Every year, Outside magazine features an article on “perfect things.” In the past the magazine has focused on specific products but this year expanded its list to encompass an array of more general items. As an example, “empty trail heads” is one of the 51 perfect things mentioned. Another item, number 4 on their list was “film cameras” which Outside magazine justifies thusly: “(Film cameras) instantly take you back to a time when each snap mattered, when you were more thoughtful, more deliberate, more discriminating – the way a good photographer should be.”This reminded me of my own renewed experience with my film camera. A few years ago, my co-worker, Adrienne, asked me to shoot photos of her and her then fiance for her wedding announcement. I came armed with my digital SLR and my older film SLR as a back-up. I did not come with a set of back-up batteries for my digital SLR however, and was forced to revert to the film camera when the batteries in the DSLR became depleted.
Two things quickly became evident upon the switch: I had lost my confidence in my photographic ability without the immediate feedback of the digital image, and the feel of a traditional camera – the motor as it advanced the film, the distinctive “click” as the shutter curtain completed its path across the film plane, the solid tactile properties of the internal mechanics – was a thing of beauty I had forgotten. Another revelation: once I had reviewed the processed film, the inherent difference in a traditional photographic image versus a digital image became evident.
The film images had a warmer, smoother and more natural quality. The dynamic range captured by film is infinitely superior to that of digital, resulting in a richer, more detailed image (see above image, an outtake from that shoot). How is it I could have forgotten this so quickly? Essentially, I had become addicted to the immediacy of digital images over the quality of film. The instant gratification factor of digital is responsible for fueling the migration to digital and why film cameras are rapidly becoming the latest dinosaurs in the realm of technology.
As with any advance, certain attributes seem to be sacrificed to others. In most cases I suppose, the attributes sacrificed are acceptable trade-offs to the advantages gained. There are some older technologies like film, that make me wonder however.
As I've migrated from the older analog television (yes, yes, I know. As I've stated earlier, when it comes to making some expenditures, I'm very, very cheap)to the newer digital sets for example, I KNOW that I would prefer to receive a snowy analog signal over the stutter and pixellated breakup of a digital one. And what about the smooth fast forward and rewind images of a good old VHS tape versus the variable stutter of a DVD? Am I sounding like an old man reluctant to embrace the advances of a brave new world? Perhaps, but in my book, just because it’s digital doesn’t mean it’s better.
