is an easier/faster/more efficient way to get the same result. See Etsy:IKEA, craft beer:Budweiser, Digital:Vinyl music etc. I see film photography headed towards a similar niche.
>To some degree I think this is part of the reason that film photograph has retained some appeal. There is no instant feedback
Leica took this philosophy to extremes when introducing the M-D a while ago - a digital rangefinder camera with no preview screen. It's one of those Marmite things, apparently. If I wanted to shoot without instant feedback, I'd use a film M, thankyouverymuch - but obviously, YMMV.
If you want a film look on a batch of digital photos, you'd be wise to use one of the very capable batch processing programs.
Digital is going to beat analog for processing times, but the argument for which one is subjectively better is going to go around in circles forever. I still like and will enjoy working with both.
It's interesting how this parallels the arguments around realism in painting. Once you have a machine that can produce a more accurate representation of a scene, the degree of accuracy becomes an aesthetic decision.
But why go through the hassle of photoshopping when you can just get the image out of the camera the way you want it? This is especially the case where you're taking a lot of pictures. All of that photoshopping would be tedious.
And why is a more "accurate" photo superior? Like take any famous photo and ask yourself: If the photo showed even more detail would it be better?