One question people often ask me is whether I use film or digital and if I have a preference. Overall I prefer film/analog, especially for any work that I'm classifying as "art." I think 35mm film has a quality that is lacking from digital and enhances the feel I'm generally trying to go for in an artistic shot. There is also an element of happy accidents or surprise in film that rarely occurs for me in digital. With a 35mm camera, this is because I can't see the shot right away and try to perfect it; with an instant camera, this is because the film is relatively expensive and I don't want to waste the film by taking shot after shot to get it right, and because the viewfinder doesn't correspond perfectly with what is actually being photographed. With instant film especially, things frequently don't come out how I had in mind, but often these happy accidents lead to images that are better than my original vision, due to unexpected aspects that end up working well. The majority of the photos I've had accepted into juried exhibitions or competitions have been 35mm or instant film, probably in part because that particular aesthetic suits my style, and/or because of surprise elements that made an aspect of the image unexpected and interesting in some way.
Another question I get asked as a follow up is if I develop my film. I have, both color and black and white, and I greatly enjoy it. The ability to develop the film and digitally scan the negatives gives me a lot of control over the finished product, as well the ability to create different effects. (One effect was when I wiped my negatives with a paper towel, not knowing any better, which left tons of lint behind. When I scanned the negatives, the lint gave the images an interesting, vintage look that could be cool in the right setting. The first image posted above is one of those linty shots.) Developing is an area that I'm looking forward to getting back into once I have more space to set up a work area. When I'm not developing my film I usually try to find a local shop to do it (this was easy when I was in Blacksburg), or I send it to Darkroom Photo Lab (not a sponsored link). I've mailed all of my most recent rolls to them. I'm always happy with the results, and the last scans I got looked great at 11" x 14". Another thing I like about digital film scans is that I still have the ability to edit them in Photoshop, so I'm kind of getting the best of both worlds. I don't usually edit a whole lot (I'll write another post about editing), but I made a few tweaks on the last film scans I printed, and was quite pleased with how the end product looked. (Having a good printer helps a lot with this - I'll talk about printing photos in another post as well.)
That's not to say I don't use digital, though. I use it all the time, much more than film. I'm a lot more likely to grab my digital camera if I'm doing nature photography (particularly sunsets, waterfalls [second image above], or animals), night photography, real estate photography, or conference photos/events. If I were doing things like wedding photography or senior portraits I would definitely use digital, and maybe add film as an option if the client wanted it, since I tend to prefer film for portraits. Digital is also my go-to if I'm looking for a "quick fix," creatively speaking - meaning, I'm in the mood to do something creative but want some immediate results to work with (Instant film fulfills this urge sometimes, but sometimes leads to me wasting film). It probably goes without saying, but I find digital to be useful when I'm looking to perfect a shot, when I want the capability to do more editing, or I'm looking to "practice" some shots and play around with angles, lighting, find the best spots at a certain site, etc. I recently went to this really interesting spot where some old cars are sticking out of the riverbank. It was cold, I was vaguely worried about people thinking I was trespassing, and I wasn't looking to spend a lot of time setting up the best shot, so I just grabbed my digital camera and the lens I thought would work best and waded up the river to explore what was there, see what good shots I could get before my feet got too cold (I had muck boots on in the river, and splashed some water in the boots as I waded), and plan for what I would need to bring when I go back in warmer weather to do a shoot with both digital and film. I ended up coming away with a greater knowledge of accessing the site, lighting issues, an idea of what lenses work well, "trouble" aspects to watch out for next time (like power lines, traffic, and extra junk in the background), and I also got a shot I really liked that turned out well after some post-processing, which made it into an exhibit I entered. I wouldn't have been able to do all that so easily with a film camera.
Friends and photographers - can you tell which photos on my page are film vs. digital? Do you have a preference in your own work if you shoot both? Do you have a preference in my images?