Please, take me out of this misery...

[bhop]

Yeah, you're right...

Let me ask you something about your film photos. Do you develop them yourself? What's the most difficult challenge when shooting film?

I develop myself, both color and b&w. I scan with an epson v700 scanner which works ok for my standards. I'd love to have a darkroom and make prints, but I just don't have the space. The biggest challenge? Well, the only thing that annoys me is when the light changes and I can't change my iso, but other than that, film shoots the same way as digital.

 

[gsgary]

Film is organic and beautiful to shoot

 

[Kolander]

...There's a "quality" in film photography that is not comparable to digital...

Have you ever printed a digital photography? I wonder if you could identify the digital and the film in a hundred pictures.

 

[adichiru]

I took this picture in a trip to Paris: http://i.imgur.com/t2r3t.jpg
I really like it as a whole, but it's too digital. Too flat... no depth...
(you're seeing the raw file, btw)

I have spent countless hours post processing it, but I feel like it's never good enough.
Then I see a simple photo taken with a medium format and I'm stunned by the 'look and feel' of it. This would be a perfect example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianadams/7065871047/in/pool-31794144@N00/
There's nothing special about the photo... but the tones make me wanna cry. =)
They look so good.

Why?! Am I going crazy?

The main difference here is in light. Total different light quality! Also, the one taken on film was most definitely processed too and don't forget you are actually looking at two digital images. The one initially captured on film was digitized at some point.....

I have been studying this difference between film and digital for a while too and I've used film for years and I still am, mostly for "fun" in a serious way.
I have even made these shots just, for my pleasure, to see how it goes: http://www.adichiru.com/blog/2011/12/Film-vs-Digital-once-more

The main difference is the fact that one is digital and one is analogue. The digital image at some point is "black or white" - 1 or 0 - there is no value between them. The analogue, in the same concept, is more silver halide crystals clustered together or less of them - however, if you want to dig deep enough you may find out how many crystals/area are in a certain tone within the gray scale (I never understood if there is a way to keep the silver halide crystals in one layer or not) - you probably know that even the color film is still black and white at some point.

However, these differences does NOT matter.
What does matter, ALWAYS, is to have quality LIGHT and FUN!

 

[adichiru]

...There's a "quality" in film photography that is not comparable to digital...

Have you ever printed a digital photography? I wonder if you could identify the digital and the film in a hundred pictures.

I can identify 80% of them as long as the digital ones are shot with Nikon and no PP and the film ones are with ektachrome or elitechrome and printed on light-sensitive photo paper directly not by digitizing them. And no black and white!

If you look at them side by side there are differences that indicates quite clearly the film - hard to explain. If you don't have them side by side it almost impossible.

 

[bhop]

...There's a "quality" in film photography that is not comparable to digital...

Have you ever printed a digital photography? I wonder if you could identify the digital and the film in a hundred pictures.

I print both film and digital, I can usually tell a difference, but I think it also depends what film is used. Some newer films look a lot like digital these days, when printed. Those might be harder to spot.