Another YAWDISF Post

By Andrea Monti

Yes, this is another ‘why do I shoot film’ post, and no, the answers are not ‘because it slows me down’, ‘because it connects me to the act of taking pictures’, ‘because I love the unique feeling of analogue images’, ‘because the inherent limitations of a film camera inspire creativity’, ‘why not?’ or any of the other common (and perfectly legitimate) reasons usually associated with the question.

In addition, the wide range of post-processing options available to make a digital image look like an analogue one, even in terms of film emulsion, satisfies the need to produce an image with the ‘personality’ of a specific film. So, even the idea that ‘true film’ looks better is not factually correct.

So, why do I shoot film? Bear with me for a while.

Would this photo be better if taken with a digital camera and a modern lens? By all means!

Rome, Fontana di Trevi, Chiesa dei Santi Vincenzo e Anastasio

The same can be said for this one:

Rome, Fontana di Trevi, via Poli

Taking this picture with a digital camera wouldn’t have added much to the final result.

A starter, before letting the runners go at the European Athletic Master championships

And thanks to a non-modern camera and film (a Ferrania Orto) there is no need to go digital to achieve the overall retro look of this picture .

A side alley in the Asakusa district

So, to sum up all this musing: why do I shoot film?

Here is the answer: because when I want pictures to look like they were taken with a film camera, I use a film camera, and when I want pictures to look like they were taken with a digital camera, I use a digital camera.

Sure, digital camera and post-production software allows you to have the best of both worlds (the ease of taking good pictures and the ability to make them look ‘different’). The end result is almost comparable to ‘old school’ pictures, but ‘almost’ is exactly the answer to the question ‘why do I shoot film’.

‘Almost’ is not ‘exactly’.

‘Almost’ is not enough.

‘Almost’ works when you need to meet the demands of a work schedule.

But ‘almost’ has nothing to do with coherence and expression. Whatever you say, dressing up a digital image to look like an analogue one does not really make it the same. And since my way of shooting is to stay as true to the final image (mind: I said ‘image’ not ‘reality’) as possible, I simply use the tool that suits the specific needs of the moment, whether professional or personal.

I am not saying that it is wrong or cheating to manipulate digital images to look like analogue ones.

I simply chose to call a rose by its name, because calling it by another one would not make it smell as sweet.

Share this post:

Find more similar content on 35mmc

Use the tags below to search for more posts on related topics:

Contribute to 35mmc for an ad-free experience.

There are two ways to contribute to 35mmc and experience it without the adverts:

Paid Subscription – £2.99 per month and you’ll never see an advert again! (Free 3-day trial).

Subscribe here.

Content contributor – become a part of the world’s biggest film and alternative photography community blog. All our Contributors have an ad-free experience for life.

Sign up here.

About The Author

By Andrea Monti
My name is Andrea Monti. I’m an Italian free-lance journalist, photographer and – in my spare time – an hi-tech lawyer. The works I am more proud of are covering live jazz, pop and rock concerts for an Italian online music magazine and Opera and prose for a 200 years-old theatre. I also do sport photography mainly in athletics and fighting disciplines. You may find out more about me on https://andrea.monti.photography
View Profile

Comments

Jerry Scoby on Another YAWDISF Post

Comment posted: 16/04/2024

hmmm? I have used film for 60 years. I do not post process my digital images to look like film! I am trying to use my film stock ever once in a while to keep my 6+ film cameras in shape, but I'm enjoying the digital cameras and the images I get from them, and do not lose my creative thought process when using digital and try making my best images in camera. No chemicals, no endless hours in the darkroom, no high costs of film stock. I am through with that process, and have paid my dues in that respect. This has allowed me to concentrate just as much on the image creation. Enjoy what you chose to do, and don't bypass the chance to get a great image. Good luck!
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Ibraar Hussain replied:

Comment posted: 16/04/2024

The darkroom print is part of the photographic process. Many people really enjoy it including Don McCullin and David Bailey come to mind . i enjoy it too or did when I had a darkroom lately I’ve been more digital than film. But I don’t try and make my images look like film - I tend to use old digital cameras which have their own signature look. Film stock used to be cheap - only when digital became firmly established and film use started to dwindle did the prices really rise.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Ibraar Hussain on Another YAWDISF Post

Comment posted: 16/04/2024

Interesting post
Thanks
The forums are awash with Fuji X film ‘recipes’. I always wonder why they don’t just shoot the film stock they want to emulate? Unless it’s Kodachrome or Scotch or some discontinued stock then it’s not an issue
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Stevenson G replied:

Comment posted: 16/04/2024

Cost and instant turnaround? I mean the Fuji shooters are usually using out of camera jpegs, which seems to imply their in a hurry to get a finished image. I don't think many would be happy happy with waiting a week for processing and scanning. ;)

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Ibraar Hussain replied:

Comment posted: 16/04/2024

They want their cake and to eat it too

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Geoff Chaplin on Another YAWDISF Post

Comment posted: 16/04/2024

Which is better? Well what does 'better' mean? I agree, digital images made to look like 'FP4' (say) do not actually look like FP4. Film is film, digital is digital. Perhaps one day it'll be possible to reproduce the film look, and the film-camera exposure and different rendition, exactly but even then why bother? Use what is most appropriate for what you want to produce. Another excellent post Andrea, thanks.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Ibraar Hussain replied:

Comment posted: 16/04/2024

100% true and I agree

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Timothy Hancock on Another YAWDISF Post

Comment posted: 18/04/2024

On the rare occasion I get asked WDISF I just say because I enjoy it - enough said ! Yes, I shoot digital too- I guess most do even if it’s just the smart phone.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Paul Quellin on Another YAWDISF Post

Comment posted: 18/04/2024

Nicely put Andrea. I wonder if digital is coming of age for a proportion of us. Maybe AI apprehension is leading us to think as much about what we shouldn't do to an image rather than what we might do to it. Increasingly I find myself looking at digital images on photographic platforms and guessing how far some of the sliders were pushed. I use them occasionally myself, but can now spot sharpening and de-noise tool use from a reasonable distance. Then there are the ones dressed up like film; your'e right, digital rarely looks convincingly like film. Just now and again I think I see one that looks pretty film like, only to spot all the Exif data, but if it's film, you just know. Thanks for a thought provoking read.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Huss on Another YAWDISF Post

Comment posted: 21/04/2024

An out of focus, poorly exposed, camera shaky digital image is cr@p.

An out of focus, poorly exposed, camera shaky film image is art.

That is why I shoot film.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *