+1
+1
Yes, the digital to film debate is over since 10 years ago and was won by digital, but we have to understand what debate was for most, it was a resolving power comparison DSLR vs 35mm film.
But Digital is a way better tool to allow a pro survive this days, as reality shows, absolutely no doubt. Also better for high ISO. Also much better to spray. A DSLR takes videos.
Anyway there is no doubt that film still has strong points. This 2018 film still handles better highlights, conserving better glare textures in people's faces, helping to a 3D sensation, for example.
Another key strength is spectral response. Nikon vs Canon have an slight difference that's difficult to pefectly match in Ps. Many Pros do recognize that Canon is slightly better for human skin and Nikon is slightly better for the rest. This comes from an slightly different spectral response, most Pros today even don't know that it's because of dyes on the pixels...
A film shooter has an strong avantage, he can replace the sensor of his camera, and the effect is miles away from the Nikon vs Cannon effect.
There is an entire world between Velvia 50 vs Portra 160. Each is an specialized tool for a certain job. Sure a Ps edition can make wonders, and sure that in many situations spectral specialization matters little, but sometimes Velvia or Portra are ground breaking for a job, blowing miles away the DLSR lack of character. Shaping the image character in Ps it's not the same than shaping it from the medium nature.
Sometimes I show a shot (https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulbo...125592977@N05/) to my digital friends, speaking about face volumes. First they say that they do that dayly with their DSLRs, then they observe better the image, and then they start grasping their head while saying nothing.
Let's say that photography is beyond commercial photography, Sally Mann made an artistic career with collodion near a century after collodion was commercially over...
Bookmarks