I had some old Fuji Superia 400 in my freezer, and my Yashica has been sitting silently in the back room for so long. So today I loaded it up and shot for the first time in a few years. Granted it was only a few frames of my dog Beck. But it felt great. It also helped reinforce my latest decision to get a film camera.
I’ve been fiercely debating and researching film vs. digital in my head for the last 5 years, really. I’ve had heated arguments about it first from the pro-film side and then from pro-digital, and now I’m sitting in the middle, realizing that digital has come so far that it’s almost insane not to use it for many applications (best example: weddings). But film won’t seem to die, and for good reason at least as of the time of this writing.
The quality of each has its merits. Almost as if debating 24-bit digital audio vs. a phonograph, at some point the technical discussion about quality runs off the tired and worn scientific road and into the subjective wilderness. For example, you can’t simply look at megapixels to compare the resolution or sharpness of each. You can’t simply look at dynamic range response of a digital capture of a step wedge to compare tonality and range. And a lot of the old pros will acknowledge this. It’s more of a feeling. Reminds me of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
In the past it was easy enough to see the quality advantage of film over digital. Digital technology was still in its infancy (and some might argue it still is). But now the comparison gets a little tougher. Especially when you consider the newer full-frame DSLRs and moreso the latest medium format digital backs. Enlargement from these systems will probably beat medium format film in terms of cleanness and sharpness, really. And I have to imagine that at some point in the future, it may become downright silly to use film.
But for a guy in my position, film has begun to look attractive again. For one thing, I can’t afford a new full-frame camera like a 5DII, D700, or A900 (and I darn sure can’t afford a medium format digital back). But I can afford a film camera that shoots medium format with a wide angle lens, and that’s why I decided to go ahead with the Mamiya RZ67. (Trivial fact of the day: Annie Liebowitz has used them extensively.) And I really believe that at some point digital backs for an RZ67 will become affordable. At my pace, It would take a long time for the cost of development and scanning to overcome the cost of a Canon 5DII.
If the argument needed any more scale-tipping, here is a thought I had today which is inspired by Doug Menuez’s recent post about zen of film vs. digital gratification, and also inspired with a conversation I had with my friend Micah about playing poker. When you’re playing for money, you play differently. All of the sudden, each frame, or each moment, or each bid in a round of Hold ‘Em takes on a psychological value that is simply impossible to induce in a world where each moment doesn’t cost you anything. You do begin to shoot differently. If you can let go of the pain associated with money being consumed with each shutter click, the results have to be different, and maybe even better, somehow.
Don’t get me wrong, I will invariably use my trusty Canon digital gear for weddings, portraits, and stuff which actually makes me money. But I think I may have a new opened door or inspiration or at least impetus to shoot the kinds of photos I love the most with the new system.
Results coming soon, hopefully…
