Tibetan Portrait
This is a portrait I shot using my newest toy, a Contax 645 system with a standard lens. Notice the shallow depth of field? It was intentional, but perhaps it’s too much. I’m not that precious about things and I’m very happy with the image. But perhaps next time I’ll ease off with using f2 and shoot at f4 instead, or perhaps I’ll shoot both?
There’s a softness there and a glow which I feel is only possible with film. Certainly not achievable with a digital 35mm slr system anyway, to my eye at least. It’s purely personal of course and you may feel differently and also have proof to back up your alternative view point? If so – I’d love to hear from you.
I’ve been too busy of late. Far too busy to process and work on my images from Nepal and India, and in three days from now, I’m on a plane again, this time headed for Patagonia and Bolivia. I’ve got three film systems with me. Two systems I know really well – a Mamiya 7 and an Eos 1V. Why 35mm you might ask? Well, because on reflection, it seems that 35mm ‘looks’ better to my eye than digital does, and it has a flexibility to it that is not apparent in the larger systems.
I spent a good week up north on the isle of Eigg (ground work for an upcoming workshop I’m doing there in September – check out my workshop page if you want to come along), and had the most wonderful weather. Lots of snow capped mountains so I’d like to post you some in the coming days – time permitting.
Hi Mr. Percy,
I’d have to say I agree with your opinion on the aesthetic qualities of film, in contrast to digital. I can’t say my opinion holds much weight as I am but a fledgling in photography. I started out with digital, but went backwards and am using almost exclusively film. I feel it has a warmer, organic feel to it. I have yet to see digital images have the same effect, especially for non-studio portraits. The look of film adds to the moment that the picture has captured.
Also wanted to add, that I greatly enjoy reading your blog. Browsing photographs is great, but after a while, it is nice to know what goes on behind the scene (without going into gear too much).
Alvin
PS. I’m using nothing but an older Pentax SLR, 2 primes and a Yashica-mat TLR. Somehow, film has subdued my yearning for the “latest and greatest” gear. So there’s another plus to film!
Comment by Alvin — 15 March, 2009 @ 6:45 am
Hi Alvin,
I’ve been hearing lately of a lot of photographers who started out with digital and have ‘gone backwards’ into the film realm.
Which was very surprising to me: most workshop participants tend to be digital and the thought of trying a film system seems to be too much for most to bear – the film costs, buying a scanner, processing…. So it’s great to hear that there are those out there willing to try it. I don’t think it’s a case of ‘digital or film’, more ‘digital sometimes and film sometimes’.
I like the sound of your new film system!
Comment by Bruce Percy — 15 March, 2009 @ 9:17 am
Hi Bruce,
Interesting to hear you are using a 35mm SLR, I’ve just started carrying a Minolta 600si around with my large format kit and gives me another film type option – it’s amazing the 35mm bargains you can pick up these days!
I too went digital and then went (mainly) film again. There’s certainly a quality to film that can’t me matched by digital. I love using Astia which has wonderful tones digital just can’t replicate.
I was interested in your Eigg workshop (somewhere I’ve wanted to go for ages), but it looking at the intinery, it looks very digital based.
Comment by peaklandscapes — 15 March, 2009 @ 4:50 pm