What is it about film images that just seem to capture emotions and memories so much better than digital? Am I alone in this thinking? The images might not be technically well done (bad focus, faded colors, eyes closed, etc.), but I've found that there are more "keepers" among film shots than digital ones, at least when it comes to sentimental, personal images.
Is it that we grew up learning that old memories means faded color images? So that when we see a perfect reproduction of a memorable moment, the image is not as powerful as the "imperfect" image? I've even found that tweaking my vacation snaps to look more like "imperfect" film shots makes the recorded memories that much stronger.
Some examples of memorable (to me) film and digital shots.
Same reason vinyl is better than CD. I expect analogue will remain king until we are dead and buried and the next generations have grown up in a completely digital world.
Maybe because of when we shoot with digital or used too we took more care to take images of things that really mattered to us.
Now we tend to try to out do each other with the sharpest best exposed image, instead of turning our life into our personal documentory. So then the images mean so much more for us because the evoke personal emotion!
Thing is as soon as you've scanned it you have taken away the film's quality and depth. It is no better nor any worse than a digital print. Experiment. Take a film shot and get it printed the old way if you can. You'll see what the hubbub is all about. Film is better if it is printed totally analog.
Thing is as soon as you've scanned it you have taken away the film's quality and depth. It is no better nor any worse than a digital print. Experiment. Take a film shot and get it printed the old way if you can. You'll see what the hubbub is all about. Film is better if it is printed totally analog.
i have heard it argued that with some high quality scanning and printing, the difference in a totally analog vs analog-digital print is negligible.
i have heard it argued that with some high quality scanning and printing, the difference in a totally analog vs analog-digital print is negligible.
Depends on what you mean by "negligible". And I am not 100% sure, but don't most of the minilabs scan the negs then print? If so than you haven't seen film to paper via analog. You've seen film with it's full gamut of color and depth scanned and reduced to the level of digital then printed.
What is it about film images that just seem to capture emotions and memories so much better than digital? Am I alone in this thinking? The images might not be technically well done (bad focus, faded colors, eyes closed, etc.), but I've found that there are more "keepers" among film shots than digital ones, at least when it comes to sentimental, personal images.
i think it's all in your head really. i love film and shoot film, but maybe in 20 years, if we are still able to view JPEGs and PEF files, you'll probably think the same thing about your pictures.
And I am not 100% sure, but don't most of the minilabs scan the negs then print? If so than you haven't seen film to paper via analog. You've seen film with it's full gamut of color and depth scanned and reduced to the level of digital then printed.
that's my understanding as well. hard to get real analog prints except b&w ones.
Differences likely still exist, but honestly they are pretty small now between the two formats.
I think what you miss with using film is the time between when the event occurred (and you took the photo) to when you actually got the print in your hands to review. Memory confabulation will come into effect during that time and fantasize the situation giving it more meaning (think: the good old days). With digital you get the results instantly, so the image is a capture of your emotion right at that time rather than how you interpreted the situation over the course of a couple of days/weeks/months/years (depending on when you got your film developed). This concept is very well documented.
So...it's OK to be in love with film. It's a viable source for taking pics that is steeped in history and for most of us is where we began (i.e. the good old days).
It's also OK to be in love with digital. It's instantaneous (like the rest of our world now), it's cheap, and it's quality is invariably close to film now.
Neither is better than the other, they are simply different. Whatever gets you the results that you like the best is all that matters.
Differences likely still exist, but honestly they are pretty small now between the two formats.
I think what you miss with using film is the time between when the event occurred (and you took the photo) to when you actually got the print in your hands to review. Memory confabulation will come into effect during that time and fantasize the situation giving it more meaning (think: the good old days). With digital you get the results instantly, so the image is a capture of your emotion right at that time rather than how you interpreted the situation over the course of a couple of days/weeks/months/years (depending on when you got your film developed). This concept is very well documented.
So...it's OK to be in love with film. It's a viable source for taking pics that is steeped in history and for most of us is where we began (i.e. the good old days).
It's also OK to be in love with digital. It's instantaneous (like the rest of our world now), it's cheap, and it's quality is invariably close to film now.
Neither is better than the other, they are simply different. Whatever gets you the results that you like the best is all that matters.
c[_]
Personally I also think it's that we are willing to settle for less today. Don't get me wrong, I love digital. If I didn't I wouldn't be trying to find a way to get more lenses and cameras. But when my son is a little older I will take his pictures with film. Some digital but I will give my film cameras a workout with him. Then I will process without scanning. Why would I waste money on film to have it degraded by scanning?
