- Messages
- 9,521
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can live with that as a reason not to shoot film, although the shooting can be pretty similar.
Unfortunately, it renders the other perceived disadvantages used to argue against shooting film.....irrelevant..
I love both digital and film, I shoot digital for money because I have to, I shoot film for recreation because its more full filling, I'm angry with myself because I'm not good/confident enough to shoot paid work on film, that doesn't mean film is good for nothing, it just means I'm useless, but entertained.
I get miles more entertainment per quid spent out of film than I'll ever get out of digital, it never leaves the studio except for maybe some sports stuff, but I always have my film camera with me...:shrug:
IMO - If you want to earn a living shooting dslr sized film, don't bother trying, if you want to shoot photographs where the sum of the parts equals more than the whole, shoot film.
And don't dis either till you've tried both as an art rather than a commercial enterprise...
Minor rethink - there is one type of film I did love to use
What's usually referred to as 'Slide' film. The vibrancy & saturation of Kodachrome 64 was a sheer delight
As was the fact that it's the hardest film to shoot on as its exposure latitude is low, and in many ways the 'purest' too as (aside from the odd filter) you could not add or take anything away. What you shot is what you got and to get a full frame image that was a belter of colour, composition, exposure & subject was FAB
DD