Originally posted by DonV I see posts regarding using film and then scanning the negatives for digital processing and/or printing- why not skip the film and go straight to digital?
It's just
different, Don.
Aside from shooting a few rolls of film years back that were developed by cheap supermarket labs well before I understood what I was doing, all of my photography and photographic learning has been with digital equipment... until very recently, that is, as I've started to get into film. There is something extremely satisfying about the whole process of capturing images onto film, loading it onto a reel and into the tank, mixing the chemistry, developing and drying the film, then digitising it. I dare say it's even more satisfying to use an enlarger and produce prints the old way without ever touching a computer, but that's a step too far for me at present. Still, I'm finding there's a magic to producing photos using film. It mat not be for everyone, and I don't deny it's much easier and more time-efficient to capture and process digitally, but there's great enjoyment to be had from the "craft" of it.
Furthermore, film responds differently than digital imaging sensors, and no matter how much work goes into producing tone curves in raw development tools that mimic film response to light, it's no more than a broad approximation at best.
In the music world, one might take a classic Gibson Les Paul guitar, play it through a Vox AC30 valve amplifier, mic that up and run it to an analogue mixing desk for recording. It's much easier to take any half decent modern electric guitar, run it straight into a digital effects processor with a Vox AC30 emulation, and run that straight to a computer... and to the casual listener, the results will be similar... but it's just not the same. Whether that matters is up to the individual