[wepple]

Film has a particular look and feel to it that I’ve absolutely never seen replicated in digital.

I’m confident that one day it probably will be; maybe ML will be up to the task where filters and transforms just can’t do the right job?

Besides that, the process of taking photographs is surprisingly different. You don’t spray and pray - a shutter costs you more than a dollar so you spend more time looking, and learn to hunt with your eyes more. It’s impossible to check your photos on the LCD, so you just get on with photography, and have an element of suspense to find out what you captured. Also, no batteries to go flat. There’s also a forced creativity when working with basic controls like aperture and shutter speed, instead of hundreds of different settings and knobs to get caught up in.

Of course, if I were a profession photographer these would in no way make up for the downsides, so hand me that 5d/d600/M-P, but they’re reasons you may still shoot film and translate to digital to share/store.

[chuckkir]

So it's sort of like the vinyl record thing then? I suspect the difference in photographs that you see is more in the difference between using an enlarger and photo paper vs. a color printer, and in this case I assume he's printing from the processed digital image. Assuming I'm right then he's not getting that advantage but I can see how someone with an enlarger could do things differently.

As for the technique, I agree that it was more exacting back in the film days. I also had much less money then. The net result was that I didn't take a lot of photos I now wished that I had. Although these days that's what we use our phones for so I guess it's not really an issue.

There is a lot of very nice gear available quite cheaply though. Maybe this will be a trend an it's time to buy Kodak stock?