It's also about the journey...
It's also about the journey...
What could be the possible reasons for the OP's experience? Several have been suggested previously. One other may be that exposing digital is a bit different from exposing negative film - B&W or colour. It's more like exposing slide film. Expose to the right (of the histogram) and then correct tonality in post-processing. Another possibility, if he/she is trying to emulate B&W negative would be in the conversion process. In-camera B&W setting is probably not the way to go. Shoot RAW colour, then you have an enormous array of options to get the results you want in post processing. This way, for example, you can apply any colour filter you like after you get home. etc etc.
I agree, but that was part of the problem for me too, "the enormous array of options to get the results you want". Granted, I could probably get a digital B&W print to look close to the traditional darkroom prints, but it's still easier for me to get there starting with the film image. And honestly, I have never been able to get a B&W injet print to look as good as a traditional wet print.
Also, speaking for myself, the physical process of handling film and viewing it, all adds up to why I've returned to film for my B&W work. That includes loading the film, viewing the negs on a light table, vewing the contact sheets,
physically dodging and burning, all the way to seeing a COMPLETE print emerge before my eyes, as opposed to a print feeding off an injet printer. Just as the process of finding and making a picture is as important to me as the final print, so is the process of arriving at that print.
I realize that not everyone is going to feel this way about film. And there will probably be even less who feel this way about processing and printing in a darkroom. It seems that many photographers who have spent their entire lives in a darkroom have become tired of it and appreciate the transition to digital and the computer. I might feel the same, and would welcome a fresh change in the process of arriving at a final print. But I gave up on the darkroom (and much of my photography) soon after high school. That was 30 years ago.
When I came back to photography, about 10 years ago, I wanted nothing than to get into the digital process. And I'm not sorry I did. But now, as I've learned a few things about myself, such as what motivates me and where my strengths lie, I have retrurned to shooting film and am now in the process of building my own darkroom. I still keep my digital gear, mostly for shooting wildlife and the occasional wedding. But for everything else (and lately, that includes the majority of my time shooting), I prefer to shoot film and process it myself.
Maybe it's something I heard a drawing/painting teacher say to the class I had several years ago, before I was shooting again and knew anything about Photoshop. He said that some of us could use PS to do what we are doing with pencils and brushes, but that's it's still good to return to the basics of how these images are created with "simple" materials. If nothing else, I think it helps us to appreciate how an image is created, no matter what tools are finally decided upon. Remember, even HC-B returned to drawing later in his life, and pretty much dropped the camera after that. So I'm assuming it wasn't to improve his photographic skills, but rather that he just appreciated drawing at that period in his life. With proves that these decisions we make can be a very personal matter, and are often based on emotion and not always practicality.
