Film vs Digital

I don't shoot very much film any more because it usually is not in my budget these days. It is also becoming harder and harder to find film. Even at Pictureline it's hit and miss what you are going to find, and Fuji is discontinuing all color negative films somewhere in the near future. It is a dismal situation.

Nevertheless, I would shoot film all the time if I could. I'm not really arguing that film is better. They both have pros and cons. And we have all had that fight way too many times. I just like film better. And here I will show you why.

(These photos were all taken for my future sister-in-law's High School graduation announcements at Cactus and Tropicals in Draper. They are not fine masterpieces of photography, but they illustrate my point here.)

First of all, here is a photo taken with my digital camera:

I will admit that my digital camera is not the most state-of-the-art. But, the truth is, I don't have $3000 to drop on a new digital camera just any time I might want one. Fortunately, I have some kindred photographers that sometimes help me out with better equipment when needed, but I can not buy it at this time. So this is what I am stuck with for the regular stuff. That is my first major, and practical, reason to hate digital. My film camera cost me $250 dollars about 10 years ago, and it is still a fine piece of equipment. My digital camera cost me $800 (used), and is now worth about $42 for the scraps it is made from.

I will admit that I had to underexpose that first image to prevent the highlights from blowing out. Digital is not known for having a whole lot of exposure latitude.

So, after doing a bunch of photoshop to it, just to get it looking semi-decent, I end up with this:



Now for a film example, taken in the same spot, in the same lighting, with only slightly different exposure, on Kodak Portra 160VC film. (I exposed this how I wanted to. The camera did not dictate it.)

Now, that does not even represent the best quality, because it is a cheap film scan from Walgreen's one-hour-photo. Nevertheless, without anything done to it in photoshop it already looks much, much better. The highlights are a bit hot, but it is not losing any detail. It could easily be burned in if I had a proper scan. The colors look far, far better, and more accurate to what the actual scene looked like. The lighting looks much more natural, and even. So why the hell would anyone want to do digital? I don't know.

Furthermore, look how much more control I had over the depth of field. I must admit here that I could have the same control if I spent that $3000 for a new digital camera, and then a thousand, or so, more for an expensive lens. But I was able to to the exact same thing with my $250 Nikon film camera, and a lens that cost me $50 on Ebay.

I did a little, tiny bit of photoshop on that one, just for the hell of it really.


I had to get that rant off my chest. I hope it explains why I am always frustrated and ashamed of my digital camera.

Rachel's Smile

Is worth 4 Million dollars and some change. At least.



That's my fiance. :)

Iceland Volcanoes

I figure that I should just address this topic once and for all, since people keep on asking me about it. Although I went to Iceland in 2008, I have never heard of Eyjafjallajokull. I don't even know how to pronounce it. Although it does not come as a surprise to me that many Icelanders are hiking to Eyjafjallajokull in spite of the dangers inherent in walking toward erupting volcanoes. It would make perfect sense to you too if you had been there. Just hearing about these things overwhelms me with a fearful nostalgia.

During my 2 weeks in Iceland, I climbed to the top of Festerfjall, and Eldfell. A person can put their hand on the rocks on Eldfell and feel the heat still emanating from an eruption that occurred in the 1970's. It's the sort of experience that makes you question your own significance in the greater scheme of existence. From there I also gazed lovingly at the Helgafell volcano, but did not venture to climb it because I needed a nap by that time.


*Helgafell volcano, as seen from atop Eldfell volcano.

But alas, I did not go anywhere near Eyjafjallajokull. Although I kind of wish I was there right now, in a weird masochistic way. I also did not see Helga, Hekla, Bárðarbunga, Herðubreið, Kollóttadyngja, Ljósufjöll, Öræfajökull, or any of the other 130 unintelligibly named volcanoes in Iceland. And I don't know anything at all about them.

The first half of my time in that mysterious country was spent walking around barren wilderness like the Man from The Road, having bizarre encounters with those eerily beautiful people who choose to dwell upon that crusty land, and some awkward encounters with other lonely travellers from various continents.





Then the second half of my journey was spent trying to escape from the Island of Heimaey. And ever since I did manage to escape I find myself inexplicably compelled to go back again. And I'm not just saying that because I have been watching too many episodes of Lost lately. There is something very disturbing about Heimaey. It was settled by escaped slaves, who were then hunted down like dogs by someone named Ingólfur Arnarson because they killed his foster brother, or something like that. Later it was sacked by Arab pirates who kidnapped some chick named Guðríður Símonardóttir. And then, much, much later some people left from there to become Mormons in Utah. Then I somehow ended up there from Utah and got marooned with a young, would-be actress from New York, and a couple of British gents, and we were all tormented, and harrassed by roaving gangs of scavenging hoodlums. So the cycle continues.



That sums up everything I know about Iceland, and volcanic eruptions. I hope that was helpful. And if you feel you need to go there to look at volcanoes, or to talk to vampires, or any other reason, I recommend it.