Originally posted by gofour3 Actually I would fall into that camp. There are some films that can create an image that can’t be replicated in digital and scanning those images will also never fully capture the original film image. Kodachrome and most b&w films fall into that camp.
However the main reason I will never shoot digital is the computer part of the process. I only scan a small percentage of my film and that’s only so I can post the images online. I loath scanning or any form of PP s/w, it’s not even remotely fun for me and has nothing to do with why I got into photography over 35 years ago.
Phil.
Yes Phil, the way film is recording the energy of the light and renders it, is very different compared to digital recording.
One of the manny reasons is that light is circular and digital is pendular. Film sees and record circular, digital sees circular and records pendular.
I have tried to render the so called 'film effect' by digital means, and never really succeeded.
The digital photo's are far to clean, clinically clean, film has rather 'normal' imperfections.
Film it's like having summer freckles, which are 'normal' and digital is like that 'portraitprofessional' stuff permanently turned on. What if a sign of character (individuality?) is wiped off so things fit in to the 'general standard' what supposed to be easing life...
In attachment you can see one of these try-outs I made a few years ago. At the time (2009) I was shooting a K10 with M-50mm 1.4 (@ 400 ASA) and the film shot was on FOMA 400 (Hasselblad + planar 80 mm), scanned on a Epson 4870. The photo's were shot on the same day on the same spot and in the same light.
I do admit that my digital skills where rather 'simple' then.