I do prefer
film, so I speak from a position of comfort. I roll my own film cartridges, develop and print on my lab. Have a few prints on private and public collections around the world.
From the hundreds of photographers I crossed paths with, I never found one that preferred film over digital because of quality/limitations over the last 15 years. It has nothing to do with the outcome, but about the process itself. The isolation, the slow feedback loop. Same in my case and all others that use film I know of. Of course we can debate if those two things are really separate. I don't think it is appropriate for this thread.
The differences from the 50s to now are about aesthetic and place in history, as there is nothing else to be about. Attributing aesthetic choices and general cultural and artistic movements to gear and tech is demeaning to the people that do the actual work. It is about intent and circumstance, nothing else. Don't let yourself be taken by low-fi analogies.
Well said. True from my experience.
I started with medium and large format color transparency film. When carefully printed I could get beautiful darkroom Cibachrome/Ilfochrome prints. It's a difficult process with necessary careful/arduous masking process to control the high contrast problems inherent in the media.
I then began getting my transparencies carefully drum scanned to very high resolution. This eventually enabled me to forgo the antiquated darkroom process and opened the brave new world of digital editing and printing on pigment ink printing.
At first, I missed some qualities of the Ilfochrome chemical process. There was a depth that I found missing. But eventually, with help from one the best fine art color printmakers in the US, I learned better the tremendous tools and art of digital printing which left the limitations of color darkroom printing far back in the dust.
Just on the mundane and basic subject of color fidelity, I could not disagree more with G.O.W about the comparison of film/chemical to digital photography. Color film photography is in the Stone Age compared to digital. With color film you are starting at an often grossly "colored", misrepresentation of nature. (Think of all those weird Kodachrome prints from your childhood.) It would take heroic efforts to fight the biases inherent in the film stock.
I can get far more true to life color with a full digital system from camera sensor to Photoshop editing to Inkjet printing. The delicate, nuanced controls available with digital editing are so much more advanced than the chemical/darkroom process. It's is a revelation and a world apart in quality.
It should go without saying that this refers to digital editing done by someone who knows what they are doing. These digital tools can (and often do) lead to monstrous results left to the devices of someone with no ability to control them.
I'm also not referring to the sub category of fine art black and white printing which is far more conducive to fine art printing than is color
darkroom.
However, digital black and white printing can certainly equal the best darkroom black and white. Like anything worthwhile, it takes time and dedication to the art. Too many people make judgments based on tools used poorly.
This attempt to conflate digital audio and digital photography is brought up regularly and predictably by analog enthusiasts who feel the need to think that all analog processes are inherently superior.
I'll never change their minds, but at least with regards to photography, I can provide a reality check that might be useful to everyone else. Sorry for the long post!
