Is it simply a trained eye, or is it merely the recognition of truth? Whether it's large format slide film, hollywood cinema, or color negative film, the difference between film and digital is stark and goes far deeper than just the surface aesthetic. I've come to realize my love for film is more than nostalgia, it is an acknowledgement of something real.Regardless of where you stand on this dichotomy, you can't deny that truth has power. Perhaps Ansel Adams said it best, "The medium's true power came not by evading reality, but by embracing it. It was like the Annunciation! Suddenly I saw what photography could be - A tremendously potent pure art form - an austere and blazing poetry of the real."Sure, digital has it's advantages. It's relatively cost free, you have instant gratification, and the clarity, resolution, and tonal range in the newest high end cameras are approaching the levels of large format film. Yet, the ease comes with another cost, which I could not have said any better than Elliott Erwitt - "Anything that is very simple is apt to be sloppy, you can't be too sloppy in analog photography because it takes time, it takes effort, it takes concentration"To me, film is akin to organic food, and digital, processed food. Sure the processed food can taste good and feeds the vast majority of the population, but only one truly nourishes the body… Film feeds my soul. Film and organic food are a return to the basics, the roots, with nothing artificial added, only grain.
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is allYe know on earth, and all ye need to know."- John Keats
