[49 / 8 / 1]
18KiB, 640x360, filmvs-141117104503-conversion-gate01-thumbnail.jpg
Quoted By: >>4330484 >>4330490 >>4330695 >>4330715 >>4330734 >>4330780 >>4333025 >>4333062 >>4333135 >>4335119 >>4335190
I currently shoot digital and like the convenience, flexibility when editing and how fast and hassle free everything is.
It comes a point where the digital images look very cookie cutter to me; too artificially and clinically perfect.
I have also shot film in the past, and I get that it's a whole aesthetic and more manual/tactile process, which is rewarding. The drawback is that it's not very flexible in what you can do to your images, it requires considerably more time, you might fuck up and have light leaks, so on. Not to mention the high cost of buying and developing and scanning.
I like the manual feel of putting a new roll, advancing the film, the classic vibe you get from the shots, but at the same time digital is just so much more convenient.
It comes a point where the digital images look very cookie cutter to me; too artificially and clinically perfect.
I have also shot film in the past, and I get that it's a whole aesthetic and more manual/tactile process, which is rewarding. The drawback is that it's not very flexible in what you can do to your images, it requires considerably more time, you might fuck up and have light leaks, so on. Not to mention the high cost of buying and developing and scanning.
I like the manual feel of putting a new roll, advancing the film, the classic vibe you get from the shots, but at the same time digital is just so much more convenient.
