Originally posted by conniption I switched to film (for the most part, except for sports where there's some amount of "spray n pray" necessary) because I felt everything was looking clinical. Clinical to me means too perfect, too sharp, it's more about sharpness and rendering to me. Anything too perfect is without soul, lifeless and boring
I agree, but some films are also more "clinical" than others. Kodak TMax 100 and Delta 100 IMO for example. And although I didnʻt shoot a lot with Olympus cameras, whenever I used Zuiko primes, I was both blown away by the razor sharp quality but it felt "clinical".
I once had a room mate who used Zeiss primes on his Yashica SLR (both subsidiaries of Kyocera). Again, high res, little vignetting, accurate color, little chromatic aberration, but missing character....some flaw that gave it unique look.
This is where bench tests and charts and numbers is meaningless to the art of photography; left vs. right brain; mind vs. soul.