My film photography philosophy

(Dad asked whether my B&W photos were naturally grainy due to the film speed, or whether I'd added it as a digital effect)


Some of the graininess might be (over?) enlarging the digital scan (cropping).  But, yes -- I tend to "lean into" the film-ness of shooting on film -- so I tend to do the opposite of what a digital camera would do:  "sharp and color" is digital, so I shoot on a really low-res old digital camera, or on a box camera or plastic "no-focus" lens (with limited clarity, in B&W; digital is pristine -- so I shoot with 400 ASA usually; I also like the lens flares, which "works" better on film than on digital (I think.

Also "modern" lenses have better technology than (most?) lenses from the '70s -- which are sharper than (most?) lenses from the 1940s -- which are sharper than box cameras from 1910-1930.  I'm discovering that a lot of the look is in the lens itself:  cameras (at least at my price point) from a certain decade really look like that decade....  :)

So, no -- no additions in the edit.  That's a self-imposed "zen" sort of restirctiion:  a lot of people shoot on film.... and then scan it to digital and Photoshop it to death:  I don't see the point of that.  So except for when I've messed up the exposure (or:  was limited by circumstances) and have to do a "salvage job" -- I tend to keep the framing, brightness, contrast, and etc. "as it lies".  :)

As above, I'm "leaning into" the "flim" side of things:  trying to get the right framing and exposure from the get-go -- rather than manipulating it like a lot of people would with a digital image.  ;)

Oh:  I'm learning that B&W photography is akin to wine tasting:  you can choose films with more or less grain (even at the same ASA), greater contrast, sharpness, etc. (although these characteristics are all inter-linked, of course).

At the moment I'm tending towards a type of B&W film that can be processed using "normal" color developing -- because the place that develops my film can do it in-house, rather than sending it out to another lab (so, cheaper, and faster turnaround).  "Real" B&W takes a separate set of chemicals, which "normal" (smaller) labs don't do.  That "fake B&W" film looks the same to me as the other types of B&W -- and it seems that there's more camera-to-camera (lens-to-lens) difference than "film-to-film" difference.  But, I'm still new at this -- so maybe I'm just not aware enough.

--GG