3 ms·

I do quite a lot of what could be considered artistic photography, had exhibitions, been published etc - and I find film is just more beautiful than digital. A

I do quite a lot of what could be considered artistic photography, had exhibitions, been published etc - and I find film is just more beautiful than digital. A poetic point possibly, but when I'm making a piece of visual art that's kind of what I'm after. Digital is certainly a lot more convenient and a lot quicker, but when I want to really capture a special image I'll always do it on film. I started out on digital but now work more and more with film. There's just "something" about a film image compared to the same shot done digitally which I can't explain. Though a friend who is an optics&laser specialist and does a lot of astronomy photography going back many years suggested that your eyes can perceive the crystal/"organic" structure of a film print and prefers it to a clean ordered digital one. No idea if that's true - but I liked the idea ;-)

Kalium 12y ago
If that's the case, you should expect your preference to vanish once pixel density gets well below the threshold of human perception.
xenophonf 12y ago
Artwork is as much about the process as the finished work itself. Let's say we both create a picture of a tree - same tree, same composition, same lighting, same everything - only I snap a picture using my phone's 15-MP camera and you create a realistic watercolor (a la Eric Christensen). It's pretty fair to say that your watercolor would be way more awesome a piece of artwork, and way more deserving of recognition, than my digital picture. That said, like anything digital photography can involve a _lot_ of hard, creative labor resulting in spectacular pieces of art. I have no qualms with artists and critics falling in love with a particular medium. I really loved the story behind the Brownie! Think of all the history and art and humanity and emotion those cameras have captured over the last one hundred-plus years! But the story's author looking down on digital because it's digital and thus "cold" or "unfeeling" or "mechanistic" or whatever is just snobbery at best (or worse, Monster Cables-level crackpottery). Both film and digital can be great, both can be loved, both can host great artworks without either taking anything away from the other.

Kalium 12y ago

If that's the case, you should expect your preference to vanish once pixel density gets well below the threshold of human perception.

xenophonf 12y ago

Artwork is as much about the process as the finished work itself. Let's say we both create a picture of a tree - same tree, same composition, same lighting, same everything - only I snap a picture using my phone's 15-MP camera and you create a realistic watercolor (a la Eric Christensen). It's pretty fair to say that your watercolor would be way more awesome a piece of artwork, and way more deserving of recognition, than my digital picture. That said, like anything digital photography can involve a _lot_ of hard, creative labor resulting in spectacular pieces of art. I have no qualms with artists and critics falling in love with a particular medium. I really loved the story behind the Brownie! Think of all the history and art and humanity and emotion those cameras have captured over the last one hundred-plus years! But the story's author looking down on digital because it's digital and thus "cold" or "unfeeling" or "mechanistic" or whatever is just snobbery at best (or worse, Monster Cables-level crackpottery). Both film and digital can be great, both can be loved, both can host great artworks without either taking anything away from the other.