Really? Maybe that's just because there were fewer talented photographers who could work with film. It's easier for photographers with fewer skills to get better results with digital than with film... it's nothing inherent in using film that makes you think this. Isn't that what this thread is about though? Trying to establish if more talent was needed to get the same results using film?
The difference was that because you were limited by a fairly rigid process, anything above and beyond the ordinary... anything "special".... the "wow" factor we all aspire to seemingly had to be created in camera, using skill, technical knowledge and lighting. That was, and still is, a rare commodity. These days, you can (and I'm not saying everyone does this) just arse about until something looks good. The reality is though, it never does look as good as getting it right with lighting and skill. It looks false.
Here's a good example.
6x9 Fuji 64T, straight scan... no post processing, except a crop. Shot in 1997 (if there is any EXIF saying otherwise, it's generated by PS and the scanner). A straight print from the tranny would look the same... perhaps slightly more contrasty... but not much.
But what about the colours? Surely this has been processed? yes.. it has.. in camera. It was shot on tungsten balanced film with a 81A on the lens to render the "candles" warmer, it was shot at night, using daylight flash, then some of the flash lights were then gelled with 85C to warm them up to render warmer on the tungsten balanced film, and the area lights are filtered with 81A to go cooler, but not as blue as they would have been left unfiltered with Fuji 64T.. the result, I've effectively split toned it using lighting. There are 8 lights and two exposures on the same piece of film in this scene. Two of those lights are massive old school high voltage strobe lights outside the windows on top of a large van parked outside... then a smoke machine was deployed, and the smoke left to dissipate and become even... then the exposure taken. The smoke also lowers contrast as the light is scattered. This is what photographers had to do pre digital... use skills that are becoming lost.
Could this be done digitally? Possibly... would it look as good? Maybe.... would it require as much lighting skill. No. Result... more skill was needed back then than is required now. Isn't that what this thread is trying to establish?
If I was to re-shot this digitally today, I would STILL use such complex lighting because I genuinely feel to try and recreate this digitally would look crap in comparison. The reality is though.... because it's not NECESSARY to learn these skills now... no one bothers to learn them.. so the in camera skills and standards are generally dropping. Only the photographers who truly appreciate that lighting is everything still maintain a working knowledge to these standards... the majority would not as they deem it unnecessary. Everyone else does a great deal of this in post, and with architectural shots... big spaces etc.... that just looks like hell unless you have the lighting place to complement it.
So yeah.... you could do something similar without all that lighting and rely on PP instead... but I firmly believe it wouldn't be as good (either on film or captured digitally). If anyone disagrees.... then go and prove me wrong... Painted Hall, Old Royal Naval College, Greenwich. Off you go
You may think that standards of photography have increased, but they haven't.. it's just that the ability to achieve a perceptibly higher standard requires less skill... so you see it more frequently, and even cheap and cheerful jobbing wedding shooters can attain a higher standard, easier, and with less skill required than they would have needed 20 or 30 years ago. The RESULT is that more photographs look better more of the time than they used to.... but
photographic skill has sod all to do with it.
.
