Someone asked why film, in a discussion that has gone from 6 January 2011 to now.
I answered that I love the quality of light in a 6 x 7cm TriX black and white negative,
developed conservatively in D76 1:1, scanned and then printed. I don’t think there
is a match in Photoshop to get the same quality. Approximations, sure, but not that
luminous certainty silver grain brings.
I shoot medium format color with a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II and 110mm lens on a stable tripod (heavy)
and with cable release and mirror lock up, bracketed focussing, to then scan at 4000 DPI on a Nikon
9000ED film scanner, and arrive at a raw capture size of 8200 x 11000 pixels, or a usable 75 Megapixels.
Which means I can print that 30″ x 40″ painting at 30″ x 40″ with minimal Photoshop upsizing.
No digital can yet match it. And I get archival storage (with some color fading over time) intrinsic to the medium.
I shoot digital too. But it has a long way to go to replace the experience of film. Digital cameras obscure
the process and the art of this, as art created in digital programs instead of through working with physical
materials lacks the texture and substance. An additional experience but not a replacement or an obsoleteness.