Tell me, why does anyone subscribe to National Geographic Magazine anymore? We've got the evening news, Flickr, and Youtube. Shouldn't we be satisfied with all the information we're getting? Yet, we still subscribe to 'old-school' media like Nat Geo. Why? Nat Geo provides a unique look at the world around us by using maps, great writing, and stunning photographs. Sure, it may not be as immediate as getting on the web and reading about a disaster in the Pacific or a recent archeological find in Egypt, but Nat Geo gives us a unique view on these subjects. So it is with film. In the race to get high marks from online review sites, digital camera makers have tweaked their systems to provide super-sharp, saturated, almost plastic-feeling images. Even when shooting RAW and playing around with the final image, digital images still lack a sense of depth and, well, photo-realism. Film, especially slide film, gives an almost 3D look to images that digital simply lacks. Just because film is the 'older' technology doesn't mean it's the 'worse' technology. Not by a long shot.
Who among us has had the chance to view a 4x5 transparency on a light table? A properly exposed image on the light table is truly a work of art. There is a depth that even the most expensive professional monitor cannot match. Colors are rich, without being too 'pumped up.' It's like the difference you can see between a young farm hand, who has built up strong muscles through years of work, and a professional body-builder, who's muscles come from years of lifting weights and most likely steroids. These body-builders cease to be human and become more like giant animals, with muscles bulging. The farm hand is no slave to his body- his muscles are just a part of him, not who he is. In the same way, digital images viewed on-screen are all about sharpness and over-the-top color, while film has just that right mix of technical excellence and artistic purity. Sharpness isn't everything. I hate to say this because I cannot find a proper citation to prove these are Ansel Adams' words, but I have seen the truth of this statement in my own work: "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
--Ok, I found the proper attribution for this quote. Please see "The Camera," Ansel Adams, 1980, pg 73: "I believe there is nothing more disturbing than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
Now, onto the subject of my favorite film: Velvia. Velvia gave photography a new meaning for me. It gave me something that would let me capture the world not exactly as I see it now, but how I see it in my minds eye. It provides rich greens and blues, an almost romantic rendering of the world that we live in. It has excellent shadow detail that tempts us and teases us to find out what lies in the dark corners of our world. It gives an image that is sharp were it should be and velvety soft where it needs to be, like a nice firm bed. It is the medium on which the dreams of reality are captured. It is glorious. It is Velvia.
