‘horses for courses…

DSC_1433-Edit5I9A8661 Both the images above of musician, Mae Challis, were made using a digital Canon EOS 5DmkIII and 50mm f1.0 lens – a lot of people think I’ve got this whole ‘anti-digital’ thing going-on – I haven’t, if I shot all my work, personal and commercial, on film I’d be bankrupt within about a week! I think people mistake digital and film photography as being the same medium, but it’s like saying pens and pencils are the same – they look very similar and they’re handled in exactly the same way, but both have their own uses – you wouldn’t fill-out a passport application with a pencil… although I’m sure there are some people who have.

Personally, digital photography to me says “precision”, which is why I shoot 90% of my commercial work using digital – clients want perfectly exposed, pin sharp and consistent photographs, and these days they want to see what you’re shooting, as you’re shooting it. So that’s what they get. But working this way I’d never have got the two bottom images of Beckii Cruel, which I shot on film, especially the bottom one – on digital I’d have zoomed in on her face, seen that it wasn’t quite in focus and deleted it – which would have been a tragedy, because I love it.

The first image below was made using an old Canon LTb slr and 50mm lens. I’ve deliberately taken the foam seals out of the camera (which were pretty dead anyway), a notion some people may find odd, but I love light leak on celluloid. The second shot was made with a Fuji GW690III and, as I’ve said, the image is slightly out of focus, but it works some how, adding a strange ethereal, ghostly feel to the image. Film in both cases is Kodak Portra 800. CNV00007-5-Edit 2885-005-0006

8 comments

  1. I really like your comparison between digital and film here. The photographs say it all. Digital and film are both great mediums but also so different. I am always intrigued with your film work but these to really impress me. Digitally we can add light leaks and soft focus but they never seem as real as what happens with film. The bottom two images have such an wonderful organic feel which I could never do with my Canon 5d mkIII. You may be inspiring me to fire up some of the old film cameras I’m using as display pieces.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Both the digital and film images are excellent, because each takes advantage of their strengths. The B&W of Mae Chellis is superb, a mix of exquisite sharpness where needed (lips,eyes) and softness elsewhere that underscores her femininity. The full length image of Beckii Cruel, with none of digital’s crsipness, evokes of soft, dreamlike scene. Very well done.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: