>>4475281I loved my Zf's and cant wait to get another one. I also shoot with an FA and love the shit out of that like a german shisse fetishist. However I seriosly dislike taking a work that was created in one medium and trying to hide it by making it look like it was made in another medium. If I sold someone a bronze of a sculpture I made but was like, "well actually it's plastic, isn't it amazing though, they got the plastic to look just like bronze!" Everyone would rightly be pissed and I'd be sued & out of a reputation.
That said, there are effects we lazily attribute to film such as blurriness of old lenses, poor diffraction halation, light leaks, uncoated lens effects & aging film effects. There is also shooting in fog, gold/blue hour effects, gloomy days, weird light during storms, etc, that could all also be achieved natively by a digital camera with greater or lesser effectiveness, and ideally in proportion to the needs of the image, not the needs of the image to look like it came from another kind of camera. The work of the pictorialists for instance, images like less literally defined and more suggestive, evocative as hell, more like a painting of a mood or hazy memory than a photojournalists need of harsh clarity and grating sharpness. All these effects and more can be accomplished digitally, we have the tools, all the tools, and more tools than anyone could ever have imagined. So why are we led to the photojournalist & documentarians approach to photography? Because it makes us by sharper and sharper lenses? For what?
Use the grain effect if you want to. But don't stop there.
