Some have argued that film photographs have an almost undefinable quality about them that makes them special, and in many ways, superior, to digital photographs. Many have referred to this as ‘soul’. Some revere this supposed quality, and despise what they call the ‘cold’, ‘clinical’, or even ‘too accurate’ photographs that digital cameras create.
In order to examine this claim, we must think about what is meant by the term ‘soul’ when applied to film photography. I don’t think that people are referring to the religious meaning of ‘soul’ (or else if they do, I wonder where film’s soul goes when it dies?). I instead suspect that they are referring to uses of the term ‘soul’ that refer to a certain quality of ‘realness’ or ‘authenticity’, such as when discussing a soulful singer or a certain style of cooking. To have soul is to have a quality that exudes much of what we appreciate, flaws and all. It’s ultimately human, good and wholesome. It’s the sound an old-fashioned tube amplifier produces, as opposed to the sound a modern solid-state (or now, integrated circuit) amplifier makes. It is rough, uneven, distorted to some extent. Not overly accurate. Not clinically precise. But some people prefer it that way.
Many see the ‘flaws’ that film has, such grain or somewhat inaccurate color reproduction, as a good thing. They’ve grown up with these characteristics and have come to prefer them. Digital cameras tend to be more accurate. They may produce ‘noise’, but this is not the same as ‘grain’, and to many, is not pleasing to the eye. They produce more accurate colors; but some do not wish to see the world as it was, but instead as they wish to perceive it.
Many photographers and companies that produce digital cameras and software for them have realized this, and there are many attempts made to emulate those quirky, odd, or imperfect characteristics of film. However, to me they seem contrived, misplaced, and ultimately unacceptable. A film photographer might intentionally develop their B&W film to emphasize grain, for example, but it is real grain, it is actually in the film’s emulsion. A digital representation of grain was never there to begin with; it’s not an exaggeration, it’s a fabrication; and it is generally obvious. A film photographer might intentionally select a color film that emphasizes one color over another, rendering greens or reds or blues as brighter or more saturated than they actually were; or they may even choose to cross-process color film in order to render completely alien colors; but again, they result was present in the film, even if inaccurate compared to the real world. The authenticity of digital simulations leaves one feeling that it is just that, a simulation.
An interesting side-note is that until the age of digital photography, many of the qualities of film that are now the most lauded were in fact considered negatives (pardon the pun) at the time. B&W film was prized for being very sharp, and for having very tight grain. Not as many people preferred excessive graininess in their photographs. As well, color rendition that was ‘too much’ was just that, too much. Some palettes were preferred, such as the unique colors of Kodachrome, but many thought that the look produced by Velvia was ‘over the top’ and ‘too much’ in the years before digital cameras held sway. It is only now, in the twilight years of film photography, that we reach back and regard things like grain and over-the-top color rendition as good things. I’m sure that back in the days of tube amplifiers, the goal was to reduce distortion, not revel in it. Funny how these perceptions change when faced with actual improvements that go past what we originally expected.
So to answer the question, yes, I believe that film has soul. And that quality is distinctive, and it makes film preferable for many types of photography; it probably always will. Does digital photography lack soul? Yes, it does.
That is not to take anything away from digital photography, though. I have a tube amplifier, and I like listening to it. I also have an iPod, and I like listening to that, too. To me, neither is superior; they’re just different.
Feel free to comment…
