I suppose some of the reasons that motivated me to do analog instead of digital photography was the organic feel to film and the specific look (I expected) you’d get, that there would be less post processing (boy was I wrong), and that I didn’t have to look through hundreds of pictures shot at random with my digital camera to find whatever I was going for. I’ve shot several rolls of the above mentioned films but never really taken the time to compare them side by side. Which is what you will need to do to figure out which one you prefer – if any.
Like so many others, I’m sure, I’ve been comparing photos from these two films to figure out if I prefer one of them over the other. But its not so easy to tell when its different motives under different circumstances. I’ve also been reading other peoples opinions on those films, but figured the easiest way to find out if I find one of them “better” than the other was comparing them side by side myself.
This is Jylland. The Danish west coast. You don’t see too much of the scenery in the photos, but it’s a fantastic coastal landscape. It’s very different from my native Norwegian coast but I still feel a sense of familiarity and ease there. The first photo is analog and shot with my Hasselblad 500C/M on FujiPro 400 pushed one stop, while the three others were shot digitally the next day with my Canon 6D. And to me these photos represents what separates analog photography from digital photography.
I took this photo at my nephew’s confirmation. The picture is of my niece – his older sister. It’s shot with my Hasselblad 500C/M on Ilford Delta 3200. I always use this film when shooting indoors. I’ve never mastered the use of flash to be honest. The film’s characteristics, I find, suits the scene in this wooden church very well – ads a bit of mystery or atmosphere to it.