Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Best explanation...

of the difference between film and digital I have found so far.

I use both and love both but I prefer the look of film for most images I shoot these days. I think film is best for most portraiture and I use it almost exclusively now for my fine art work. But, I think that digital is far superior for color landscapes, wildlife and most especially fashion photography. This is just my own opinion that's based on my own taste in photography. So for me, I dont think I could easily say one was better than the other, but, I seem to have a spiritual connection to film that I dont have with digital photography. I couldn't ever explain how really, or why I felt this way, but I do believe that I just found a little piece of an article that has done it for me. You can find the article on www.salon.com

"There are downsides to digital, but unfortunately for film chauvinists, most of them are loftily aesthetic -- less technical arguments than philosophical ones. To wit: Even the best prints of digitally produced stills lack the warmth, the aliveness, of snapshots produced with a film camera, because film is literally organic. It's celluloid, a compound made from cellulose, camphor and dyes, and the images it produces are direct physical records of things that happened within sight distance of the camera's lens -- records of light hitting unexposed negative and messing with its molecules. Pre-industrial people who feared that photographs took a piece of their soul weren't totally wrong. A portrait created with film is a souvenir of a person's existence at a certain point in time -- a more complex, photochemical version of a footprint in sand. Digital images are created when a sensor records the camera's field of view and puts a facsimile of the image on a computer chip. The result is still an image, but the process is different -- more detached, more theoretical." - Excerpt from Requiem for print photography As Kodak's final roll of Kodachrome film goes to the lab, a look back at what that means -- and what we've lost By Matt Zoller Seitz

No comments: