Luckless wrote in post #16232852
A question that one of my friends raised of another friend (who is a film fanatic) was that are the photos on film really more likely to be 'keepers' because it slows you down and forces you to 'work harder', or are they more likely to be kept simply because they were on film?
So, to other people who are already shooting film currently: After an honest evaluation of your past and current work with both digital and film, do you feel that you are more or less tolerant of the work you produce with one or the other? Can you detect any subconscious bias going on after a good amount of consideration on the topic?
I certainly see an improved *rate* of good photos on film, but of course a rate is a fraction, and can be higher simply because the denominator is lower (i.e. you took fewer shots).
However, I believe I also see a much higher *number* of good photos on film. I put this down to two things:
1. Film really does make you slow down and be more considerate about your shots. You're not chimping, so you're never quite sure if you've got the shot. Getting a roll of film back and seeing that you've either underexposed (with negative film) or overexposed (with reversal film) is not fun, and you'll quickly rectify the situation, lest you continue to pay for crummy shots.
2. Film cameras are (often) less intrusive and far, far more enjoyable to use. My Leica M6 is a model of simplicity; it does everything I want and nothing I don't, and because of that I thoroughly enjoy using it. That in itself helps me shoot better photographs.
With respect to passing off technical flaws as art, I'm not quite sure what you mean. 35mm film will never have the crisp detail of 16+MP digital, but that's not why I shoot film. Moreover, in the genre I work in (street), absolute sharpness and even a bit of motion blur are secondary or tertiary to good composition and lighting; so perhaps film just suits my particular genre more than any other. Heck, I'm shooting rangefinders (sometimes a MF rangefinder, to boot!) while zone focusing; absolutely dead on focusing is not what that game is all about.
That said, I still toss film images that don't meet my own personal standard of technical excellence. I'm not interested in the faux-film Instagram look; that's not what draws me to film. But a bit of film grain is not nearly as objectionable as digital noise. It's part of the warmth and subtlety of film. That's not to say that digital has to be cold and in your face, but film images often have a quality that I prefer, whether it be for street photography, portrait photography, or whatever.