A-na-log. Do you remember? To have to put a film in your camera? And when finished to have to get the film developed, wait for 1 hour or 3 days and get your photos and negatives back. Do you still have them somewhere?
I do. Boxes of them, loads! My children's births ('99 and '02) but also all my professional wedding series, I always did them with professional films by Fuji (Reala and NPH) & Kodak (B/W T400cn and Ektachrome) untill a few years ago. I used color and b/w at the same time, meaning I had to use two cameras, as I wanted to be able to change from black & white to color whenever I felt like it. Also there weren't many 'wanna-be' wedding photographers: it was too hard to get a decent picture, and what if none of the photos came out right!!!
I was surprised to see the latest (Dutch) Hide & Chic cover: Audrey Hepburn (1965) by Douglas Kirkland 100% Photoshop free! Great!!! Ladies, and especially the ones younger then 25: this is what moviestars honestly look like. As there weren't many ways to get rid of the wrinkles, pores or facial hair it's all visible. Ofcourse people used softfocus lenzes but in this case Kirkland made a very very sharp set of photos of Audrey. (btw she's part Dutch did you know that? ;)
No 'plastic fantastic' face, but a real person like you and me, flesh and blood. I just love these photos!
To have to work on film as a photographer, that's pure art man. "Everybody can take photos". But not everybody can take a good photo :) Photography still is a profession, almost a craft. Who of the new generation photographers can and will be able to do e.g. a wedding on film? I just love the old chemical proces (C41) I even worked in 1 Hour Super Photo as well when I was a student :) And the black & white home developing and printing proces: I just loved being in the dark room. But true: it's far better for your health to work behind the screen, I admit ;)
© Picture Desk, Douglas Kirkland/Corbis, Hollandse Hoogte