You were there first ….

I just read this from that link…

The images resulting from real film cameras will often have “that lovely nostalgic grainy film quality”, full of charm and imperfections, said Eliza Williams, the editor of Creative Review.
Click to expand...

And there was I, in the "good old days" of film, spending time and effort trying to get rid of imperfections. Seems I and thousands of other film photographers were going in the wrong direction all that time.

Nowadays, apparently, grunge is good. Go figure. Never mind, I'll stick to digital perfection any day. It seems that it's only analogue snobs that want to eschew perfection. I prefer to create images where the subject is more noticeable than the grain.
 
Last edited:
"Methinks the lady protests too much" Whenever an extreme is used to clinch an argument, the cause is lost. Nobody, I suspect, wants "grunge".
Most would simply assert that they find a well produced print from film more attractive. It's not snobbery, simply an aesthetic preference.
 
Delighted film is at least holding its own and film cameras are making a comeback. Especially pleased that Harman are not going under and seem to be prospering. I have a soft spot for Harman. It's great to see that the younger generation, almost everyone is the younger generation to me these days, is taking up film photography. Some of the reasons for the upsurge in film photography given in the article seem rather spurious to me thoigh. All this talk about using film involves slowing down and mindfulness is a bit rubbish in my view, it's not what you use but how you use it.

I use my digital camera exactly as I used to use my film cameras which is wholly on manual, apart from autofocus because I can't trust my eyes these days, and I take my time to consider what I am doing and what I want from my photo. To be honest you can even do that using a phone. But whatever the reason behind the swing to film I am pleased it is happening as just like with Vinyl Records, Steam Locos and Blue Whales, it is nice to know film and they are still there. The world would be poorer without them.
 
Allister said:
"Methinks the lady protests too much" Whenever an extreme is used to clinch an argument, the cause is lost. Nobody, I suspect, wants "grunge".
Most would simply assert that they find a well produced print from film more attractive. It's not snobbery, simply an aesthetic preference.
Click to expand...
I have seen some superb film images and equally superb black and white digital ones. It is not an argument that I feel is worth pursuing anymore. But just for good measure I have hanging on my living room wall a 24 X 30 black and white photo of the waterfall behind the Visitor Centre in the Ogwen Valley. The image was taken by me on 5X4 film, developed by me, then scanned and sent to Ilford to print using a Lambda printer on silver halide paper. There is no visible grain unless you use a lupe to look closely. So is the image film, or is it digital, or does it even matter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top