Sorry, but there seem to be a growing number of people who shoot film, but then scan and print digitally, if at all. I'm not against this, I just don't understand. If the goal is to scan, and especially then to view on a screen, perhaps someone could tell me the advantage of shooting film.
For color, I find a good scan from a 6x7 Portra 160 negative to be a better foundation for subsequent post-processing than I can get from a digital camera. In theory, bits are bits, but in (my) reality, Portra looks better.
As for B&W, as someone who just re-entered the world of darkroom printing last year, here are my reasons:
- Its something to do. Its a challenge.
- The resulting product just looks better. When I (on rare occasion) manage to get a print that I am truly satisfied with, it just has a depth and expressiveness that I can not get from B&W digital.
And then there are two "biggies", and while these are admittedly somewhat philosophical, they are very real to me:
First is the notion of provenance. I like the fact that when I
make a print, I have created a real
thing. Each time you do so, you have created an existentially unique object that can never be precisely replicated (unlike an inkjet print which requires zero skill to produce, and may be replicated in unlimited quantities without any artistic effort). I have no delusions that any of my photography will ever be of any collectible value, but I do flatter myself that some day my great-great grandchildren might take some interest in it. Because of that, I make an effort to produce "things", not just images. My B&W stuff (the keepers, that is) is all framed, and I include a little note behind the photograph that described what (more particularly,
who, since I almost exclusively take pictures of people) it is about. I flatter myself that because my great-great grandchildren will be able to hold one of my photographs in their hands, and know that the exact same
thing was also in my hands, they might consider it more of an heirloom than just another picture.
Second, and most importantly, I am well and truly disgusted by the gestalt of shooting digital and then converting the files to B&W. I believe in
craft, and I believe that a big part of craft is getting the most out of the media that you choose. I have no objection to shooting digital, but if you are going to do that, then
own it. Maximize your tools. Engage your craft. A well constructed digital photograph can be a beautiful thing. If you will forgive and indulge a digital image, here is one I shot last weekend. I am pleased with the result, because that is (to me, anyway) how a digital photograph should look.
During the same session, I also shot a roll of FP4+ through my RB67, and posted a (there was a url link here which no longer exists). It looks profoundly different than the digital photo, of course. And to be perfectly honest, I believe my skills and experience in digital are far superior (for now) to what I can get from an analog print. But the important point is that with both photographs, I
used the media to the limits of my capabilities. It is trivially simple to take the digital photograph, run it through Photoshop, and create a B&W version...its even trivial to come up with a highly stylized version that simulates some sort of alt-process sort of thing.
But in doing that, you are making a decision to deliberately degrade your photograph. You are stripping away not only the color, but the authenticity. You are taking away the "digitalness" of it in order to try to create a simulation of something else.
Artistically, that just doesn't work for me. I think as a matter of craft, you have an obligation to maximize your media. Putting wagon wheels on a Porsche does not make it a carriage. It just makes it a silly Porsche.
Of course, all that is just my opinion. As passionate as I am about this stuff, I am equally passionate that every person needs to find their "chi" and make it work for them.
) but most importantly, my house is fully appointed with it, at my wife's insistence and total support.
