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…

However, these people fail to realize one basic concept, which is known in the computer world as ‘Single Point of Failure’ (SPoF). A single slide or negative is a SPoF, because a) it is impossible to make an identical copy of it, and b) if it is destroyed, that’s it.

A digital file can be copied an infinite number of times and through an infinite number of generations. Each copy is absolutely identical to the previous version, assuming the copying mechanism is not flawed (for example, opening a file in an editor and saving it with a new file name causes lossy compression degradation if the file is saved in that sort of format, like JPEG).

Copies of files can be kept on many devices, and in many locations. This reduces SPoF. If one copy is lost or destroyed, there are other copies, and they are identical to the original.

Some film lovers have pointed out that it is a pain and a bother to make copies of digital files. Yes, it is. That’s the name of the game, though, if you want to protect your files. Some say it’s too much trouble. If so, then I would respond that you have put a limit on your desire to protect your photographs. That’s fine; they’re your photographs, after all. But don’t complain when the go missing if you did not take steps to protect them. Pain or not, it is up to the owner to decide how much effort they want to put into protecting their images. If they don’t want to do it, then that’s fine. If they do what to do it, that’s fine too. But it is not the fault of digital technology if one ignores the known risks of digital storage. Digital doesn’t owe you anything.

So that’s the rant. If you don’t back up, it’s your fault. If you think film is inherently safer than digital, you’re wrong.

Feel free to argue with me.

An American Legend Repositioned for the Digital Age

With sales of its traditional camera film barely eclipsing sales of a fledgling cosmetics line, Chief Financial Officer Toshio Takahashi sees a different type of film driving the company’s growth–those used in liquid crystal displays.

Fujifilm does need its reinventive streak to come good: the advent of digital photography has seen global demand for color photographic film fall 90% since hitting its peak in 2000. Coping with that dramatic decline induced massive restructuring at its imaging division costing Y200 billion and 5,000 jobs, and rendering photographic film as contributing just 2% to overall revenue compared with 19% in the fiscal year to March 2001.

Click to read the rest of the story:

At Fujifilm, TV Screens Replace Cameras As Channel To Growth

Iceland Review’s Photographer Arrested in Azerbaijan

Noktor introduces HyperPrime 50mm f/0.95 lens

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100220/ARTICLES/100229988/-1/news06?Title=Period-correct-photography-captures-flavor-of-Brunswick-Civil-War-re-enactment