So why bother film? If you compare digital and 35mm of the same subject the most obvious thing to note is that the digital image: it is sharper, the colours are truer, it took less time to compose and take (as I took perhaps 5 or 6 shots to get it right), it was cheaper (i.e. free), and took far less time to process and tidy up in Photoshop.
Both images below were taken from the roof of the MNAC Museum in Barcelona.
A part from the difference in focal length (50mm top, 28mm below) there’s not much to call it, and on that basis you have to give the award to digital.
So again, why bother? Well I think it’s the surprises you get from the film shots that didn’t come out as you expected. Here are a couple of more extreme examples of celluloid oddities that you would ignore as failures on the preview window (though you’d never of pressed the shutter in the first place you saw that down the view finder):
To be fair, the latter was more to do with very battered, 30-year-old negatives but not something you’d try to fake in Photoshop.
As mentioned in a previous post, it’s the process that’s fun, and the final output just feels more crafted and hand done, more honest, even. I’m still trying to work it out really, but the point of all of this is just to have fun, and learn something along the way. To this final point I do wonder if my last outing with a camera (to Loch Ardinning) saw me using the digital a little more thoughtfully than normal. Maybe.