With my previous post, I shared a photo shot on film with a medium format camera. I returned to the same bridge and at a similar angle, and shot this image (originally in color, 12-bit RAW file converted to black and white with Camera RAW, Silver EFX and Photoshop).
I’d like to say there is a clear difference between the two images. In reality, I notice subtle tone differences and some detail differences, but in the end the two are very similar.
So, which one is best? That I’m not sure of. I do like the actual process of slowing myself down, composing, setting exposure and taking a shot on film; something about knowing how to properly set everything on the camera to get a correctly exposed photo without seeing the image on the back of the camera is appealing. That, along with having to properly mix chemistry and maintain temperature for a proper image to appear on the film is very satisfying.
With digital, it almost seems too easy. You know a couple software programs, take a photo that may not have been exposed correctly and make some adjustments after you pull the image off of a memory card.
Which one is correct? I think both are, honestly. I prefer film for my personal projects, but clients want digital files for their workflows now instead of a “chrome”.
Which took longer to get to a final image of? I’d have to say the digital file did. Developing time for the film was about 30 minutes, and about 5 minutes to scan, then 5 minutes to clean up some dust spots and adjust brightness and contrast. The digital file, while the initial image capture and pulling the image off of the card was shorter than the developing of the film, the processing of the image to achieve an image that is acceptable to my mind was about 45-50 minutes of editing.